Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2012
This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.
Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for FA status. The article already has been through two GA reviews, and two Peer Reviews. I think one final review by a real hard-nosed editor should get it to that final plateau. The reviewer should be familiar with FA criteria and willing to nit-pick the article. Thanks, Noleander (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
:Seems ok, but I'm not a really picky reviewer. I found & changed a few things, especially links, & no doubt others will too. The Daily Worker or the Daily... 5 cols in the refs seems too many. But in the absence of a run-through by someone really picky it is probably ready. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
|
- I would like to do this. It depends if you can wait for a few days; if you can I promise you a picky-picky review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hang on, though. The last peer review (a very thorough one by the looks of it) only closed on 30 March (four days ago). Peer Review regulations state (in bold) that 14 days must elapse between reviews of the same article. So I'm sorry, this has to close. I'll still be happy to read the article and leave comments on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies ... I was not aware of the 14 day rule. I'll close it. If you could do a review on the Talk page, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies ... I was not aware of the 14 day rule. I'll close it. If you could do a review on the Talk page, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sri Lanka
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should be nominated for a feature article. Please review the article and make any suggestions for improvement if need be.
Thanks, Distributor108 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Early Netherlandish painting
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is still at an early stage of development, but I would like guidance as to where to take it from here in terms of focus/coverage, structure etc. Also as its inevitable going be a large article, I would like to iron any current problems reviewers might identify, rather than be faced with a humgous taks at a pre FAC PR. I appreciate that reviewing the page is a big task, but any bits of feedback would be appreciated. Tks, Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Here are a few points that I hope you will find helpful. From what you say, you recognise that the article needs a considerable amount of work; hopefully my suggestions will be helpful in that respect. I don't have expert knowledge in this area, but to my eye the text appears comprehensive and of an appropriately scholarly tone. It is the presentation and the final polishing which are the main issues.
- The lead, at around 650 words, might be a little too long; it looks quite a slab of prose. Some of the detail could perhaps be trimmed.
- Done, but needs to be re-drafted post cut and paste.Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do we need two lead images? Also, magnifying the Arnolfini to 300px makes it seem overbearing; I would reduce this to 250px, and remove or reposition the other.
- I want two lead images, and have used the two that are by some distance the two most signifant paintings. Have reduced the size of both. Captions to follow. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- As the lead image, the Arnolfini should have a bit more caption, to explain its particular significance to this period in art history and thus its justification as the lead image.
- Agree, doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- On images generally: sad to say, I think there are far too many of them (I think I counted 30). They are mostly great to look at, but they tend to swamp the text, to the extent that much of the wording is squeezed between images. The number and in some cases size of images tends to distract the reader. It is not clear why so many images are necessary; I would think that in an article of this length, about half this number of images would be adequate, so if I were you I would instigat a selection process.
- I have reduced, but the article is shorter now than it will eventually be. Is at an intermediately stage, I'm taking stock. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Map: this purports to show the Burgundian lands as in 1477, but even when I viewed it enlarged, and used a magnifying glass, I could not interpret the key, so I don't know what the significance is of the various colours. Maybe some of the detail in the caption could be exchanged for a brief explanation of the map?
- Changed maps, but this is a tough one. I have a v good map in one of the NG sources, and am seriously considering asking them if they will allow me to use it. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the prose in any detail, but a few quick glanes at the text reveal that a copyedit is necessary. A few random examples of glitches:
- "As artistic centers Bruges and Ghent flourished the fifteenth century" (the word "in" is missing)
- Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The early Netherlandish masters' influence also reached artists such as Stefan Lochner and the Master of the Life of the Virgin, who, working in mid-15th-century Cologne, drew inspiration from imported commissions by van der Weyden and Bouts, painters who had already passed beyond the High Gothic". Far too much detail in a single sentence and thus hard to grasp
- "one of the most important and well-known of the Netherlandish painters": no hyphen in this usage
- "As in Florence, where banking and trade led to numerous private commissions, wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings for private devotion (often including themselves in the form of donor portraits) as well as secular portraits." Where are you saying that "wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings..." etc, as well as in Florence?
- Another over-ambitious single sentence: "It dries slowly and thus can be manipulated while still wet, giving the artist more time to add subtle detail[31] and allow hatching, wet-on-wet painting and the ability to achieve smooth transition of colours and tones by removing layers of paint to expose those below." There are quite a few of these
- "The Burgundian dukes were regarded by royalty as far as Italy and Spain" What does it mean, that they were "regarded by royalty"?
- There is a mix of British and American spelling. Thus we have "colours" and "centers". Consistency necessary
- Haha, don't look at me there ;) Working on fixing. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- A great deal of the text is presently uncited, but this is presumably something that is in hand and will be dealt with as a matter of course.
- Yes, the "Terminology and scope" and Italian sections specifically. Both are from when I started on the page, have only now built up enough sources to deal with. Well aware and doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- A number of your "notes" are themseves uncited statements that need to be referenced.
- Eek, fixing. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are two Ainsworths in the sources, but as far as I can see, no citations to either.
- Banished, though both will be used. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Minor point: page ranges in references need ndashes not hyphens. You also need to be consistent in formatting of ranges; at present, for example, there is "21–23" and "104–7". Also "277–283" and "411–12"
If you wish to raise anything arising from this review, or want me to look again, please contact me via my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, these are exactly the kind of pointers I was looking for. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note; progressing along the recommended lines. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Brian - thank you for taking the time to look through this. Your suggestions are extremely helpful and much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Harvard Bridge
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because many changes have been made since the last peer review. I want to see what's still an issue.
Thanks, Denimadept (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better than the last time I reviewed it. I think this is pretty close to GA, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I think the lead is still pretty thin / sparse as a summary fo the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Engineering study and discrepancy in measurement with smoots do not seem to be in the lead.
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the "Mass Ave" bridge and MIT bridge names are only in the lead that I can see.
- Abbreviations like Mass Ave need to be given on first use, so Massachusetts Avenue (Mass Ave)
- Be consistent in details - is it "Mass Ave" (in quotes) or just Mass Ave? Both are used in the article.
- Or why is Bridge capitlaized in the article name, but not in Mass Ave bridge and MIT bridge?
- The use of bold face in the lead is OK per WP:ITALIC
- Ref 4 is to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable sourceand would not be OK in a GAN or FAC review
- Some of the refs do not have all the required information. So for example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{WP:V
- Watch for POV language like "unfortunately" in Unfortunately, Boston did not like this act, mainly because it did not provide for an overhead crossing of the Grand Junction Branch of the Boston and Albany Railroad.
- MOS says that for block quotes some sort of attribution should generally be made, so this needs to be put into context as from the 1892 book The effect that the bridge will have upon both cities is obvious. The low land and marshes on the Cambridge side, formerly almost valueless, have been filled in and ...
- Inflation figures need a year (This is equivalent to US$13,210,000 with inflation as of YEAR.[12])
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing- Charles River is linked at least three times in just one section, and common terms like USA are not linked
- It seems to me that there could be a bit more context - looking at a map, the bridge runs nearly north-south and Cambridge / MIT is on the northern end, for example.
- Or reading about smoots, the frat houses were at one end of the bridge and MIT at the other end, so they wanted the bridge sidewalk marked so they could see how far they had walked.
- Lots of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that make the narrative flow choppy - these could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Is the discrepancy in smoots and bridge length due to the start / end points for each being in different places?
- There is a book called Smoot's Ear - might be a useful source.
- Seems odd that there is no history past 1990 - nothing has been done to / happened on the bridge in the last 2+ decades?
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
- Thanks. That helps a lot. Comments follow.
- "Mass Ave" is in quotes because it's a vulgar way of referring to the bridge. In that sense, "MIT bridge" should probably be in quotes too. Bolding is used in many articles' leads to show alternate common names for something, but perhaps there should be another way to show the alternate names. They have to be included so people can find the article using a search. Note that Massachusetts Avenue is named later in the paragraph as the road carried by the bridge. I think of the bolded name as a forward reference to this.
- The "longest bridge over the Charles River" needs a better reference, agreed. As it is, it looks too much like OR. It needs to be there to help with notability.
- The citation is before each of the block quotes. This is a change I made recently to make the formatting better. Previously, the attribution showed up after the quotes on its own line, which was not acceptable either.
- You think a second map would help?
- I don't know where the frat house is/was. That's not in any refs I've seen. Why they wanted the measurement is not clear, but it seems to me that the desire or need for a measurement is not really the point of the prank. They wanted the measurement as a way to give the pledges something tedious to do which seemed relevant to the technical context of the university. Why they started the measurement at the northern side of Storrow Drive rather than at the far end of the bridge is also unclear. Maybe they were lazy. I used to have some speculation about that in the article, but as speculation, and uncited at that, it was declared OR so I removed it. We'd have to find published explanations of this in order to use it, and I seriously doubt such exists. Certainly I've not found any.
- "Smoot's Ear" - ordered. Good thing we're not in a big hurry here, as it was listed as arriving next week.
- I haven't seen anything about activity on the bridge in the last 20 years, yes. It's still there, I've not read of any major construction on it. No explosions, no collapse, nothing notable. If someone else has, they're welcome to add it. I suppose I could ask MassDOT if they know of anything, but that'd be OR! Can't have that. Maybe some research in the Boston Globe's archives would help.
this and this strikes me as non-notable. Funny, maybe, but not worth listing.
this is mildly notable, implying that it took Boston 114 years to connect to the bike lanes on the Harvard Bridge. I could see adding this. Done. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Now I've checked the "longest bridge" issue. The list article doesn't list crossing lengths, so it's not even slightly relevant. I've commented that out. A web search found reflections of the lead in many other places, but nothing which says this in a way we can use. I can prove the bridge is the longest over the river by a quick glance at a map, but that's not something we can use either, as it's OR. Gah. - Denimadept (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've sent a query to MassDOT to see if they can help me, perhaps with something on their site I can cite. - Denimadept (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- MassDOT sent me a PDF containing all the bridges over the Charles with their lengths. How can I cite such a thing? - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sctechlaw comments: Structurally the article looks like it's coming together well, and as per the previous reviewer, a bit more context would up the interest level for the reader.
- One semantic thing I noticed, in the Conception section you say the
The Chapters themselves are not the Acts, so better to refer to them a bit differently. I think you actually mean that the"... Legislature passed two acts, Chapters 175 and 314 to authorize the construction ..."
The distinction is important because of how laws were organized at the time. The Acts are all the enabling laws passed in a given year, while each Chapter contains the the laws actually passed and each Section governs a subsection of each law. At the time I don't know they referred to them exactly that way, but in law we do now so as to differentiate the body of law from a section of it. Ergo: Acts (body of law) -> Chapter (single subject of law) -> Section (specific subset addressed).... Legislature passed two enabling laws in the Acts of 1882: Chapters 175 and 314 authorizing the construction of a bridge between Boston and Cambridge."
- Also, each time you use the words "Act" and "Chapter", you are referring to a specific body of law or a law itself, thus Act and Chapter should be capitalized when used in this way.
- Also as per the previous reviewer, some contemporary data would be helpful, especially in light of the sorry state in which so many U.S. bridges now find themselves. I think there have been many contemporary studies done comparing the ages of bridges across the U.S. and how they fare comparably, so you could use that sort of data to address any contemporary issues. This is the sort of information people often look for after a tragedy such as the ones in PA and MN not long ago, so that sort of thing would be pretty helpful.
- I also have an ]
- Oh (came back to add one more thing), and when you cite a law it would be helpful to the reader to use a citation to the original source, especially as you refer to the laws directly. You can find the Acts of Massachusetts using a Google books search like this one, as the Acts were published every year. Sctechlaw (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice!! There are templates I can use, and will. - Denimadept (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, here's the text from the original source:
In 1874 the construction of a new bridge between Boston and Cambridge was agitated by residents of both cities. In that year the Legislature passed two Acts, Chapters 175 and 314, "authorizing the construction of a new bridge and avenue across the Charles river, between Boston and Cambridge." Nothing, however, was done about the matter, and the subject was not agitated again until 1882, when, by Chapter 155 of the Acts of that year, the cities of Boston and Cambridge were authorized to construct and maintain a bridge over Charles river, which Act was approved April 14, 1882. Its provisions are as follows:
[Chap. 155, Acts of 1882.]
An Act to authorize the cities of Boston and Cambridge to construct and maintain a bridge over Charles river.
Be it enacted, etc., as follows:
SECTION 1. The cities of Boston and Cambridge are authorized to construct a bridge and avenue across Charles river, from a point on Beacon street, in Boston, to a point in Cambridge, west of the westerly line of the Boston and Albany railroad. The location of said bridge and avenue shall be determined by the city councils of said cities acting separately, subject to the approval of the board of harbor and land commissioners, so far as it affects the harbor, and subject, moreover, to the limitation that the line thereof shall not be north-east of a line drawn from the junction of Beacon street and West Chester park, in Boston, to the juction of the harbor line with Front street, extended, in Cambridge, nor south-west of a line drawn from the junction of Beacon street, Brookline avenue and Brighton avenue, in Boston, to the junction of the Boston and Albany railroad with Putnam avenue, extended, in Cambridge. Said bridge shall have a draw with a clear opening of at least thirty-eight feet in width for the passage of vessels.
SECT. 2. Said bridge shall be constructed of such materials as the said cities may agree upon, but on iron or stone piers and abutments, to be of such size, shape, and construction, and be at such distance from one another, as the said board of harbor and land commissioners, upon application made by said cities upon such notice as said board may deem proper, and after a hearing thereon shall determine and certify to each of said cities; and no pier or abutment shall be built except in accordance with such certificate. The avenue, with the exception of the portion between the harbor lines, may be constructed of solid fillin, with the approval of the said board of harbor and land commissioners. Neither city separately shall enter upon the construction of said bridge, but they shall jointly proceed to construct the same in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by the councils of said cities concurrently, and by the said board of harbor and land commissioners.
SECT. 3. Each city may within its own limits purchase or otherwise take lands, not exceeding one hundred and twenty-five feet in width, for said bridge and avenu; and all the proceedings relating to such taking shall be the same as in the case of land taken for highways within said cities respectively, with like remedies to all parties interested; and betterments may be assessed for the construction of said bridge and avenue in each city in like manner as for the laying out of highways under the betterment acts in force in each city respectively, with like remedies to all parties interested.
- I'd have kept typing, but I think I already did too much. :-> So, were they just being sloppy? As I'm not quoting that part of the text in the article, I can correct it. - Denimadept (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and the original document, long out of copyright, is on Google Books at this location. - Denimadept (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, I read it before you posted it, lol. You are reasonably confused -- the methods of referring to laws as Acts confuses a lot of people. It's sort of like an orange: on the one hand, "the orange" could be the one on the table, on the other hand "the orange" could refer to the world of oranges, it just depends upon the context. In the context of your article, an Act is a law, a Chapter within the (collected) Acts describes and codifies that law. The Acts (plural) are a body of laws as codified. So, if you refer to the law as passed as I did in the example above, that should clarify it for the reader to the extent required in the article. If you read one of the Acts in the original (which you can do from the Google books link I provided), it should become much clearer to you, and this is the reason for citing directly to the original as well as to the material you did cite, so the reader can also read it if desired. I remember also being confused about it as a first year law student long ago, and only with reading of the actual statutes over time did it become clearer for me. Sctechlaw (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you can cite an Act, which is a Chapter, or The Acts, which is all the Chapters of a particular year? How about that first mention under "Engineering"? - Denimadept (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sort of. In the context of your article, a Massachusetts Act is not a Chapter, but The Acts are indeed all the Chapters of a particular year. An Act is a law enacted, while the Chapters within the Massachusetts Acts describe the Acts themselves. Think of an Act as a law, and the Chapters as the guts of the laws -- each Act was usually unnamed at the time, instead having a short description at the head of the Chapter further describing what was being enacted. Not too tidy, like today, but it was enough at the time.
- These days we often name Acts in U.S. law, making reference to them easier. Examples would be the Clayton Act; if you cite to those laws you use the name of the law (which the Massachusetts Acts in your article do not have), and the date and year, as well as the context, for example:
Clayton Act, ch. 323, § 7, 38 Stat. 730, 731-32 (1914) (current version at 15 U.S.C. § 18 (1988)).
- That citation tells the reader to find the Clayton Act in Chapter 323, Section 7 of Volume 38 of the U.S. Statutes, beginning on page 730, with the particular material cited on pages 731-738, enacted in 1914 and currently codified in Title 15 of the U.S. code in Section 18 published in 1988.
- Another example, for an unnamed law, would be:
That citation tells the reader to find the cited material (the Act of July 9, 1985, also known as Public Law number 99-68) in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, and indicates the volume number 99 and page number 166 of the Statutes at Large (general laws, a.k.a., U.S. Statutes) reported in 1985.Act of July 9, 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-68, 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. (99 Stat.) 166.
- So you can cite the laws to which you are referring as
That allows readers to easily find the law and read it for themselves.Act of (insert date of Act), Chapter (insert Chapter number), (insert page number(s)), Acts of (insert year), Massachusetts.
- Please don't forget to capitalize "Act", "Acts", and "Chapter" throughout the article when referring to them, as they are proper names. Sctechlaw (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you can cite an Act, which is a Chapter, or The Acts, which is all the Chapters of a particular year? How about that first mention under "Engineering"? - Denimadept (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, I read it before you posted it, lol. You are reasonably confused -- the methods of referring to laws as Acts confuses a lot of people. It's sort of like an orange: on the one hand, "the orange" could be the one on the table, on the other hand "the orange" could refer to the world of oranges, it just depends upon the context. In the context of your article, an Act is a law, a Chapter within the (collected) Acts describes and codifies that law. The Acts (plural) are a body of laws as codified. So, if you refer to the law as passed as I did in the example above, that should clarify it for the reader to the extent required in the article. If you read one of the Acts in the original (which you can do from the Google books link I provided), it should become much clearer to you, and this is the reason for citing directly to the original as well as to the material you did cite, so the reader can also read it if desired. I remember also being confused about it as a first year law student long ago, and only with reading of the actual statutes over time did it become clearer for me. Sctechlaw (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
William S. Sadler
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is now a good article and I'd like to try for featured status sooner or later. I'd particularly like feedback about prose and flow, and comments about NPOV would be welcomed, as well.
Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 comments
Text
- Lede
- Possible confusion: "Sadler was influenced by some of Kellogg's views, and married his niece, Lena Celestia Kellogg." -- He married his own niece, or Kellog's rice crispies?
- Didn't see that before, changed.
- Early life and education
- "Although Samuel was a music teacher, he did not enroll his son in public schools." -- A music teacher could be private. I don't think this has enough of a connection for "although"
- Good point, I tightened it up a bit.
- "... eventually recruited by a federal law enforcement agency (he did not accept their offer)." -- I'd expect a recruit to at least get training. Perhaps "he was scouted"?
- Yes, I think you're right--my mistake.
- "Sadler operated the mission, and published a newspaper known as Life Boat Magazine..." -- Any indication why the newspaper was called a magazine?
- lol, fixed.
- "The couple moved to Cooper Medical College." -- They both attended medical school? If you are going to bring her up, perhaps a footnote on her schooling?
- Yeah, actually, I think she was the one who wanted to go to school the most--will try to expand on that.
- "... became an elder in the Adventist church. While in San Francisco, Sadler was active in the church, serving as the "superintendent of young people's work" for the church's California conference and the president of the San Francisco Medical Missionary and Benevolent Society." -- I'm assuming if he became an elder, he was active. Perhaps a way to make these two sentences read more smoothly?
- Yes, that would be intuitive, wouldn't it. Removed some of the fluff.
- "In 1910, the couple traveled to Europe and studied psychiatry under Vienna, Austria;" -- they both studied under Freud?
- Yes, I think so, will double check.
- "However, Sadler believed that experiences individuals have as infants play a key role in their adult minds." -- "However" doesn't work particularly well here. Is it related to Freud's concepts, or is something else meant? Or perhaps "Unlike Freud, Sadler..."
- Hmm, I think I use "However" too much. Tried to rephrase, not sure how well it reads now.
- Career
- "... catering to 'women's and children's diseases'". -- Why the quotation marks?
- I was paranoid about close paraphrasing :) changed.
- Perhaps a redlink for Columbus Hospital as Columbus Hospital
- Done, I've noticed that our coverage of hospitals is pretty shoddy sometimes.
- "... the theories of Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Adolf Meyer." -- Why are you using last names only?
- No reason really, I'm just used to saying "Freud and Jung", changed--oops, I just started copyediting this page by mistake...
- " In 1936, Sadler published Theory and Practice of Psychiatry, a 1,200 page work in which he attempted to provide a comprehensive outline of psychiatry.[1]" -- Seems out of place where you have it now.
- Hmm, Ok, I put it back with his books.
- "It is the first steel-frameresidence in Chicago." -- Jolting, past tense to present to past.
- Good point, parenthesized it.
- "He authored magazine articles..." -- Any idea how many?
- Urantia revelation
- "Although Sadler examined him for psychiatric problems, he was unable to find a satisfactory diagnosis..." -- Perhaps "Although Sadler examined the man for psychiatric problems, he was unable to make a satisfactory diagnosis..."
- Sure, changed.
- "Sadler presumed that the documents were the product of handwriting analysis." -- Why? Did the samples not match?
- I would assume as much, Lewis and Gardner don't say why. Gardner mentions the speed at which it was written and the lack of fatigue in the man's arm, but also says that it matched the man's handwriting. I trimmed down the sentence a bit.
- "Although Sadler had left the Adventist church by the time The Urantia Book was published, the teachings of The Urantia Book are broadly consistent with some aspects of Adventist theology, such as soul sleep and annihilationism." -- Any way to avoid the repetition?
- Took a stab at it, "Adventist" is still repeated though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Nevertheless, in 1950, the Urantia Foundation was established to promote The Urantia Book." -- Don't see a connection.
- Removed.
- Final years
- "In 1952, Sadler's final book was published. He authored another title, but his publisher declined to accept it and he decided to stop writing." -- Are the titles of either of these works available?
- The first one is, I haven't been able to find the second. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- "... although he lost an eye a few years before his death." -- How?
- Neither source that mentions the loss of the eye says how really, just that it was "diseased".
- That might be worth a mention.
- Neither source that mentions the loss of the eye says how really, just that it was "diseased".
- "The night before his death, he was visited by friends and family; he spoke to them of his confidence in a joyful life after death." -- Was he sickly? Did he expect to die?
- He was in fairly good health, until he died :)
- Reception
- "Gardner describes Sadler's life story as "riveting" and summarizes him as an "intelligent, gifted" person who proved to be astonishingly "gullible" about alleged supernatural revelations." -- Is "astonishingly" in the source?
- Gardner mentions an "astonishing switch" later down the page so astonishing is in the source, but not part of that quote, I guess I should remove it.
Automated comments
- "While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much."
- No dead links, no DABs.
Comprehensiveness
- Have you considered using primary sources like this, this, and this?
- Very interesting, that might be a good external link to add.
- Perhaps a list of select works? JSTOR shows quite a few writings by Sadler.
- Yes, the problem is that there are so many I wouldn't know which ones to use.
- I'd put books and journal articles with at least so many citations (without looking further into it, I can't give a number). A couple of his writings seem to be heavily cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess that's doable. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd put books and journal articles with at least so many citations (without looking further into it, I can't give a number). A couple of his writings seem to be heavily cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is that there are so many I wouldn't know which ones to use.
References
- Books: Any reason to not include the location?
- I usually don't, since they're not a requirement.
- Myerson - doi?
- That's a real old journal article, so I'm not sure if a doi is assigned to it.
- Hickok - Looks odd if this is the only one with the date in a different location.
- Yeah, that's just a quirk of the template. If there is an author's name available it puts the date in a different place than if there is no author listed.
Images
- Images seem unequivocally PD and well licensed.
- Suggestions for more images: full body shot
- That does look, good, I'll add it in.
- That does look, good, I'll add it in.
Cambridge
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that it failed a GA nomination some time ago. I have revised the article according to the reviewer's comments and am submitting to peer review per their suggestion prior to making another GA nomination.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Because I have limited time and don't wish to keep you waiting any longer, I have concentrated on one aspect of the article, namely sources and citations. There is a considerable amount of work to be done in this area:-
- First, there is a lot of uncited material in the article. This is particularly conspicuous when uncited statements occur at paragraph ends, which happens throughout the article. As a general rule of thumb, all paragraphs should contain at least one citation, and they should always with one.
- There are many reference formats that require attention:-
- Publisher details missing. See, for example, refs 47 to 56, 58 to 61.
- There are bare urls (81, 82 etc)
- You need to check for other incomplete formats. Generally each should contain, as a minimum, title, publisher, accessdate where appropriate
- There is a dead link in ref. 110
- Numerous retrieval dates are missing
- Check for consistency in italicisation of publisher names. If the publisher is a printed medium, e.g. a journal or newspaper, it should be italicised. If it is otherwise, such as a website or "BBC News", it should not.
- I have not carried out a complete check on sources, but I wonder whether some would pass the reliability/high quality criteria. For example, http://www.olivia-newtonjohn.com/olivia-newton-john/bio.php appears to have been written by a semi-literate. I have never considered Allmusic a high quality source. Some of these sources seem to support information which is of fairly marginal importance to the article and I wonder whether they are worth keeping.
A lot of work has gone into the article, and most of it seems well presented and comprehensive. One aspect other than the referencing did catch my attention. I know Cambridge fairly well (it's about 35 miles away), but I found that the panaramic shots distort the views almost beyond recognition. I accept that they are interesting and decorative, but they don't really represent the city's appearance. Maybe consider reducing the number?
One last point: the article's structure looks over-complex, e.g. far too many short subsections in the Culture section. Consider ways in which you could consolidate the prose and create a better flow.
I am sorry I am not able to include a general prose review, but I think there is enough here to work on for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Doon School
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a potential Good Article (Schools). Not many good school articles have emerged from India except this and a few others. I will be extremely grateful for any suggestions and constructive criticism from experienced school editors. Thanks very much!
Thanks, Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it, time available determining exactly when (teaching responsibilities on my part). I already note:
- The lead is a bit confusing to those with different educational systems ("C form"? "D form"? taking a test at age 13 but with the entering grade specified - do you not have any students who are promoted two or more grades/standards?); at the minimum, some explanatory links would help. (I realize that it's in British English, and that this should not be changed.)
- The automated checker found some problems, as did the alt text checker.
- You might want to work on these in the meantime. Allens (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time and suggestions Allens. Will get on it right away....!
Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quite welcome. I also note that there are quite a number of {{Wall Street Journal"; similarly, a book cited from Google Books should be cited as a book, with ISBN (can be gotten from the book's Google page). (Both of these will have "|url=" still.) Allens (talk | contribs) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)]
- Yes, I'm going to have to do a complete overhaul or the references, probably in line with what was done at ]
- The only problem with notes + page numbers is that, unless one constructs them manually, they don't seem to allow for separate URLs (e.g., different Google Books links) for different pages. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this - see Joan Pujol Garcia for an instance. Any thoughts? Allens (talk | contribs) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)]
- We ran into that same problem over at ]
- Oh. I should also mention that I've installed a script (User:Ucucha/duplinks - Stfg over at the Guild of Copy-Editors told me about it) that checks for duplicate links, so I'll be going through the entire article with it soon, thus saving some manual effort. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)]
- The only problem with notes + page numbers is that, unless one constructs them manually, they don't seem to allow for separate URLs (e.g., different Google Books links) for different pages. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this - see
{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! Any more suggestions for improvement of this page? Is it time yet to nominate it for a GA?
:: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long wioth my review. This sounds like quite an interesting school. Thnaks for your work on the article. I do not think this is close to ready for
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on schools at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education that seem like they could be useful models.
- Some dead external links that will need to be fixed.
Done
- Toolbox on this page shows one circular redirect link that will also need to be taken car of.
- Just looking at the lead, there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but I do not think the current lead is a good summary of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I see nothing in the current lead on Mountaineering or DS 75, to name just two examples.
- 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 for example, the bits about Rishi Valley School taking the first place ranking or the Economist saying Doon School has the second most influential alumni network are not repeated in the body of the article that I can see.
- Looking at the article more closely, the ref for the second most influential alumni network is to the Economic Times, not the Economist. Clarifieddf
- In any case, the lead needs to be rewritten - one way to do this is to fix the rest of the article, then re-read it, then rewrite the lead to summarize it. Another way is to pretend that a reader can only see the lead - what would you want in there to summarize the article?
- The lead can either be referenced like everything else, or can have only refs for direct quotes and extraordinary claims (with the refs in the body of the article, which it summarizes). This seems to be a hybrid of those approaches.
- Per the WP:MOS'single quotes' are only used for a quote within a quote - direct quoatations use "double quotes" - so fix things like Doon is often referred to as the 'Eton of India' by international and home press alike.[13][14][7][15][16][17][18] Note this is another item found only in the lead that I can see.
Done
- Make sure all fair use images comply with WP:NFCC
Done
- Per the MOS, images should not sandwich text between them
Done
- The article has a lot of places that interrupt the narrative flow. These include bullet point lists and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. Where possible, the lists could be converted to prose, and the short paragraphs could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Explicitly give abbreviations on first use, so With the money, Das formed the Indian Public Schools Society (IPSS) whose objective ...
Done
- Make sure to provide context to the reader, especially those not familair with India and its history. So in Kashmir House, after Maharajah Hari Singh promised a contribution of 1 lakh which was delivered in 1935.[23] it would help to note that the Maharaja ruled Jammu and Kashmir. See WP:PCR
Done
- Or why is the name Doon? Seems to be for the Doon Valley, but this is never made clear
Done
- Some places need refs - On October 27, 1935, the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, came to preside over the formal school opening. There were 70 boys enrolled in the first term, and another 110 boys had signed up for the second term. or In 2009, the Rose Bowl underwent a major structural change while retaining its amphitheatre style. (both examples are also very short paragraphs)
Done
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Done
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{WP:V
Done
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Done
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
My huge thanks to you for your invaluable suggestions for the Doon School page. I will take each of your points one at a time and work thoroughly on it. I'd just like to clarify one of the points - the info about Doon's network being second-most influential in 1990 after Harvard has the Economic Times (ET) reference because, in fact, it was mentioned by the ET in that article (mentioning the Economist). Though I'm still looking for a primary source and will add, when i find it. But, really, thanks very much Ruhrfisch for taking the time to review this article. I will work as advised. Many thanks once again! :: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are very welcome - if something is quoted in another source, then I would say "Quoted in...". You might try contacting the school itself, my guess is that they would know when the Economist wrote this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just want to give my thanks as well :) ]
Are we ready?
Merlaysamuel : Chat 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Work motivation
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure this article is good at Wikipedia standards due to this is my first article. Any help would be wonderful
Thanks, Jastha08 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- For less developed articles, it is suggested that you go to ]
- This should be speedily closed as the editor has a request for the same article below. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Close duplicated request Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Status of Međugorje
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm unsure if the sources are reliable and if the article is up to snuff with Wikipedia guidelines.
Thanks, Oct13 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Review closed. Limit of One nomination per editor at PR for the present, due to lengthy backlog. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Steve Lukather
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to bring it to FA status. It's as comprehensive as I can make it—I've exhausted every secondary source I can find, and made limited use of the subject's official web site.
Thanks, Laser brain (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Sorry for the delay; Here are my comments on the first half of the article; I will deliver the rest as sooon as I can:-
- Lead
- First paragraph: I wonder about the need to cite this one fact, in this place. Nothing else is cited in the lead.
- As the lead is supposed to be a brief summary, I don't see the need for naming the six albums
- Second paragraph: the wording at the beginning looks a bit heavy-footed. I suggest a slight trimming:-
- "In 1976, when Lukathar was nineteen years old, he was invited by his high school friends David Paich and the Porcaro brothers Steve and Jeff to join them in forming their band, Toto. He remained a member until the band split up in 2008, and has been involved in their periodic reunion tours."
- "...his association with Paich and Porcaro" – which Porcaro? And should it be "who also became established artists" rather than "who were also established artists"?
- "...and has won five times." Final word unnecessary
- "jazz great" Larry Carlton is a little informal, not very encyclopedic
- "melodic and intense": quotations are among the few things in leads that require citation.
- Early life
- Is a 2003 photograph of Lukather appropriate in an "Early life" section?
- Try and avoid construction like "...Wyble. Wyble..."
- In this section we have "It was during this period..." and "at the time", which are a liitle vague. Could we have the odd extra date or year?
- Toto
- Lack of chronological guidance affects this section, too, e.g. "In the early years...", "...during that period" etc
- I think that, in view of his significance, the death of "Porcaro" (Jeff, presumably) should be given a little more space.
- The term "panned" is slangy and jars, somewhat. (I know "heavily criticised" sounds stiff, but that's encyclopedias for you)
- Citation required in third paragraph "Lukather contributed..." etc
- Session work
- "He credits fellow Toto members..." The pronoun doesn't work here as the last "he" mentioned is Jude Gold
- Maybe a little too much listing in the second paragraph - two or three examples is probably adequate.
More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I sure appreciate it. Please let me know if there is anything at all I can do to repay the favor. I wrenched on the PR backlog a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's the rest:
- Solo albums
- "Luke is a much different and more introspective album than Lukather's previous two solo efforts." Specific opinion statements such as this should be attributed, or they read as the editorial voice.
- "...such as guitarists Edward Van Halen, Slash, and Steve Vai and drummer Gregg Bissonette." An extra "and"?
- What is a mofo? How important is the "quip" to the article?
- "...while between Toto tours": delete "while"
- "such as": I have begun to notice that this expression recurs rather frequently through the article. I've just counted up - 15 times in all, on a couple of occasions twice within a single line. This xtent f repetition should be avoided if possible, so I suggest some rephrasing here and there.
- "Lukather wrote the songs for the album with his son and a handful of other musicians using basic equipment in a hotel room." Doesn't read well unpunctuated. Personally I'd rearrange a little: "Lukather wrote the songs for the album in a hotel room with his son and a handful of other musicians, using basic equipment."
- "current Toto drummer Simon Phillips" Does that mean then-current or as of now?
- "in support of the album" → "to promote the album"?
- "In 2005, Lukather was noted for his rendition..." Maybe "won praise for" or "won critical praise for", or some such, but "noted for" doesn't sound right.
- Musical style and equipment
- Not sure about the big curly quote marks; never use them myself. I thought they wer used in sideboxes etc, not where the quotation is integrated into the text.
- "intricate effects rack": Again, excuse my ignorance, but what is this? A rack use for intricate effects (whatever they are)? An effects rack that is described as intricate? Either way, I'm baffled.
- Incidentally, the word "effects" occurs four times in two lines
- "Lukather is an endorser of..." → "Lukather endorses..."
- I haven't carried out a sources check, but I do notice "retrieved" and "Retrieved"
I think that is all my comments. I hope they prove useful to you; if you want to raise any questions, give me a buzz on my talkpage as I don't find it possible to watch individual reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1994 Barbados v Grenada football match
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can better prepare this article for when I resubmit it for GA. Also, this is my first peer review, so tell me if I did something wrong.
Thanks, -- BCS (t · c · !) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I've mentioned before in other fora, the main issue for me is that the article basically doesn't talk about any aspect of the match other than the own goal issue. After reading the article, we still don't know the names of at least 19 of the players involved, for example. As it stands, the article essentially focusses entirely on one incident within the match - even the "background" section really only exists to explain why the own goal incident occurred. Is nothing else known about the match.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- No. See for yourself, there is nothing. -- BCS (t · c · !) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I don't think it could ever reach GA status, as the depth of coverage of the subject simply isn't there. But that's just my opinion, others may differ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I don't think it could ever reach GA status, as the depth of coverage of the subject simply isn't there. But that's just my opinion, others may differ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- No. See for yourself, there is nothing. -- BCS (t · c · !) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hold It Against Me
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA in the future.
Thanks, Saulo Talk to Me 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Laser brain
General
- Please make sure you consult with the major editors of this article, WP:FAC. I note that you have not made substantive contributions to this article, and as such it would not be fair for you to claim Featured Article credit for it.
- He's not working here since December. I'm still waiting for him to comeback. If he doesn't in a month or two, I'll request another review before bringing it to FAC. - Saulo Talk to Me 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead
- "Belgium Wallonia"? I've never heard it called that. I think that's non-standard. Maybe just "Wallonia" and hyperlink, or "the Wallonia region of Belgium".
- Are the performances you mention in the lead notable enough to be so prominent?
- These are her first performances since 2009. And the FFT one is the opening performance fromt he show, so I guess they have enough notability to be cited there. - Saulo Talk to Me 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Background
- Can you mention who wrote the lyrics? Is it known?
- First line of the secion. - Saulo Talk to Me 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does "early demo of the track by McKee" mean that she was performing it? If not, how is it "by McKee"? This needs clarification.
- How does a radio premiere cause web sites to crash? Explain.
Composition
- The section that references the sheet music needs rewriting. As is pretty common with these song articles, it was written by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. It's not 133 bpm, it's not in compound meter, and the vocal range definitely doesn't go up to G5.
- This section contains much too high a percentage of quotations. Paraphrase/summarize some of that in your own words.
- I disagree with both points. Regarding the first one, there are several good and featured articles that use almost the same sentences. See "Déjà Vu"... The list is really big, I can list much more if you want to. About the quotations, I also don't think there is much too much of them. Yes, there are a lyrics from the song there, but the reviews are as paraphrazed as they can be. I cite "Irreplaceable" again as an example, which Composition section has much more quotations and the article still is featured and constantly fiscalized by Wikipedia contributors. - Saulo Talk to Me 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)]
- I'm not saying the sheet music section is badly written, I'm saying that it has incorrect information. It needs to be fixed by someone who knows how to read the sheet music and get the correct information in the article. The number of quotations is a subjective matter—I happen to think there are too many, but maybe other editors would agree with you. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Let me see what I can do, I know an editor here that knows how to correct the info, I guess. - Saulo Talk to Me 13:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the sheet music section is badly written, I'm saying that it has incorrect information. It needs to be fixed by someone who knows how to read the sheet music and get the correct information in the article. The number of quotations is a subjective matter—I happen to think there are too many, but maybe other editors would agree with you. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Critical Reception
- Why would a critic say that Spears isn't evolving with her lyrics, when she doesn't write the lyrics?
Chart performance
- I would write "behind only Mariah Carey"
- "After its release in the United Kingdom, 'Hold It Against Me' debuted at number six on the UK Singles Chart, becoming her 21st top ten hit." The "her" is sort of floating out there. Sentence needs rewriting to define the subject.
- I see that we write "Belgium (Wallonia)" in this section.
Charts and certifications
- Something is broken in one of the cells.
- I see nothing. - Saulo Talk to Me 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Overall pretty good. Seems to be a relatively mature article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
IPad (3rd generation)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status and would like some suggestions on how to improve it.
Thanks, Zach Vega (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like you're well on your way! A couple of thoughts: you might consider using active rather than passive voice when possible to make reading and translating easier, and consider too being more specific in your language to avoid confusion for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.
- For example, in your second paragraph in the lead, compare the current:
withEighteen different variations were released: either black or white; 16 GB, 32 GB, or 64 GB storage models; and in a Wi-Fi only iPad, AT&T iPad, or Verizon iPad (with the latter two operating on their respective 4G LTE networks).
Apple released eighteen different versions, including black or white external casings; memory storage capacity variants of 16, 32, and 64 GB; and connectivity and
4G LTE, and combinations. - See the difference using active voice, greater specificity and wikilinking concepts critical to understanding the paragraph? Writing to an audience who may know little of the subject, especially with technical matters, can mean the difference between a reader 'getting it' and not. Of course, one can only be reductivist to a point without approaching the pedantic, but generally, the more clarity the better, and as in the above example, specificity often does not require wordiness. You will find Wikipedians who are passive voice apologists, and I grant that sometimes the use of it can make for clearer writing, but generally it does not and it also makes translations more difficult. I often focus on legal subjects (see Apple Inc. litigation, an article I've been working on for awhile and which also needs peer review), and indeed have to watch out for this myself, but just imagine you are explaining the subject to your great-grandmother: make sure to be as clear as possible while showing respect for the readers' intelligence, and patience. With regard to mentioning the various carriers and their connectivity variants, you could move that information out of the lead and into the article body where more detail usually lives. All in all, the article shows your hard work. Good luck! Sctechlaw (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)]
Deep vein thrombosis
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked the most on four sections (Classification, Causes, Pathophysiology, and Prevention), and I would like feedback on these sections.
Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've also now rewritten the Treatment section, so that can be included in this peer review. I am looking to meet GA standards now, but FA standards evenutally. I plan to rewrite the Diagnosis section too, much in the same way as the Prevention and Treatment sections are written, but if someone has any concerns I'd like to hear them. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment – Well a quick glance through suggests there are some layout issues. In particular, too many one-line paragraphs and too many one paragraph sections. You might want to take a look through
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, and sorry it has taken me so long to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- First off, it is difficult to review only sections of an article, and I note that readers who come to this will read the whole article as well. So I will review the whole article and then make comments on the psecific sections requested.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine which seem as if they might be useful models.
- There is one redirect here
- Avoid WP:OVERLINKing- common words like pain or walking probably do not need a link - the reader should know what they are
- Does the use of itialics for venous thromboembolism follow WP:ITALIC?
- 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 DVT is a medical emergency, so all limb swellings, however trivial, should be regarded as a DVT until proven otherwise. seems to only be in the lead.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure that is the case here - is pathophysiology really in the lead (the word is not)
- Some of the sections need references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:V
- Watch out for things that break up the narrative flow of the article, like lists (which usually could be better as straight prose) and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections.
- For example I think explanatory text would help make the risk factors lists clearer
- Or could really short sections like Thombolysis and Thromebectomy be combined? Or the really short paragraphs in Epidemiology?
- I would move History much earlier in the article and expand it so that is more than just the very initial development / definition of the condition. An FA criterion is comprehensiveness, and the history is not comprehensive.
- The large blocks of direct quotes in Medical inpatients might be an issue under WP:NFCC
- Avoid vague time terms like current - better to use things like "As of 2012" as current can become outdated.
- Images look good but agree there could be more
- References seem to be to reliable sources and are formatted properly as far as a few spot checks showed.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
- I think I've adequately addressed the concerns (except I think even more prose on the risk factors is needed). Thank you for raising them. I've noticed most history sections in medical FAs seem to be at the bottom, as with subarachnoid hemorrhage, schizophrenia, and coeliac disease. Biosthmors (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've adequately addressed the concerns (except I think even more prose on the risk factors is needed). Thank you for raising them. I've noticed most history sections in medical FAs seem to be at the bottom, as with subarachnoid hemorrhage, schizophrenia, and coeliac disease. Biosthmors (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Denmark
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I - and other editors - realise that this article still needs some improvements and an 'outside' look at the article would be valuable. Note that this article recently merged with
Thanks,
- Why was this peer review page closed and archived? No review was made... AstroCog (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The bot archives any PR with no comments in the past 14 days. I have reopened it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll do a review in a bit then, since the bot is being impatient! CMD (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a big article. Over 139kB total of which 73kB is prose. That's a lot. This article should be written in
I'll be doing this review section by section, so I apologise in advance if I take longer than you'd wish (and sorry this is only happening after a submission weeks ago). If what I say is unclear, or you have an alternative suggestion you'd like to ask, or if I just say something totally wrong just tell me here. I'm giving an outside perspective, and what I say are suggestions.
- Lead
The lead seems quite disorganised. I feel it doesn't give a clear overview, yet at the same time goes into too much detail in certain areas.
- The lead theoretically shouldn't have information that isn't covered in the body (although the "(Danish: Kongeriget Danmark, pronounced [ˈkɔŋəʁiːəð ˈdanmɑɡ̊] ( listen) [note 1])" type stuff I've not once seen questioned, and I think should be fine). Because of this, there isn't really a need for references, as it should all be referenced in the body. Currently, the references in the lead are used only in the lead. This indicates to me that the information was placed directly into it and sourced there, which it shouldn't be. Make sure all information in the lead is in the body, and is sourced in the body.
- I suggest Greenland/Faroe information is grouped together. Currently there's a bit in the first paragraph, and a bit in the last (including the defining of Denmark as a unitary state). Group it together in the first paragraph so that the rest of the lead can deal with Denmark proper, which seems to be the focus of the article.
- The three notes in the lead are probably not needed. The state's pronunciation in regional languages isn't that important, as they don't apply to the whole state anyway. I've seen it argued that in fact no translations should be needed on the English wikipedia, but I think having the title in the state's official language is fine. Thus I'd remove that first note, and leave that to the interwiki links. The other two notes (and the prose they're attached to) go into a bit too much detail from the lead. I'd turn them into prose in either Administrative divisions or Politics.
- "Denmark proper is the hegemonial part, where the residual judicial, executive and legislative power rests" --> "Denmark proper is the hegemonial area, where judicial, executive, and legislative power resides"
- I'd cut down the information on what the exact definition of the Faroese and Greenlandic people are. Just keep it "The Faroe Islands are defined to be a community of people within the kingdom, and the Greenlandic people are defined as a separate people with the right to self-determination" or something similar. Again such detail is much more readily included in the body.
- Reword "Denmark's shores extend to both the Baltic and North Seas" somehow. It may be useful to combine it with a note that it is located where the two seas meet alongside the dominium maris baltici information.
- I'd remove the translations for the names of each island. It falls into the realm of trivia, and is more appropriately dealt with on the individual pages of those islands. In addition, as it stands the note "(commonly considered a part of Jutland)" is more confusing than explanatory. Either list the North Jutlandic Island as an island or don't.
- I think what the lead most needs is expansion in scope. I'd suggest adding a very short summary of history, "consolidated in the 8th century, entered a series of unions and wars with other Scandinavian countries, gave home rule and independence to overseas territories in the 20th century" or something (I have complete faith you can make a better summary than that).
- I'd also think slightly more about the people and their culture could be included, and perhaps economic information. We know the people are happy, uncorrupt, live in a welfare state, speak Danish, and are Scandinavian. Impressive for the short space given to that, but are those all the important points? The lead could go up to four paragraphs, as long as they're not too long!
CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for picking this up and thanks for the suggestions. I don't mind going through the article section by section and I agree it's easier. Following your suggestions, I've made edits to the lead; grouping together information and adding other rankings. I've also followed the example of other country articles by removing references for the various rankings, i.e. '16th on the Human Development Index', as these can be found in the respective articles. I know there's still a little bit more work to be done on the lead though, so any other pointers are welcome. -- Talk page) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)]
- Lead is looking much better. It is probably not worth going over it again until the rest of the article is good. The lead reflects the article, not the other way around. As for the rankings, while it's fine to have them in the lead without sources, they should be in the body with sources. Mention per capita income in the economy section, the Corruption Perception Index in demographics (or perhaps Politics?), mention happiness in demographics (or is this the same as life satisfacation?), etc. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Etymology
- What does the unification of Denmark have to do with Etymology? Were the Danes divided before this? Were they all considered Danes at that point in history?
- Reference [10] (after "Most handbooks derive") is placed weirdly. What exactly is it sourcing?
- References [12] and [15] don't seem to be references, but notes. If they're notable and sourceable, include them in the prose.
- Linking to WP:OVERLINKdeplores
- There's little I want to say about this section as it stands, because much of it seems terribly unreferenced. Source it, and perhaps rearrange (who knows, there may be enough material out there to make a standalone article). It seems haphazard, going from the 12th century Chronicon Lethrense to the 10th century jelling stones (although I gather that's because the Chronicon describes history?)
- History
- This is a long section, which probably could be greatly condensed (I like to look at these sections as analogous to - slightly larger - leads of their main articles). At the same time, much of it seems unsourced. The quick and dirty fix is to simply remove all the unsourced information, or move it to History of Denmark if you're feeling particularly productive! You can then edit from there. The long fix is figuring out what information is the most important to give a concise yet thorough history of Denmark, and using that information and sourcing. Have fun either way!
- Prehistory could use some dates, estimates I suppose, for when the Danes arrived to Jutland.
- Was the territory of the Danes just Jutland and the surrounding islands, or were they spread over a bit more of Scandinavia?
- In Viking Age it's mentioned they were the first to reach Iceland, getting there from the Faroes. When did they get to the Faroes? Were the Faroes under some Danish king at that point (or whatever kingdoms are in what are now Denmark)?
- It's mentioned Greenland and Vinland were settled. It's probably worth mentioning how the settlements were eventually isolated and died out. (I was coincidentally reading a book about this just earlier today. Are there good articles on the settlements that can be wikilinked to?)
- "and Frankish sources (e.g. Notker of St Gall) provide the earliest historical evidence of the Danes." By "historical evidence" do you mean written record/recorded history?
- Much of the second and third paragraph seem to be the kind of unnecessary detail that, while fascinating to weird people like me, is a bit too detailed for this summary article.
- "The Danes were united..." What were they before? Warring kingdoms? Tribes? Earlier you discuss a "southern border of the Danes", which wouldn't make sense if they weren't united.
- Is Cnut the Great the same person as Canute the Great? How were Denmark and England divided? Who is Sweyn Estridsen? What is the relevance of Duke Robert of Flanders? Again, this is probably a good example of far too much detail, which would need even more to be explained properly.
- When did the massive flotillas of Scandinavians start meeting? I'm a bit lost here, as I still don't know how the Viking system was arranged at this time. Was the Norweigian kingdom a separate united Kingdom?
So unfortunately I don't know enough about Danish history to figure out what's missing here, and how the bits connect. I can only say I don't fully grasp the events here, although perhaps I'm just somehow dumb, which I apologise for. Any thoughts on this? Will continue review later. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are no citations in the whole Medieval Denmark section. It seems to contain some very interesting points though. Was this the period of dominium maris baltici?
- Who was the Battle of Falköping fought agains?
- Why was Margarets nephew crowned instead of her (I'm assuming she was ruling at the time?)
- How did Sweden get a king if it was part of the union?
- Protestant reformation is another section which lacks citations.
- (1534–1536) is given for the wars extant, yet it says that "The massacre of Skipper Clement's peasant army at Aalborg in December 1534 brought an end to the war". Did the war end in 1534 or 1536?
- Is it really fair to say attention had been given to the south if much of the previous information had been about wars in Estonia or with Sweden?
- Who are "the Hansa"?
- Lots of citation needed in modern history too.
- Who was the Battle of Lutter lost to?
- I was under the impression Bornholm revolted against Sweden rather than was given back.
- 20th and 21st history section again without a great deal of sourcing. Other than that it seems to cover the important points.
- The two WWII pictures in this section don't add too much to the text, I'd suggest just keeping the EU one.
Overall, I'd say the section needs to be greatly reduced. It is supposed to be a summary of history, so perhaps consider it a large lead for the history article (albeit with sources). Different country articles have different lengths, some with no subsections at all. CMD (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes,I agree that it can be cut-down a lot. In fact, some parts of that sections are slightly more detailed than the Talk page) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)]
- Wow. That was impressive. The thing I question most now about structure is why a separate 20th and 21st centuries section exists. A title like that implies recentism heavily (and doesn't include the First World War?). I suggest renaming that and "Modern history" with names that show the importance of the split rather than seeming completely arbitrary: eg. "Modern history"-->"Denmark-Norway", "20th and 21st centuries"-->"Constitutional monarchy". CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Geography
- Images: They should help the text. The image of Copenhagen tells me nothing about Geography. On the other hand, it's the first time I've appreciated a CIA map, as it shows the islands clearly (and bridges). The satellite photo seems to have little to do with Climate, but more with environment. I'm not sure what information the beach photo is trying to give me.
- Furthering that, captions should help. "Map of Denmark" is pointless; I see it's a map. Perhaps note the bridges in black, or note it's Denmark proper.
- First two paragraphs are unsourced. Things like coordinates definitely need sources.
- Third paragraph has two sources, and mentions bridges. A bridge has already been mentioned in the first paragraph, have information about bridges in just one area.
- Danish translations: I suggest not including them. They interrupt the flow of prose, are inconsistent, and verge on Trivia. Leave non-English names to articles on the subjects.
- "Ferries or small aircraft connect to the smaller islands" tells me that Denmark has boats and planes, neither of which surprises me in the slightest. If it's non-notable information, remove it.
- What is the criteria for "Main cities"? (Cities may be better covered in Demographics)
- "Other hills in the same area" are notable why?
- "The area of inland water is: (eastern Denmark) 210 km2 (81 sq mi); (western D.) 490 km2 (189 sq mi)." Where is the split between Eastern and Western Denmark?
- "The size of the land area of Denmark cannot be stated exactly since the ocean constantly erodes and adds material to the coastline, and because of human land reclamation projects (to counter erosion)." This is true for any piece of land anywhere. Remove.
- "On the southwest coast of Jutland, the tide is between 1 and 2 m (3.28 and 6.56 ft), and the tideline moves outward and inward on a 10 km (6.2 mi) stretch." This needs to be rewritten. I can guess what it's trying to say, but it's not obvious. Also, why mention the tide in that specific area? Does it have the largest intertidal zone?
- "Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands)" Best to focus on proper Denmark, like the rest of the article. Last paragraph again needs sourcing.
- Needs quite a decent copyedit after sourcing is done.
- "The climate is in the temperate zone." The climate is temperate, Denmark is in the (a?) temperate zone. The climate is not in a zone.
- "The winters are not particularly cold" is just opinion that doesn't give any information. Remove, leave just the temperature figures.
- Why is Christmas celebrated on Christmas Eve, and what does this (and the other holidays) have to do with Climate?
- Big claims in the Environment section's first paragraph require equally impressive sources. Also, avoid such short paragraphs, they appear cluttered and MOS advises against them.
- "These agreements have helped in the reduction in CO2 emissions by Denmark." No they haven't; they've set goals. The Danish government's laws and the actions of the Danish people reduce CO2. Information on those laws (and possibly public actions, if notable) would be useful.
- "Much of the city's success can be attributed to a strong municipal policy combined with a sound national policy;" can it? Says who? Policies that do what exactly?
- I just noticed "The award was given for long-term holistic environmental planning" is a copyvio. That's not good at all. Fixed it myself, but the article must not have anything like this, or any decent reviewer will quickly fail the article.
- "It is comparable to countries such as Germany," which are what? The comparison against other Scandinavian countries was good, as that's a distinct block of countries, but what are countries like Germany? Perhaps give Denmark's ranking within the EU.
- Sources. Needed. Lots of them. CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions. Well it's clear that the geography section needs a lot of work, more than I first thought. I can see now that it's a bit piecemeal up to now, with lots of people adding various facts they consider relevant without checking over first. I'm going to add a few references first and remove some of the information that obviously shouldn't be there (I've no idea why Christmas Eve/Christmas is mentioned in the climate section, I can only think that an editor saw a mention of Midwinter - which is vaguely related to the winter climate - and added it in. I'm removing that!) -- Talk page) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Comments: Western and Eastern Denmark are common terms used to split Denmark - 'Western Denmark' is Jutland, and 'Eastern Denmark' was formerly defined as Sealand and Scania (now just Bornholm). But this division shouldn't really be used in this article for the "largest body of water" (there can only be one largest body of water in Denmark!), so I'm just going with the largest.
Arguably the agreements have helped to reduce CO2 emissions, because the Danish parliament has passed legislation only really because of the goals. But this could definitely be worded better.
Good thing the copyvio was noted, something similar was found on another article and nearly resulted in half of it being deleted. I'll check for more.
Adding sources now. --Talk page 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Comments: Western and Eastern Denmark are common terms used to split Denmark - 'Western Denmark' is Jutland, and 'Eastern Denmark' was formerly defined as Sealand and Scania (now just Bornholm). But this division shouldn't really be used in this article for the "largest body of water" (there can only be one largest body of water in Denmark!), so I'm just going with the largest.
- Thanks for the suggestions. Well it's clear that the geography section needs a lot of work, more than I first thought. I can see now that it's a bit piecemeal up to now, with lots of people adding various facts they consider relevant without checking over first. I'm going to add a few references first and remove some of the information that obviously shouldn't be there (I've no idea why Christmas Eve/Christmas is mentioned in the climate section, I can only think that an editor saw a mention of Midwinter - which is vaguely related to the winter climate - and added it in. I'm removing that!) --
- Administrative divisions
This doesn't seem to me to fit well under Geography, but that doesn't matter.
- I don't think the Counties of Denmark further is needed as a hatnote, and it's included in the prose already.
- Don't start off with "Administratively", it's redundant.
- This article says there were formerly 13 counties, Counties of Denmark says there were formerly 15. Which is it?
- "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 as part of the 2007 Danish Municipal Reform to replace the country's traditional thirteen counties (amter)." --> "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 to replace the traditional thirteen counties."
- Linking WP:OVERLINK
- Again, there's a dearth of sources.
- Have the English name first on the table
- I'd remove the entire country stats. They're redundant to the infobox, the prose, and the table in the Greenland section below.
- Although the article isn't the shortest, to say the least, I think the status of Greenland and the Faroes should be fleshed out more than it currently is. The historical dates at which they achieved their level of autonomy, for example, would be useful information.
- Place the comparison table to the right or left of the prose, rather than below it. It's a compact table, doesn't need its own lines. CMD (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Politics
- That map doesn't fit here, but would be useful in the Greenland and Faroe islands section above. I suggest moving it into the Greenland and Faroe islands section, and forget what I said about moving the table to the right, as that picture would fill up some space nicely. The other two images are quite good.
- Sources again, I'd be especially interested to have one for the constitution noting the monarch as sacrosanct. A fascinating anachronism.
- Don't italicise words without good reason, like "formally". The prose makes the meaning more than clear already.
- You mention the Danish parliament in the thirds paragraph, then reintroduce it as the Folketinget in the next one. It is then introduced again in the paragraph after that. Introduce it as the Folketinget once and note that it is the Danish parliament at that point, then stick with either Folketinget or Danish parliament consistently throughout the rest of the article.
- "In theory the doctrine prevails." What does this mean?
- "Greenland and Faroe Islands" --> "Greenland and the Faroe Islands", I believe the "the" is usually used in English
- Remove the information about the previous administration, there's no real point to have it.
- The constitutional information shouldn't be at the bottom of this section, and does overlap with the administrative divisions section above. My suggestion would be to bring administrative divisions to a subset of politics, but it's up to the editors of the article.
- The foreign relations and military sections need some sources pronto, especially for claims like the first sentence.
- I'd expect to find a short paragraph about the EU here.
- I would actually combine the two sections, as it makes discussing things like NATO, ISAF, peacekeeping activities etc. much smoother and simpler, reducing duplication.
- Good suggestion about merging the Foreign Relations and Military sections - will do. -- Talk page 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Edit: Also, the counties article is incorrect. There were 13 traditional counties, but also the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksborg were first-level divisions, but they weren't counties as much. I'll briefly include this in the section. -- Talk page 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Economy
- An economy doesn't have living standards. Living standards information should be in the demographics section.
- "Support for free trade is high" --> "Public support for free trade is high"
- "Also of importance is the sea territory of more than 105,000 km² (40,000+ sq mi)." Why is this of importance?
I note here economics isn't my strong point. It seems like you've covered all the basic economic indicators, but that's just me. I didn't mention sourcing, but Economy really should be fully sourced, considering all the statistics.
- Is there an estimate for the total oil reserves in Danish waters?
- Rather than just a ranking in countries, a figure for oil exports would be useful.
- "Denmark is connected by transmission lines to other European countries." What does this mean, and how is this notable?
- Transport section is interesting, especially in regards to car ownership. I'd expect more about Biking though, since Denmark makes the news a surprising amount due to its Bicycles. More information, like whether the Biking infrastructure lies just in the cities or extends to the whole country, would be useful. The note on fluctuating energy sources seems unrelated, and should go in the Energy section. Sources would be good, as usual, especially if you have lists. Following an outside list is much better than making your own.
- Public policy is comprehensive, but I don't understand why it's a separate section. It seems to cover much of what was covered in the main economy chunk, and at the same time appears to contain quit ea bit of undue information, better suited for the main Economy article. Also, adding information about what the Nordic Model is in the prose would probably be a good thing for the article.
- Demographics
- "Many of the remaining 10.6% were immigrants—or descendants of recent immigrants—from Bosnia and Herzegovina, neighboring countries, South Asia, and Western Asia." Doe "Neighboring countries" mean neighbours of Denmark or of Bosnia and Herzegovina? If it's Denmark, place that first in the list to avoid confusion.
- "Inuit from Greenland and Faroese" --> "Inuit and Faroese" or "Inuit from Greenland and Faroese from the Faroe Islands" or something similar
- "As in most countries" is a general pointless statement, remove it
- "The average density in the west" --> "The average density in Jutland" seems better to me
- Info about Danish communities overseas is probably
- Religion seems good, but needs sources.
- Education seems to be more of a collection of lists than encyclopaedic prose. I suggest not listing individual schools and universities unless there is a huge emphasis placed on them by outside sources. Also consider whether Education is so important in the whole scope of Denmark's demographics that it deserves so much prose.
- Culture
- Remove the See Also to List of Danes. Not all notable danes are notable for cultural reasons, and it's Undue at any rate.
- The entire section is very long, but at the same time subdivided into a large number of tiny subsections. It needs restructuring of some kind, to shorten it and eliminate/reduce subheadings.
- The section dives straight into examples, which is jarring (and also redundant to the current subsections). A general discussion of Danish culture doesn't appear until the fourth paragraph, and even then it's short. I suggest creating a more generalised picture of Danish culture and placing it at the start of the section. The examples can flow from there.
There's a lot here, and since it should probably be reworked I won't comment specifically on what's there, but in general:
- Write generally, giving an overall description of some part of Culture, rather than simply describing specific instances of it.
- Avoid random lists. If you must have a list, base it on an external source, and include an explanation on why that list is the way that is eg. Don't say "Some notable X include", but rather, "X who have done Y include".
- Avoid plain "X is the best Y" or "X does the best Y" statements, like "The Danish Museum of Art & Design in Copenhagen exhibits the best in Danish design." It's quite meaningless and doesn't aid the reader at all.
There's a lot of work that needs doing in this article, especially around sourcing. Good luck, and feel free to ping me if there are any questions. Cheers, CMD (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dylan and Cole Sprouse
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to (hopefully) get it up to FAC status. I asked for a peer review in December, and I've done everything on that list (I marked "dones" and left comments on what I did in response to the points on my to-do page instead of the peer review page). I'm listing it for another peer review now to get other perspectives from different people and to see what other issues holding back the article may need to be fixed on the road to being good enough for FAC. Any comments on how the article can be improved are greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Purplewowies (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Devil's Advocate comments
I have stepped in to make a few changes while looking over this article.
- Lede
- Style - I think the second paragraph of the lede reads too much like a timeline. A lot of sentences start with "In" followed by a year. You should avoid throwing the years in so much as it is and certainly not at the beginning of a sentence if you can avoid it. When mentioning the films and series in which they have starred you really don't need to provide the year unless it is identical to another work in the same medium.
- Structure - The second paragraph should be split as it is a tad bulky when compared to the other paragraph in the lede and when compared to the rest of the article. You could bring together information about their wealth and education into a third paragraph.
- Wording - The "heartthrob" sentence in the second paragraph needs some work. Presenting the quotes in a way that implies they are factual statements when they are really opinions is not really appropriate. The "preteen and teen" wording should be substituted with a more all-encompassing term.
- Information - The material about photography and art probably doesn't need to be in the lede or should be shortened to be part of sentence. Since it seems there is very little information provided in the body of the article and it doesn't seem to be particularly significant it should probably not get mentioned in the lede at all.
- Early Lives section
- Size - Should it be possible I would like to see this section expanded to at least be a somewhat larger paragraph.
- Structure - The way the second sentence is written is unnecessarily segmented. You can probably mention the small difference in the time of their births in a separate sentence and that would allow you to improve on the sentence.
- Information - Saying "their parents are divorced" and leaving it at that, without explaining its relevance, seems to be a bit of a problem. For instance, was it a significant event in their childhood?
- Acting section
- Structure - I noticed the first sentence in the fourth paragraph is really long and full of commas. You should break that up into at least two sentences, maybe three. The last two paragraphs are really short and you should consider consolidating the material into one paragraph.
- Wording - The section on awards nominations for Big Daddy should be redone. Saying "while" then following with "although" in the same sentence is a bit messy and the material should avoid repeating "for" so closely in the same sentence. Again with the last two paragraphs I think repeating the wording "as of" at the beginning of each should be avoided. Repetitive wording makes the article less interesting to read.
- Brand section
- Size - This is another section I would like to see expanded a bit, especially since it seems there is a rather lengthy New York Times article provided that is surely packed with significant information not currently included in the article.
- Wording - Saying "continued their clothing line" seems a bit unprofessional to me. That could probably be worded a little better.
- Personal lives section
- Structure - The first sentence does not flow well with the quote provided. You should probably cut off the quote after "kind of scary" and paraphrase more, providing quotes for certain significant statements.
- Wording - Listing the various sports they enjoy would look better with a little more context. I don't particularly like just listing their interests unless it can be put in a more encyclopedic context. "Writing or drawing a comic strip" is a bit awkward as well. Do they enjoy both writing and drawing the comic strip? If so, you can probably find a single word to cover that. The material should probably be in its own sentence as well.
- Information - I see Adam Sandler getting mentioned a lot and think this probably needs a little more detail and context. What I would want is to see a little more information about any particular significance Sandler has had in shaping their careers or why they are fans of him.
- General Issues
- Citations - Personally, I prefer having citations provided at the end of a sentence, rather than placed in the middle.
- Style - My objection about the timeline-style appearance in the lede applies to other parts of the article as well. Try to avoid starting a sentence with "In" followed by a date or year. Repeating the same words a lot at the beginning of a sentence or even just the same letter can also be a bit of a drain. A lot of sentences start with "the" or "they" and that should be cut down a bit. Don't try to avoid it all costs, but have those words pop up a little more sparingly at the beginning of sentences.
There are probably some other issues with this article I haven't covered, so if you want this to get up to featured article status I would suggest reading over it a bit more closely as someone else may take issue with other parts of the article I have not noticed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Responses to The Devil's Advocate comments
- Thanks for changing the things that you changed. I actually wouldn't have noticed that kind of stuff otherwise (I'm bad at seeing those types of things).
- Lede
- Wording - I've tried to rewrite the "heartthrob" sentence. Probably didn't pick the best wording, but I tried. I'm not sure what I could replace "preteen and teen" with (or maybe I'm not sure what exactly you're saying?).
- Information - On the art and photography material: The art and photography are recent things for them (in terms of making money off of it, etc.). It really isn't the thing that they're notable for, so I understand what you're saying. Dylan seems to really want to do this art thing more as a professional thing, so I don't doubt that there might be a bit more mention of it in the future (but that's the future, not now, so...). Cole's photography thing seems more like a side thing or something. I'll relocate that, shorten it, or remove it entirely.
- Early Lives section
- Size - I will try to expand this if at all possible, but I'm not sure how much info I can find.
- Information - As far as I know, no, but I might need to look into it. It'll probably end up getting removed.
- Brand section
- Size - I'll expand this with any relevant and significant information I can.
- Personal lives section
Supreme facepalm of destiny This section actually probably needs a serious rewrite. I'm pretty sure the information in the second paragraph is a couple of years old at least. How on Earth did I not see that? I've read through this section several times! Gah!
- General Issues
- Citations - Me too. I'll move any that are in the middle of sentences
- Thanks for all the things you mentioned. A lot of it was things I have trouble spotting, especially in articles I'm fairly familiar with. I'll be sure to apply your suggestions. Thanks again! - Purplewowies (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
F.C. United of Manchester
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because last year I took the time to get it promoted to GA and I am now wondering just how far away the article is from reaching FA status. I am willing to put in the time again to get it to FA class and hope that I can receive some pointers in the right direction via a peer review. My ultimate aim, as a fan of the club, would be to have the article as a main page FA, but I acknowledge that this is a long-term goal.
Thanks, Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
Firstly, kudos for your work on this. The article is good but could do with much work if you plan to take this to
- Ideally look at other football club articles which are FA and compare them with the article you are working on.
- The article could do with a thorough copy edit as it is perfectly fine for WP:FAC.
- Ref 22 is a deadlink. Consider replacing it.
Done Found a report of the game on the Manchester Evening News website. Did find a cache of the old ref here but unsure as to whether I can use it as a reference
- Under formation, "the prime catalyst for F.C. United's formation was the 12 May 2005 hostile takeover of Manchester United by the American businessman Malcolm Glazer", reads a bit fragmented. Glazer's takeover was months in the making so would it be necessary to include the date? He never officially took over the club on May 12 as this article the following day hints, it was June 28. Perhaps you could exclude the date and in the following sentence clarify that he gained a controlling stake on May 12. You could also use a 'see also' template below the formation header for Glazer ownership of Manchester United, which means you do not need to wikilink it in the text.
- "After the name "F.C. United" was rejected by the Football Association", apply the wikilink to Football Association only or you could choose to capitalise 'The'.
Done Capitalised the "T"
- The bullet points under Future aspirations could be removed and expanded into sentences. Most of the aspirations are outdated, have they met them? If not, perhaps you could state why.
- Criticism could do with some expansion. Surely there must be more opinions. Ferguson must have said more on the subject, likewise footballers, well-respected authors, journalists even. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for the tips! I'll get to work on them and tick them off as I go. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Vices & Virtues
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some suggestions on how to improve it, as I've read it over and it reads quite well to me. I'm not the most well-versed in the topic area, so as someone with limited knowledge of the band, I understood the article quite well. That being said, any suggestions for improving it would be fantastic!
Thanks, Yaminator talk 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Release date in lead differs from the one in the infobox.
Done
- Link Pretty Odd. the first time in the opening paragraph of the main body.
Done
- Fix the [citation needed] template in the infobox.
Done
- Last half dozen references need to be completed.
Not done Removed them, since they only linked to the charts and didn't actually show anything of use.
- One dead link in there.
Checking... Hmm, I can't see any other sources, so I'll have to remove it.
- Don't mix date formats in the refs.
Done
- Don't use spaced hyphens in the reference titles, used spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH.
Done
- Is the "Panic at the Disco" category incorrectly named now? Should it have a ! in it?
Not done It looks like its supposed to be sans exclamation mark. The category with the exclamation mark is intentionally left blank.
- " nervousness in the beginning" -> "initial nervousness."?
Done
- "On Monday, March 14," is the day really relevant?
Done No, I don't think so! Removed it.
- "(see release history)." yuck, either pipe link it or don't have this here.
Done Removed it; folks can scroll!
- "chart and #5 " etc, MOS says avoid using hash to represent "number" in prose.
Done
- "has announced multiple tours" has this already happened? So shouldn't it be just "announced" rather than "has announced"?
Done
- Not sure you should collapsethose additional tracks.
Done
- Only one release date is referenced in that table.
Done Good catch!
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is great! Thank you for your suggestions. I'll look into implementing them. Yaminator talk 18:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Acquaintances of Susan Mayer
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to GA status.
Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note - if the article is not deleted or merged, feel free to renominate it for a peer review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Krista Branch
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if this article currently meets criteria higher than B-class, which I am pretty sure it already meets. Looking over the GA-class articles I think it may meet that level already, but if it could meet featured criteria I would like to know. Right now my only real issue is that the article just has the one image at the top, but there is a general lack of free images on this person and I am not sure if there is really an appropriate fair-use image out there. There might be room for a little more expansion, but not much. Further input on any other issues editors might notice would be welcome.
Thanks, The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Lionelt
- Add columns to the Discography table, e.g. chart rankings of songs
- Adding pics is going to be tricky since she's alive. But what you can do is add a brief audio clip (ogg) of "I am America" or another song under Fair Use.
- You can also add the cover art of a song, say "I am America" under Fair Use.
- A brief video clip of "Lead Me On" might work in the Career section, again Fair Use.
Great job! I'm not gonna comment on the GA-ness, since it's not my area. Good luck! – Lionel (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Response
- Given the nature of her career, I am not sure there will be rankings available. The other stuff shouldn't be too difficult though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want help in assessment before FA nomination.
Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Bowling Green State University
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the page has been improved, expanded, and updated over the past few months and weeks. Significant expansion of the article to become a comprehensive, well sourced and cited article close to GA status. Thanks, Bhockey10 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - I have been on this campus (though I am by no means an expert on it). Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on universities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing- for example the link to United States in the lead is not really necessary (as almost all readers will already know that the USA is).
- Comment: I'm not too worried, I've seen "United States" linked and unlinked in other GAs and FA (probably close to 50-50. Since Wikipedia is a worldwide entity I'm inclined to leave it for users that want to find more information on the US.
- At the same time do link things that need links on the first use - for example normal school, which is now linked on its fourth appearance, should be linked on the first.
Done
- I would also link Boys Statein the lead
Done
- I would probably include the fact that BGSU was founded as a normal school in the lead, and also provide a brief explanation (a teacher training college) somewhere (not sure that has to be in the lead). This is part of providing context to the reader - see WP:PCR
Done
- Similarly spell out abbreviations like I-75 on first use (so "Interstate 75 (I-75)") per the MOS
Done
- problem sentence "...and has a on-campus residential student population of 6,500 students.[4]
- First off, since this is a number that will change with time, the date / year should be given (as of 2011).
- Second, the infobox makes clear that the total student population is over 17,000, so I would include that number in the lead (as well as this).
- Third, the lead should be a summary of the whole article and as such nothing should be in the lead only. However, this is only quoted in the lead and is not in the rest of the article that I can see (but it should be). See WP:LEAD
- Fourth, most leads do not have references except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims (as the lead is a summery, the refs should be in the body of the article). It is OK to either cite the lead fully (just like the body) or almost not at all - this lead is an odd hybrid.
- Check the rest of the lead to make sure claims are not there only (like 85% of Bowling Green's total enrollment is made up of in-state students from Ohio.)
Done I added the suggestions to the sentence, such as "as of 2011" and added a mention of the total student pop over 17,000. I trimmmed some of the student body statistics and references from the lead and moved the info and references to a more apporpriate section of the article (student life).
- Also make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to make sure that every header is in the lead somehow
Done (see above comment)
- In History, I would identify Ohio University and Miami University (and not just the places they are).
Done
- The article on the Lowry Act points out that Ohio State University had a Normal School by 1907, so that should be mentioned too
Done
- This seems pretty well cited, but some places still need references like A campus plan was created and $150,000 was appropriated to develop the campus and construct the first buildings.
Done
- The article can have one ref for a series of sentences all attributed to the same source(s) - so this all could be just one ref at the end SICSIC is an official spirit organization at BGSU that began in 1946 by President Frank J. Prout.[59] SICSIC routinely attends major BGSU sporting events and other campus activities promoting school spirit.[59] The organization is secret and contains six members, two each for sophomore, junior, and senior classes.[59]
Done
- The references used are in large part from BGSU itself - while some such refs are OK and unavoidable, the article should strive for independent third-party reliable sources for as much of the material as possible. For SICSIC, for example, it would be much better if its notability could be established by reference to external reliable sources (and not just BGSU websites).
- Comment: I agree and will continue looking for external sources, This artile is similar to others in the number of university-related sources, however.
- Prose is OK, but could use a copyedit in places - one example The school opened on September 15, 1914 as Bowling Green State Normal School in two temporary locations in Bowling Green at the Bowling Green Armory building on Wooster Street and a branch school in Toledo for the 1914-1915 academic year while construction of the first campus buildings.[14][12]
Done (also will bring article to
WP:COPYEDITORS)
- Headers need to follow WP:HEADand avoid repeating the name of the article (or the parent header for subheaders) if at all possible. So for example section 2 (which seems like it should be called "Campuses" as there are two) could then have subheads "Main" and "BGSU Firelands"
Done
- Nice photos.
- Comment: Thanks!
- I noticed the unusual verb "eclipsed" and checked the reference. The article here has "...and by 1950 the number of students eclipsed 4,000.[11]" while the original source has "By 1950, the number of students had eclipsed 4,000." This is a copyright violation and should be rewritten - please see WP:COPYVIO
Done Paraphrased with "by 1950 enrollment grew to over 4,000"
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Done
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
- Thanks for a compehensive and detailed peer preview. It seems like many of the suggestions were fairly small touchups, minor format changes, and other wording fixes. It's good there's not anything drastically wrong. If you have any more comments they are welcomed. I think this peer review was very helpful in the article's move towards GA status and I'm hopeful with some more work and TLC it will get there. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Codex Sinaiticus
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now a
Thanks, Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Generally it seems over-reliant on older sources. In particular David C. Parker's 2010 book on the Codex is only used once, for a fairly minor point.
- For FA I'd strongly recommend not repeating all the book titles in the notes/refs. Work out a consistent style for short citations, which are in one section (I use "Notes" as its name), then just give the full title once in a section below ("References"), which lists all the sources used (except maybe one-off web sources) and only those. "Further reading" should be only for books that are not used.
- The style in which books are listed must be consistent.
- The article generally seems rather short. Which institutions have which pages? Many other issues are dealt with rather too briskly. The views of squads of scholars (mostly long dead) are cited as to the origin of the book, but little of their reasoning. What can be said about the context of the book anyway, wherever it was written? Is it certainly monastic? How was it used?
- The English will need a thorough copyedit.
- Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings is worth a link somehow, if only in a note.
- Generally I think a fair amount of work is still needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Book of Parker was written for a popular reader (no references, not too much about textual affinities, scribal habits etc.), but I can use it more often (history of the codex). The same thing with: Schneider, Ulrich Johannes (ed.) (2007). Codex Sinaiticus. Geschichte und Erschließung der "Sinai-Bibel". Leipzig: Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig. ISBN 978-3-934178-72-4. Published by Leipzig University but book is of the same popular type like book of Parker. I used in the article - Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC. This is really very important. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)]
- "Which institutions have which pages? " There is a section Codex Sinaiticus#Present location. Is it not enough? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Book of Parker was written for a popular reader (no references, not too much about textual affinities, scribal habits etc.), but I can use it more often (history of the codex). The same thing with: Schneider, Ulrich Johannes (ed.) (2007). Codex Sinaiticus. Geschichte und Erschließung der "Sinai-Bibel". Leipzig: Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig.
- I don't think so, it just gives the numbers of pages, not which sections. Parker may be popular, but it is by a specialist and should be used to reference the modern consensus, or lack of it, on issues. I suspect it may contain exactly the sort of contextual material that the article is currently lacking. The same is probably true of Schneider. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so, it just gives the numbers of pages, not which sections. Parker may be popular, but it is by a specialist and should be used to reference the modern consensus, or lack of it, on issues. I suspect it may contain exactly the sort of contextual material that the article is currently lacking. The same is probably true of Schneider. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Days of Heaven
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative, constructive feedback from Wikipedia's peers and distinguished editors to improve this articles quality and scope in hope of perhaps later nominating it as a Good Article. So far, I have done a little bit of working in cleaning up references and citations, adding visual enhancement and fixing up the introductory paragraphs.
Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in reviewing this article, but I see that the user who listed it (Ashton 29) has not been active in 10 days. Are you available to address comments? --(talk) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)]
Right I had a response from Ashton on my talk page, so here is my review. This is probably the most beautiful film ever made, and one of my favourites of all time. Thanks for your work on the article. I made a couple of small changes as I read through it.
Specific comments
I think the difficulty/length of the production needs to be mentioned in the lead. Also, maybe Malick's Cannes win?The $3million budget is already sourced in the text, so we don't need a ref in the lead."only the cinematography and imagery" Pick one of these words, they mean pretty much the same thing so having both is redundant."particularly noted for the beauty of the photography and cinematography." And again. I personally would say use imagery for the first sentence, then cinematography for the second.Perhaps mention in the plot that the film is narrated by Linda?I think it would make far more sense to swap the positions of the photograph and the quote box, under "Principal photography". They would be closer to when those topics are discussed in the text.- I think it needs to be made a bit clearer why they chose to use the lighting/imagery they did.
"While the photography yielded exquisite results," > POV. Needs to be changed.
*I'm sure I've read before that Malick added the voice-over narration as an afterthought? Shouldn't that be mentioned? Unless I'm getting confused with Badlands...
The information about the added narration by Manz is in there.
- The information we have in the "Reception" section right now isn't enough to justify the comments in the lead that it received "initially unfavourable critical reviews" but "has since become one of the most acclaimed films of all time". The section needs to be fleshed out with more examples.
- Since this is an American film, I think it should be written in American English. But we have "unfavourable", and maybe some others. Check for consistency.
Sentences needing a reference
*"Malick had tried and failed to get Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to star in the film."
- "The actors and crew reportedly viewed Malick as cold and distant."
*The quote in the quote box is unsourced.
General comments, re GA criteria
- Prose: I think the prose is fine for GA standards, which just asks that it is "clear and concise".
- Verifiability: It is well referenced. I don't like, though, that specific page numbers aren't given for the Almendros book. That makes it extremely difficult to verify the sentences it is supporting. Someone would have to flick through the whole book!
- Neutrality: We need to remove the one instance of POV, but other than that there is no original research and the page is written in a neutral, unbiased tone.
- Broadness: I don't think the article covers all "the main aspects of the topic". We need some mention of the script writing process, Morricone's score, and - importantly - some discussion of themes. There is lots of interesting stuff that critics have said about this film, there needs to be a section on this. Looking at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film), it also seems desirable to have a "Home media" section. Days of Heaven has received a Criterionrelease, which is notable.
- Images: I think the two non-free ones used right now are entirely justified. In fact, I think it would be useful to have one more - a shot illustrating the discussion of "magic hour". It's an important aspect of the film, it should really be visible in the article.
So, the article is too slight for GA right now, and would strongly benefit from some content expansion. But it is definitely in good shape and on the right track. I hope you're up for further developing the article? It would be great to have information of the things I've mentioned. If you'd like me to look at it again once you've done this, I'd be happy to. Good luck! --
It is a beautiful film and I'm happy to edit it. It's one of my favorites also. I hope to expand it gradually, I have crossed out what I have done so far to the article in regards to your edits, to keep track. I'm not going to expand the reaction just yet, because I believe that needs the most work as it is fairly small in size/scope at the moment. I will address all these things over time, and let you know when I want you to have another look through it. Thank you! Ashton 29 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Work Motivation
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to present this to a group of Psychology peers and faculty and this is a major part of my grade for my Industrial and Organizational Psychology class. This is my first Wikipedia Artle and I want to make sure it is adequate.
Thanks, Jastha08 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Smallman12q
- It needs more wikilinks wp:wikify. (These are the blue links you see)
- It needs additional citations. Every paragraph should have a reference.
- The tone is off in certain areas. For example, in "Self-Regulation Theory", it reads: "Another theory based in self-efficacy", "another" is not needed. An article is not like an essay, you don't need to introduce each section with "another theory".
- The capitalization is off in some areas, for example with "Work Engagement"
- It needs some copyediting
- There really should be a section related to the effect of monetary compensation on work motivation.
Overall, its pretty good for a first article.Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Spinal stenosis
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve the quality of this topic's content and make a more beneficial encyclopedic contribution.
Thanks, Dubyahill (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Biosthmors
- Lead
- In the lead, explain what the spinal canal is with a few words to make it understandable
- Parasthesia does not need to be capitalized
- Explain what is meant by a foramen
- Wouldn't lumbar stenosis also compress the spinal cord? The article implies otherwise.
- Lead & types
- Clarify that lumbar and cervical are two common types in the lead. Currently the article contradicts itself by saying there are two types then later, there are more than two types.
- Types
- Could you clarify why degeneration causes a canal to narrow (instead of widen)?
- "frequently surgical" seems vauge. Frequent where? How frequent? perhaps "can be surgical" and move to the Treatment section.
- Epidemiology
- Consider reworking this content into prose. See prose vs. lists. (Also consider this in other sections.)
- Signs and symptoms
- The sentence that starts with "Characterized by lower limb numbness" is not a complete sentence.
- Causes
- correct [{spondylolisthesis]]
- Diagnosis
- There is an unnecessary break between the words "physical examination"
- Treatments
- This section is inbetween a list and prose, it appears to be a list of incomplete sentences. I bet it would be better off as prose.
- In general
- Try reordering the article and possibly adding sections according to medical sourcesinstead of medical websites
- If using a citation twice you can name it and cite it as shown here: WP:REFNAME
Thanks for working on the article. I hope this helps. Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments from SandyGeorgia
Goodness, it needs boatloads of work. I did some work here and at lumbar spinal stenosis over a year ago; the problems persist.
- We have an article on lumbar spinal stenosis, but none on cervical spinal stenosis (which redirects to this article on spinal stenosis in general). This general article should be just that, linking to the other more specific articles, which should contain the detail. This article should be only general, not specific to each kind of spinal stenosis.
- All sources should be upgraded to secondary reviews, per WP:MEDRS.
- For citation formatting consistent with most medical articles, you can plug a PMID into the Diberri template filler, which will generate a citation.
- This dispatch explains how to find reliable medical sources (generally secondary reviews). You should be able to locate several recent reviews from the work I did at lumbar spinal stenosis, but that was in 2010: more recent reviews may be available, specifically in the treatment realm, and discussion of surgicial vs pharmaceutical management.
- Sections should conform to WP:MEDMOS.
- This article is excessively listy and lists should be converted to prose.
At any rate, I'm unsure what you want to do here, relative to the more specific articles distinguishing lumbar and cervical and whatever other types there are; I suggest it may be hard to work here without working on specific articles first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Apple Inc. litigation
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was last assessed 2 years ago and I've changed its content significantly. I am aiming for GA status for this article and would like some peer feedback. Thanks, Sctechlaw (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments wow, monster article! And a decent one at that."
- Lead is too short, four paras for an article of this length would be expected.
- Lead image caption is quirky, needs to be more explanatory, and doesn't need a full stop in its current form.
- Wouldn't Bloomberg Television be a better link than "Bloomberg news"?
- I rarely see UK written as U.K.
- " iTunes tracks sold in the U.K" followed two sections later by "cut the price United Kingdom consumers ". Would use "United Kingdom" the first time and the abbreviation subsequently.
- Which? is normally Which?.
- iPhone could be linked first time in the "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action" section but instead it's linked first time in the "iPad and iPhone privacy issue class action" section.
- "of the apps", however, the sui" think "however" should be a new sentence.
- You link US$ seven times in one section which is somewhat overkill...!
- US$.99 or 99¢? Be consistent.
- "In 2004, independent Apple resellers filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging Apple used misleading advertising practices with resellers by using unfair business practices that harmed reseller sales while boosting Apple-owned outlets, in effect by favoring its own outlets over those of its resellers" reseller is used four times and Apple four times in this single sentence!
- "Apple and Dr. Sagan " suddenly he's Dr. Sagan. Stick with one term for him and be consistent.
- " (see List of Apple codenames)." I don't like this sort of "see also". You could pipelink that article to the first use of "codename" (and be consistent with the spacing).
- Yep, I've found a UK now, so please be consistent throughout and (in my opinion) use UK.
- "Apple Corps alleged Apple's introduction " add Computer > "Apple Corps alleged Apple Computer's introduction ".
- " the name 'Apple' " vs "related to "Apple" ", be consistent with the punctuation.
- "a "token payment" in " why the italics?
- "name he'd registered" avoid contractions.
- Even more linked US$...
- Last sentence of the Woolworths section is unreferenced, and what was the conclusion to this? If still ongoing it should be noted.
- "name - which is iPod spelled backwards - is " should use en-dashes instead of hyphens here.
- Link Microsoft the first time.
- "(see also object file)" is this necessary? If it is, then perhaps say "object code including object files" or similar.
- "and 5 other pending " five.
- " High Tech Computer Corp. in " put (HTC) after the company name.
- Don't overlink Samsung.
- [162][165][166][167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] remove spaces between refs.
- "Against the dramatic backdrop" reads a bit journalistic.
- " iTunes End user license agreement" no need for capital E.
- See also needs a bullet point.
- Don't mix date formats in the refs.
- Be consistent with leading zeros for days/months in ref dates.
- for PDFs, use
format=pdf
in the refs. - Author names, either First Last or Last, First. Be consistent.
- Is it "Johnson iTunes Settlement" or "johnsonitunessettlement.com"?
- New York Times should be The New York Times.
- Ref 43 (for instance) needs an en-dash for the page range.
- Make sure all refs have titles, publishers, publication dates (if appropriate), access dates (if appropriate), authors (if appropriate) and works (if appropriate).
- Make sure things like the NYT and Billboard etc are treated as works, i.e. in italics.
- Don't need Apple Inc. as a cat because you have Apple Inc. litigation as a more refined one.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I just saw this... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from requester: All of the above reviewer's helpful suggestions have been implemented, save for enlarging the lead, which is underway. Once this is done, the peer review can close, or sooner, if needed. Thanks also to user Khazar2 for helpful suggestions. — Sctechlaw (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from requester: All reviewers changes implemented. Thanks everyone. — Sctechlaw (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Speech generating device
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a long term goal to get the subject more completely covered on wikipedia - maybe even to FA one day - there was also an issue with the article's GA status being challenged very soon after the status was achieved so I think a peer review might resolve any lingering doubts in the community.
Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Cryptic C62
"Speech generating devices (SGD)" Pluralized phrases should have pluralized acronyms (SGDs), as suggested bythissection of the MOS.
- I've gone through and made a few changes - thanks for the tip :)
"Speech generating devices (SGD) have their roots in early electronic communication aids, the first of which was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the Patient Operated Selector Mechanism (POSM or POSSUM) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960" Too many ideas being crammed into one sentence. I suggest splitting after "communication aids".
- Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"scanning teletypewriter controller" What's this?
- Good point, rewritten. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"During the 1970s and early 1980s, many of the companies that are now well known in the area began to emerge" This sentence falls victim to the common misconception that being "well known" is the same as being notable. Why should we care if they are well known or not? Possible rephrasing "During the 1970s and early 1980s, several companies began to emerge that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs."
- Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm worried about the fact that the Toby Churchill and Dynavox statements are sourced to their respective company history pages. The authors have a very obvious conflict of interest regarding notability, and these sources alone should not be relied upon to determine which companies are mentioned in this article. I suggest replacing the references (currently refs 12 and 13) or backing them up with third-party material. If no such material can be found, the relevant statements should be deleted.
- I'll have more of a look around - I should be able to find something - I've spent a reasonable amount of time depuffing the dynavox article anyway... Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Toby Churchill founded the company that bears his name in 1973" This phrasing implies that the reader will already be familiar with said company, but we cannot assume that that will always be true. Churchill Co.? Toby Churchill Incorporated? The Churchill Foundation? I have literally no idea, and Toby Churchill is no help either.
- Reworded Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Toby Churchill founded ... cerebral palsy to communicate." Another extremely long sentence. This should be split between Churchill and Dynavox.
"a greatly increased number, range, and performance of commercially available communication devices" The meaning of "range" is somewhat ambiguous here. Does it mean price range? Or variety?
- Changed to 'variety' Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s, and synthesized speech in more languages became available." It's not clear how the second clause relates to the first in terms of time. Assuming that they were essentially simultaneous, here's a possible rewrite: "The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s. During this time, synthesized speech became available in more languages, such as Language X, Language Y, and Language Z."- I've dropped the second clause for clarity… Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- "As of 2011, notable AAC users include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot." It is unclear to me why this sentence has a date attached to it. It implies that these three dudes are still alive as of 2011, but that's not true; Proudfoot died in 2010. Possible rephrasing: "Notable individuals who have used AAC devices include SH, RE, and TP. It might also make sense to prepend each name with the respective profession for which they were notable.
- rephrasing sounds great - not sure about the predending part - it works for Hawking and Ebert, but it's difficult to refer to Proudfoot as an althete or as a former athete in this context… not sure really….? Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, I think "AAC devices" should be changed to "SGDs". With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with using "Notable individuals who have used SGDs include theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, film critic Roger Ebert, and former athlete Tony Proudfoot." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- rephrasing sounds great - not sure about the predending part - it works for Hawking and Ebert, but it's difficult to refer to Proudfoot as an althete or as a former athete in this context… not sure really….? Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The last paragraph of History focuses too heavily on Hawking. I suggest including a single sentence for each of the gentlemen which simply states why they needed AAC, and possibly what device(s) they employed.
- I've rewritten - ideally I'm trying to find a source that says "Yes, the only one of these you've heard is Hawking, yes it sounds very 1980s - but that's his choice, modern devices sound more natural…" Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I still think that there should be some information presented about Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot. If the article mentions these names, it should take the time to explain why they're relevant, and there's certainly enough space in the section to do it.
- I've rewritten - ideally I'm trying to find a source that says "Yes, the only one of these you've heard is Hawking, yes it sounds very 1980s - but that's his choice, modern devices sound more natural…" Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find it somewhat odd that Input methods and Access methods are separate sections, as their content is very similar and highly inter-related. I find even more odd that Input methods is so much more detailed than Access methods, when the latter has so much more interesting things to elaborate upon. Explaining the difference between fixed and dynamic displays does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject as much as explaining how eye tracking and head pointers work. Do you agree?
More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Imaginos
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice on the comprehensibility of the text, that should be encyclopedic but also simple enough to be easily understood. I also need help with the placing of the reference tags. Too few? Too many? Are some references missing? Please, let me know what you think.
Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Laser brain
- I feel that the text is comprehensive in terms of background, production, themes, reception, and so on, unless otherwise noted below.
- Overall your strategy for inline citations seems fine; I think you've created a good balance and provided a proper number of citations. There are a couple places where you could combine citations, such as when you've cited one page and then the next page. It's acceptable to cite a range of pages if you make a statement summarized from 2 pages.
- I found the Notes and References sections difficult to read as formatted. Recommend placing References after Notes, and using a multi-column format for your Notes section.
- Unfortunately you will have a long struggle demonstrating that the Swartz BOC FAQ is a reliable source per WP:RS. Since it is cited quite often, you should expect it to be challenged heavily if you attempt to attain GA or FA status for the article. Essentially, there is no indication of an editorial or fact-checking process on that site, and no indication of the credibility or authority of the author. You would need to produce at least 2-3 secondary reliable sources (books, magazines, journals) that refer to the BOC FAQ as reliable and authoritative.
- Attention is needed to the wikilinking strategy. Some plain English words such as "arcane" should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
- Take care when assigning literary genre labels such as "gothic" without attribution to an authoritative secondary source. I would consider neither Pearlman nor Popoff an authoritative source in this matter.
- The prose is in need of attention from a copy-editor with a strong command of English. I listed some random pot-shots from the Lead below, but the whole thing needs treatment. This would be a necessary step before the article would be ready for GA or FA status.
- "aptly subtitled 'a bedtime story for the children of the damned'" As this quotation comes from liner notes, who decided it was "aptly named"? It seems an editorial or critical comment that should be attributed to someone other than the album creators.
- This sentence is awkward: "For this fact the album is often considered not a real group effort, but more producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman's project." I recommend "For this fact, the album is often considered less a real group effort and more a project of producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman."
- "The album received some critical acclaim but no commercial success" Awkward; you wouldn't say that an album "received...commercial success".
- "cease the contract" is odd; recommend recasting as "end their contract" or similar.
- Why is Imaginos Tour in single quotes?
- "material of the album" is odd; "on the album" would be standard.
I hope these comments provide some direction. I don't want to provide a lot of micro-level comments about the prose until it is more polished. I would be happy to review the prose after it is copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review. I realize that the article still needs a lot of work for grammar and phrasing, but at this stage my concern was for it to be understandable, complete and with the right tone. Regarding the BOC FAQ, it is cited as a reliable source both by Popoff in his book and by the Blue Oyster Cult official website [1], so I relied on some information it reported. Most reviews that I checked on the Internet have references to that FAQ, which is the only online source giving a coherent and comprehensive summary of Imaginos' storyline and production process. I'll try to differentiate the sourcing and find more reliable ones, leaving the FAQ only as a source for the opinions expressed by the fans. I'll treasure your comments and I'd like to contact you again when the article will be in better shape for a GA attempt, if you will have patience and time to spend on it. Lewismaster (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Charles Inglis (engineer)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I feel this article would benefit from a peer review. I would like to take this to FAC eventually, if peer reviewers think it likely to be suitable, (Engineering is heavily under-represented there and this would be the first FA about a civil engineer) but my last FA was three years ago so I am a bit rusty. In particular a check on the prose would be helpful as my previous FAs have been picked up for this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- A few things, not a full review by any means:
- The automated peer reviewer found some things that should be checked on:
- It says the article is short for a FA, and I have to agree.
The article is not consistent between British and American spellings.It seems to be mistaken.- Checklinks, if one turns on reporting of everything but good links, reports some subscription-only links and another that looks suspicious at first glance.
- For a check on the prose, I advise listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ or WP:GOCE/FA, although I can try to do some copyediting myself; are you worried about errors (I can help on that), style (I can try, but no guarantees), or what?
- An additional thing - the references are not currently in any consistent format; I suggest putting them all into {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. formats. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Allens. Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree with you that an FAC is a while away yet (I would like to improve the depth of coverage first) but if you could take a quick look over the prose style (in particular I know I tend towards a lot of "in 1919..." sentences) or any grammatical mistakes that'd be fantastic. With regard to the refs, I don't think I can replace many of the subscription only ones, but what was the one you thought suspicious? I'll try to take a look at the references when I get a moment- Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quite welcome. I've started doing a copy-edit of it (first pass done, will go over again). I've marked the suspicious one (which, upon examination, is now an essentially dead link) with {{dead link}} (it's for his honorary degree). I understand about not being able to replace the two subscription-only ones; I'd just make sure they are marked with {{subscription required}}. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quite welcome. I've started doing a copy-edit of it (first pass done, will go over again). I've marked the suspicious one (which, upon examination, is now an essentially dead link) with {{dead link}} (it's for his honorary degree). I understand about not being able to replace the two subscription-only ones; I'd just make sure they are marked with {{subscription required}}. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hill & Adamson
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm still pretty new at creating articles, and I want to see if I've covered all the bases (Notes/References, infobox, authority control, talk page, etc.)
Thanks, Scewing (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The article looks to be in a fairly early stage of development at present. The peer review process is really meant for articles that are rather futher along the line than this one is: "...intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." However, I can offer a few suggestions as to how to improve it.
- The lead should be a concise summary of all the main features of the article – an encapsulation of the whole. Everything of significance in the article needs to be touched on, however briefly, in the lead; for this reason it is best to write this last, when the main text is complete.
- I assume that the studio name was "Hill & Adamson" though this needs to be specifically stated. You need to avoid the ampersand when you are writing about them as individuals rather than as the partnership.
- We need more introductory material. Give us background information about Hill and Adamson, their dates of birth say, and a summary of their activities before they met. Don't require your readers to use links to find this information. The whole article could do with some expansion; it runs to less than 600 words at present. A single quotation from a web page cannot be considered to represent an adequate "Historical perspective".
- Remember that you are writing a neutral encyclopedia article, not a piece of magazine journalism or promotional literature. Some of your phrasing is definitely not neutral, e.g. Adamson's "considerable sensitivity and dexterity"; "their amazing photographic works"; "extremely" successful – are examples of what I mean. Even "untimely death" carries an emotional whiff and would be better as "early death"
- Informal expressions such as "the great and the good" are fine in magazines, but strike the wrong note here.
- Web pages are written (and hopefully, read). They do not write, however.
- Note 2. looks artificially attenuated
- The checking tool reveals that there is one disambiguation link: (creel)
- I noticed the odd MOS violation, for example use of a hyphen rather than a dash within the text.
I hope these points will help you to develop the article further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sheriff Hill
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
This article has been PRed twice previously: once prior to GAN and once afterwards; and I hope that the issues raised in both have been dealt with. The article is a GA but I'd like, now I have some time free from work, to see if I can get this (finally) to FA but the last PR was last summer so I'd appreciate a fresh look so any issues can be ironed out prior to FAC. Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Did the settlement have men with a Pals battalion in World War I? Was it severely affected by losses? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I am told anecdotally by elderly residents that there was one (and that Hodkin Park was dug up and used as an allotment during both WWI and WWII) but I have found nothing in any reliable source to confirm or deny this, so I cannot say that they did here. There is very, very little material available relating to the settlement and both World Wars I'm afraid...Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Is "City" in "City of Durham" really capitalised?
- Avoid linking common terms like "Park".
- Any news from the 2011 census?
- For FAC, most of the time the reviewers would expect to see no refs in the lead since everything should be expanded upon in the main article. Suggest you consider that.
- Our article on "tinker" leaves it a little unclear as to which meaning you're referring to here.
- Industrial Revolution is typically capitalised.
- " was the regular haunt of" is a little colloquial to me.
- " Gateshead Fell; itself a " comma, not semi-colon.
- "Sheriff's March (Sheriff Hill)" the main article is just "Sheriff's March".
- Be careful with over linking. I note Gateshead is linked section after section, is that really necessary?
- " It is as a direct result of the "Sheriff's March"..." that sentence is unreferenced yet makes a claim which could (could) be disputed.
- "Sodhouse Bank/Sheriff's Highway" first para is a single sentence, would consider merging.
- "the historic city of Durham" is that really necessary, or is just "Durham" sufficient?
- "High Fell- 2010 Local Elections" use a spaced en-dash rather than this oddly spaced hypen, and local elections are not proper nouns.
- Neither is Name, Party, Votes or Cast.
- "Durham to the north".[29] which " punctuation problem.
- "254.5 miles (409.6 km) from London." no need to link London and that's a little bit too accurate for my liking, just stick to whole miles.
- "Thomas Miles Richardson Sr." doesn't need that Sr.
- Some people seem to have an aversion to galleries, I'm not sure why, but just a note in case it comes up at FAC.
- In any case, if you have complete sentences, or more than one sentence in a caption, make sure they end in full stops.
- "Neighbouring Settlements and Villages" too many capital letters here.
- " of 5,051[45]- 53% of the population" en-dash, not a hyphen here.
- "Sheriff Hill compared" I'd add a year for that in the title.
- "A*-C" en-dash.
- "1750-1925" ditto.
- "playing a pivotal role" is there a ref for that?
- "A surviving reference to Sheriff Hill's potting heritage at 124 Sheriffs Highway." no need for a full stop.
- " two main shafts- Fanny Pit and" en-dash rather than the oddly spaced hyphen.
- " (1926-present day)" en-dash, might even need to be a spaced one, check WP:DASH.
- Don't think you need to link "supermarket".
- "Sheriff Hill Asylum. Picture courtesy of Gateshead Council public archives" needs a final full stop.
- " with barbed wire (or broken glass in places)[107] By 1903 " punctuation fail.
- "8041" for consistency within the article, I'd say 8,041.
- Same for 4111.
- "emphasized" for now, BritEng says that should be emphasised.
- "was rife- indeed" same old dash/hyphen comment.
- "Thankfully" not encyclopedic.
- "An additional ten minute break is provided for the youngest children at 2.40pm." not really the sort of trivial detail I expect to see in an encyclopaedic article.
- OFSTED quote is far too much, just say how they were graded. It's borderline copyvio in any case.
- The Upon in Newcastle upon Tyne is not capitalised.
- The "and" in Scottish & Newcastle should be an ampersand.
- "1-2 Southend Terrace" en-dash required.
- I think the bus list is overkill as well.
- "The No.28 stops at Sheriff's Highway" needs a full stop.
- " is located 2.78 miles (4.47 km) away" far too accurate.
- En-dashes for page ranges in the references.
- No need to capitalise P of para in the refs.
- Don't have bare URLs in the refs.
- Is it No or No.?
- Newcastle Evening Chronicle, for example, is a work, so should be in italics.
- Don't mix date formats in the various reference sections.
- Really, do you need ALL of those external links? I very much doubt it.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Bernard Stone
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend eventual good article.
Thanks, Hugh (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: A fair amount of work still to do
- General
- The article's structure needs rethinking. At present much of it is broken up into too many often very short sections. I am sure that many of these could be combined, if not extended by new material.
- Lead
- Too short: not a complete summary of the article, rather a collection of snippets: half the words are on trivial information
- "Alderman" needs a link
- Education
- None of the information is cited - 4 citation tags
- Chronology needs clarifying. He was 18 when he enlisted; how much of his education was completed before then? In what year did he earn his law degree?
- The information requires some dating - year of graduation, year of law doctorate
- What is a letterman? Is there a link?
- Early attempts at elected office
- "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way race in the Democratic primary for the Illinois state House of Representatives from the 8th district" - needs rephrasing, e.g. "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way Democratic primary for the 8th district Illinois state House of Representatives seat". Link "primary" for the benefit of non-US readers.
- The second paragraph needs further rewriting, so that readers can understand what was actually happening. At the moment it is all confusion: Barnes is one of 233, then one of 11 of whom 10 are trying to unseat an incumbent...etc. What's the relevance of the information about the incumbent seeking a third four-year term? Why, ultimately, was Barnes not on the ballot?
- 1973 campaign for alderman
- Three consecutive sentences begin "Stone..." Variety of expression is needed
- "including ... including" in a single sentence
- The Republican years (1987–1990)
- "...to run for recorder" → "to run for Recorder"
- Who did Vrdolyak threaten?
- Subsection title should capitalise Recorder of Deeds as this is a formal office (and for textual consistency)
- Why did Stone return to the Democratic Party? You gave detailed reasons for his leaving it.
- "Berny's Wall"
- "the most significant altercation in recent decades". Whose view is this? And "altercation" is probably not the best word to describe a long dispute
- I tried to read the details, gave up. Why is it necessary to discuss this particular incident in such extensive detail? This level of attention seems wholly disproportionate, and unbalances the article; I would have thought a single short summary paragraph would do.
- Sleeping in Council Chambers
- Is this trivial incident really worth a main section to itself?
- Campaign employees convicted of vote fraud
- Avoid contractions such as "wasn't". Encyclopedia articles should be in formal language
- As with the preceding section, there is probably too much detail in this section, and some repetition (Salone calls the sentences "a kiss" twice).
- There is more chronological confusion, particularly in the third and fourth paragraphs. When did the trial begin (we are only told when it finished).
- Committees
- Probably Stone's committee memberships should be cited somewhere
- Loss in 2011 run-off
- "Certified Public Accountant" is a profession, not a title. I'm not sure of the relevance of this description, but if you must use it I'd rephrase: "Silverstein's wife Debra Silverstein, a Certified Public Accountant..."
- Political philosophy
- One single unoriginal line does not amount to a political philosophy, and certainly doesn't justify a whole section to itself
- Personal life
- Scant content, and citation tag.
I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews at present, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any points arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack Chesbro
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I'm hoping to get a quick peer review from an editor familiar with the FA process. I'm curious to see if this article has the potential for FA status. Is there anything that seems problematic for an FA review? Anything that an FA reviewer would request that isn't currently here? How is the prose? Should I nominate this, after incorporating your suggestions, or should I be satisfied with promoting it for DYK and GA and leave it at that? Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Realistically, you may have to wait a while for a peer review. At present there are 28 articles in the backlog, some of which have been there several weeks. PR is suffering from a chronic reviewer shortage at the moment, and it is a case of being patient. It might be worth your while seeking out another editor who is active and knowledgeable in the baseball area and asking if they would be prepared to review your article. Otherwise, I'm afraid it may be a longish wait. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I will seek out WP:BASEBALL opinions on the matter, but I would like non-baseball readers to review this as well, since one of my sins is not explaining baseball terms clearly enough to the non-baseball audience. I'm in no rush to nominate this anyway, got another I'm getting close to nominating first, so I don't mind the delay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Thanks for the advice. I will seek out
- Comments by Sarastro
I think this article is currently some way from FA quality. The main issue is with prose and accessibility. There are several parts which are not easy to understand to someone like me who is not an expert on baseball. Also, the sentences are a little choppy and make the article hard to read. In addition, there seems little flow to the article and ideas and facts do not seem particularly connected or integrated into the whole. I read around half of the article without really getting an impression who this guy was or why I should be interested in him. This, and the lumpy prose, rather put me off reading the whole thing. I would suggest a few rounds of copy-editing, initially by someone familiar with baseball and maybe with FAC experience, before asking another copy-editor to have a look and then putting up for PR again. Overall, I think the subject and information make it worth trying for FA, but it needs a lot of work to reach that standard. I've left some more detailed comments on the early part of the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lead
- The lead does not adequately summarise the article (see WP:LEAD): there is no mention of his early life and barely any mention of his career.
- "His 41 wins during the 1904 season remains an MLB record for the modern era, and is viewed as unbreakable": Viewed by whom?
- Although I have a reasonable working knowledge of baseball, the second paragraph of the lead is impenetrable to me. Who usually did the electing? Why was it a mistake? If this is notable enough for the lead, it should be explained why this seems to be so controversial.
- Early life
- The paragraph should not begin "He", but "Chesbro".
- I appreciate that his name changed, but the article should be consistent throughout; Cheesborough in this section jars a little. It may also be worth explaining here that his name changed, as well as stating it later.
- It reads as if he worked at the hospital merely to play for the baseball team, which seems difficult to believe.
- Professional Career
- This section suffers from choppy, repetitive sentences with a fairly formulaic structure. ("In XXXX, he pitched for XXXX of the XXXX, until XXXX")
- There is also an overuse of "pitched". I'm particularly not sure about "He pitched the remainder of the 1896 season" (maybe "For the remainder of the season, he pitched")
- "Chesbro began his professional career in minor league baseball in 1895. That year, he pitched for the Albany Senators of the New York State League until they folded, at which point he joined the Johnstown Buckskins.": Redundancy here: Why not "In 1895, Chesbro began his professional career pitching for the minor league Albany Senators of the New York State League. The team folded [in the same year? Later?], and he joined the Johnstown Buckskins."
- "However, Hanlon took a job with the Brooklyn Superbas and the Orioles were nearly contracted, resulting in Chesbro not signing with Baltimore, as Hanlon allowed the option to lapse.": I find this impossible to understand.
- "After the season, on December 8, 1899, Chesbro was traded…" This long list of names is a very bad idea and particularly unreadable.
- "The Louisville club dissolved that offseason…" Which offseason? When, more precisely? Why? Why was Chesbro assigned to that particular team afterwards?
- "After going 15–13 for the 1900 Pirates": Jargon.
- "the upstart American League": Upstart?
- "to join the AL..": Doubled periods. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. This will be helpful in improving the article, whether or not I nominate it for FA. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. This will be helpful in improving the article, whether or not I nominate it for FA. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Rodney Atkins
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to get another country music GA under my belt and I think I've got something here. The article as it is seems pretty comprehensive to me, but I'd like some more feed back before I send it to GAN. Does anything need improvement?
Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Sarastro
Overall, this looks like it would comfortably meet the GA criteria. My only real issue is that part of the article are a little listy, and merely give all his single releases and their chart position. But while it makes parts a bit lumpy, it is not a huge issue. I confess to never having heard of this person, and my knowledge of country music is non-existent, but everything seemed fairly clear to me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Should it be "number one" rather than "number 1"? I prefer the former but I'm not sure if there are MOS exceptions for chart listings.
- Either is acceptable, as long as the article uses only one or the other.
- Second paragraph of the lead reads a little like a list of number 1 singles, and is a little too list-y for me.
- I don't think the lead adequately summarises the whole article: there is no mention of his pre-2003 career and nothing on personal life or awards.
- It does mention the pre-2003 career.
- "His biological mother, who was 19 at the time, gave birth to him after a "traumatic first date"." Slightly misleading here: it suggests that she gave birth after the date! The source states she became pregnant after a difficult first date.
- "His first adoptive parents, Charles Hutchins and Linda Weems, put him up for adoption after he developed a major respiratory infection.": Repetition of adoption; also, were they foster or adoptive parents as it seems unusual for adoptive parents to give someone up after they become ill. Even more so for this to happen twice.
- As couple is plural, should it not be "couple who inquired about him were…"?
- "After Margaret Atkins recovered, she called Hutchins a second time": Why would she call his first adoptive parents who, according to the article, had already returned him by this stage?
- I'll have to check the Guideposts article again, but at the moment I forgot where I put it.
- "During his youth, the Atkinses moved frequently": "the Atkins family" may be better here.
- "He signed with Curb Records in 1996, the same week that LeAnn Rimes did." Is Rimes relevant to his career? If not, why mention her?
- "Its b-side": I always assumed B-side was capitalised on every mention.
- "He had also planned to release a self-titled debut album on September 17 of the same year, but it was never released.": Why? Also, although I know what it means, "self-titled debut album" here comes across as a little vague. I think "debut album" would be sufficient here.
- Explained later where he says he was dissatisfied with the album.
- "Hewitt also changed Atkins' style from a cowboy appearance and a vocal style similar to Roy Orbison to a more polished appearance." Repetition of appearance, and this does seem a little vague and woolly here!
- "In the meantime, Atkins, Hewitt and Max T. Barnes wrote the track "Don't Think I Won't" on Mark Wills' 1998 album Wish You Were Here." Are either the singer or song significant (please pardon my ignorance!)? If so, how did they perform? The inclusion of the fact suggests it must have done well.
- Because it shows that he was doing other things before his first album got out.
- Should "followup" be hyphenated?
- The second paragraph of "If You're Going Through Hell" is a little dense and list-y. But not a huge issue.
- General: as the chart references all seem to refer to country charts, are there any releases where it is worth mentioning placement in the general music charts? If it is not worth it, no problem.
- All of his Top 10 hits made the Hot 100, which is ironclad standard for country top 10 hits — should I mention at least the ones that placed in Top 40?
- I don't watch peer reviews, so please leave a message at my talk page if there are any problems or questions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Replies. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would recommend giving the ones in the Top 40. As I said earlier, I think this is comfortably a GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would recommend giving the ones in the Top 40. As I said earlier, I think this is comfortably a GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wonderlic Test
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my class PSYSC 373 Industrial & Organizational Psychology. We are currently trying to update Wikipedia articles that deal with I-O Psychology for a project. My team is responsible for the Wonderlic Test article, which had previously on mentioned its use in the NFL. We are wanting people to be aware that the Wonderlic Personnel Test had its roots in I-O Psychology and that other professions use the test in order to screen potential employees. We are asking that the editors review are article and provide feedback on how to improve the article
Thank you for your time and consideration, VLord89 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are several areas needing copyediting for grammar and clarity (you can try listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ, but be forewarned that it has a several-month backlog); examples include:
- "Some psychologists state that the sole use of intelligence testing for personnel selection most notably were Malcolm James Ree and James A. Earles who claimed" - this is pretty much incomprehensible.
- "developed latter and" - try "developed later and"
- "Personnel tests, are currently being used as a gauge for professional capability within the industrial field. Dealing with the assessment of employees or potential applicants the Wonderlic Test has its primary function within the NFL industry, while there are numerous personnel test such as the IQ or the Mechanical Aptitude Test, the Wonderlic Test is a quick and simple vocational Test for personnel recruitment and selection" - multiple grammatical, etc errors.
- "The tests are divided into four different sections cognitive, skill, personality, and behavioral. Serving as a quantitative and a qualitative test for employers, scores are collected by the employers and are often judged according to their score. Each industry has its own unique average therefore, different standards are required. The scores are predictors of the possible conformity a potential employee has within the field that they are applying" - needs a citation (in general, you need a citation at least for each paragraph, and others wherever something is controversial or using material from a source other than the general one for the paragraph); also needs grammar cleanup.
- Other difficulties:
- "general cognitive ability in the areas of math, vocabulary, and reasoning" - it doesn't make sense to be discussing areas for general cognitive ability.
- "In the 1970s Tom Landry, former coach of the Dallas Cowboys, was the first to use the Wonderlic Personnel Test to predict player performance" - was he the former coach at the time?
- "to say the least" is probably not appropriate in tone; ditto "and the like"
- "One person in particular, Robert Sternberg and Richard K. Wagner" - I doubt these two names are for one person
- "While an average football player usually scores around 20 points" - "while" is an awfully weird way to link the two sentences; try deleting it and putting in a semicolon."
- You've got various in-text outside links; those should be replaced with <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> - see {{cite web}} for some further info.
- That the US supreme court has ruled against the use of general IQ tests without evidence for each test being valid for the particular job should be brought up (it's a power company vs an employee, I forget the exact case; it was ruled out on the grounds of affirmative action).
- Instead of two {{Main}} uses, try {{Main|article1|article2}}.
- Allens (talk | contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Common Eland
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after fixing the many problems this article had, I wish to know whether any more improvements need to be made. Please ass your opinions if they are helpful.
Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – umm, no offense intended, but the article could really use a thorough copy edit and polishing up. You might ask around to see if somebody will do that for you. There are also some issues with insufficiently developed references. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- "Common Eland" and "southern eland" in the lead sentence, be consistent with capitalisation.
- "largest[2] and slowest [3] in the world." watch ref placement. Preferably after punctuation and definitely not after a space, so I'd recommend "largest and slowest in the world.[2][3]"
- Avoid linking very common terms like "grass" and "foliage".
- "These terrestrial animals " um, do you really mean "territorial"? "terrestrial" means they come from Earth which is probably a given.
- "These terrestrial animals form large herds of individuals, usually ranging from 25 to 70." not great, I would say "These territorial animals form large herds of individuals ranging from 25 to 75 in number."
- More unnecessary common term linkage with things like "milk" and "leather".
- " but its population trend is decreasing." I don't think the "trend" is decreasing, do you mean the actual population itself is decreasing? Or do you mean that its rate of population increase is decreasing?
- Online references need publisher information, publication dates, author information etc wherever available.
- "focusing at the tuft " not sure I know what that means.
- "and Greek(generally orygos" space missing.
- "which focuses at the pointed horns " again, not clear to me what this means.
- "When Dutch settlers " and "In Dutch", both link "Dutch" but to different articles, not recommended.
- "color . Males " remove the space before the full stop.
- "as 25 years . When " ditto.
In general there needs to be a lot of copyediting here for this to be ready for GA, so I'd suggest a request over at
]Heather Chasen
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because from this peer review I am hoping to be able to cleanup the article to a high standard, aswell as being able to further nominate for FA. I would also like to confirm whether the article is at the standard I think it is. Thanks,
Comments
- Lead could be a bit longer, maybe two paras.
- What precisely cites her birth date?
- Don't link common terms link England.
- Don't over link terms like soap opera.
- " She was in the..." "was in" reads clumsily to me, appeared in?
- "(who had pulled out of the role for personal reasons)" not really necessary in the lead.
- Explain what RADA means before you just use the abbreviation.
- Regents Park is actually Regent's Park.
- "Chasen had a relationship with Amanda Barrie although has never spoken about this" if you believe this to be true and cites back it up then consider LGBT cats.
- No need to link London.
- " received nice fan mail" reads a little weakly to me.
- "and Norman Simmonds " ->" and Norman Simmonds'"
- " for the 14th June episode" remove "th" from 14th.
- "other TV programmes" -> television
- Z Cars is Z-Cars.
- What is "the BAC"?
- "was nominated for the Tony Award " when?
- 1 Episode -> 1 episode (etc)
- Make sure data tables comply with MOS:DTTfor col and row scopes to enable screen readers to make the most of these lists.
- 1959–77 vs 1966–1968 be consistent with date range formats.
- Ref 19, what does " 32. 30-5 August 2011." mean?
- Is it BBC or BBC?
- Ref 5- "Retrieved 25June 2011." space needed.
- Ref 5- it's The Daily Telegraph.
Done all — M.Mario (T/C) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
James Burbage
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently undergone extensive editing. The additions are substantial, and the topic important enough to warrant a review.
Thanks, Redcknight (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Not sure if you're heading to GA or similar shortly but these comments are based on that assumption.
- Check WP:DASH, I see a lot of hyphens being used incorrectly.
- Three links to dabpages, The Rose, The Swan and The Globe, need to be fixed.
- The Globe Theater -> please, it's a theatre.!!
- Lead is very short.
- Who said the quote about his "life"?
- Don't overlink (e.g. "joiner" is over linked quickly).
- "in manor" -> "in manner".
- "depicted James as more motivated" -> depicted Burbage.
- "March 25, 1576. [9] " remove space before ref.
- As a British English article, dates should be dmy.
- The Gurr reference needs an en-dash per my second comment.
- Don't think you can use 1531 births as a ref as you don't know it's true. Is there a 1530s birth category?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Lanny McDonald
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been a while since I've taken a hockey player bio to FA, and Lanny seems the best choice as one of the more popular players in league history. I have all the usual requests, prose quality and thoughts on what a reader unfamiliar with the subject may be expecting but doesn't see. Appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks, Resolute 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Sarastro
- Lead
- "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989": Presumably his team won it, not him personally?
- "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989, captaining the Flames to the championship in his final season": Forgive my sketchy knowledge, but would he have achieved the championship before the cup? If so, maybe reword slightly to show this.
- The Cup is what the players won by winning the championship, and the words are so closely related in the context of the NHL that they are virtually synonyms. I have reworded to try and address both above comments, hwoever.
- "among the most popular players in Flames history": Unless I missed it (which is possible), I don't think this is in the main article.
- I implied it in the personal life section, but you are right, I didn't explain it well overall. Will rectify that.
- "well known throughout the league for his bushy red moustache and support of the Special Olympics": Should it be "well-known". Also, his moustache seems an odd item to go in the lead! While I agree that it is worth a mention, I'm not sure I would have it in the same sentence as his popularity and support of the Special Olympics; the three things do not seem to go together.
- I think for most individuals, a thing such as their moustache would not be that important, no. But in McDonald's case, it is one of the things that has made him an iconic figure in the sport. I have clarified that. Also, joined the note on the Special Olympics to his humanitarian/leadership awards, as it fits better there.
- "He represented Team Canada": Would it be better to make this more accessible and say "at international level [or similar wording] for Canada", as not everyone may realise what this means?
- Reworded.
- "The Flames retired his number 9 in 1990.": Phrasing a little odd: maybe just "The Flames retired his number in 1990", as I'm not sure his actual playing number is essential for the lead. If it is, maybe "Known for his number 9 shirt [? Phrasing of hockey is NOT one of my strengths!], the Flames retired…"
- Most of our FA/GA bios include the actual number in the lead. I've reworded slightly to note that it was his uniform number, but will see if anyone else has further feedback before removing the actual digit.
- Early life
- "McDonald credits his father for teaching him the value of honesty and hard work.": I'm not completely persuaded that this is important enough to include. However, if he was known for his honesty… Hmmm….
- I'll leave it in for now, but am open to removal if others feel it does not benefit the article.
- "He served as a stick boy": I think this needs a little expansion. What would this involve?
- Clarified, hopefully
- "He began playing organized hockey at the age of six, following his brother.": Into a specific team, or just copying his path?
- Reworded to avoid. Realized I pretty much mentioned twice that both Lanny and Lynn played hockey.
- "Despite both having full time commitments, their parents drove them both to Hanna": Both…both.
- Fixed
- "McDonald recounted that half of his time…": Using "recounted" leaves the question hanging: recounted to who? Maybe "recalled" avoids this?
- Fixed
- "He completed his high school diploma while playing in Lethbridge, choosing to remain with his junior A team in 1970–71 rather than join the Medicine Hat Tigers of the Western Canada Hockey League so that he could complete his diploma": Diploma…diploma
- Fixed
- All of the above should be now addressed.
- "He was named to the AJHL's Second All-Star team": This one always confuses me a little; is it kind of the "second-best" team?
- In essence, yes. The first team would usually be those voted as the best at each position, and the second team would be those voted as second best. It is obviously not something I can add to this article, but such awards tend also to be very subjective, so voters could choose to reward a player in this fashion for intangible effects, "leadership" and other things not directly related to the on-ice performance.
- Junior career
- Was this part of his career amateur? Maybe worth specifying.
- I admit, I am not sure how to add that in early without it seeming forced. The link in the above section to junior hockeyand the below note that he was selected in the amateur draft might be sufficient?
- I admit, I am not sure how to add that in early without it seeming forced. The link in the above section to
- "Additionally, McDonald appeared in six Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL) games with the Calgary Centennials." Obviously this is a step-up. For lazy readers like me, maybe explain the relationship between the leagues. (I'm assuming the AJHL feeds into the WCHL?)
- It can, but it doesn't have to. And in modern days, the relationship can be fairly complicated. I wouldn't presume to guess how defined these relationships were 40 years ago. You are correct that the WCHL (now WHL) is a higher level than the AJHL. I have made note that the Alberta league was then considered 'tier II' to help enhance the fact that it was step up.
- "The Medicine Hat Tigers acquired McDonald's rights": Related to my first point, were there contracts for these leagues? If not, how did such a trade work? Was it a swap, or did money change hands. Or did he just move?
- It would have been a swap of players, IIRC. I have linked to Trade (sports) to help, and will try to find a story on the actual trade itself.
- "…rather than Vancouver. Instead, he went to the Toronto Maple Leafs with the fourth overall pick.[12] Additionally, he was taken 10th overall by the Cleveland Crusaders in the 1973 WHA Amateur Draft." Hockey ignorance alert! How could he be taken by two teams? And it gets a little confusing here; he was going to the WHA instead of Vancouver, but instead went to Toronto. And Cleveland. Then signed for Toronto. Help!
- lol! Rival major leagues battling for talent. I've touched on it in other parts of the article, but will try to explain the connections a little more clearly here.
- And this amateur draft. Was it amateur players who were chosen and then signed as professionals, or were they chosen to play as amateurs?
- Junior players are considered amatuer (in most cases), and are drafted into the professional ranks. I might just pipe link it to 1973 draftto avoid confusion.
- Junior players are considered amatuer (in most cases), and are drafted into the professional ranks. I might just pipe link it to
- "The deal came as a result of the battle the NHL and WHA were waging over young talent, and McDonald found that some of the older players in Toronto resented him as a result." Too many results here, and I'm not sure it's clear how this "battle" affected his signing. Could be clearer.
- Related to the WHA/Vancouver/Toronto issue above. I will clarify.
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- "scoring 37 goals and 56 assists": reads as if he scored the assists.
- Fixed
- "Playing with both a broken wrist and broken nose suffered during the series": Slightly inelegant. Maybe "His wrist and nose were both broken during the series, but he scored the overtime winning goal…"
- Changed
- Presumably they then lost their semi-final? Worth expanding as it kind of tails off.
- Correct, and clarified.
- Colorado Rockies
- "Punch Imlach was named the general manager in Toronto": Why not "Toronto general manager"?
- That works too, changed.
- "The two disagreed frequently and Cherry was fired following the season." Specify which two: McDonald and Miron or Cherry and Miron?
- Clarified
- Calgary Flames
- "league goal scoring title": "goal-scoring"?
- Reworded to eliminate that bit entirely. There actually was no award for leading the league in goals then.
- "reduced his scoring to 33 goals and 66 points": First time points are mentioned. I'm lost now! What is the difference?
- I actually have used points several times by this point. I went back and linked to point (ice hockey) on first use.
- "McDonald was the 21st player in NHL history to score 400 career goals": Maybe "McDonald became…"?
- Agreed, changed
- "It was thought he had scored the milestone goal in his previous game…": By whom? Press, player, team-mates, crowd…?
- Clarified
- "In the playoffs, McDonald was witness to one of the most infamous moments in NHL history.[53][54][55]": Without checking them, three refs seems excessive and looks a little ugly. Also, however many refs it has, infamous also suggests POV or editorial voice. (And it doesn't seem that bad)
- I use those three references on this mention specifically to try and dispel the notation that it is my POV.
- "The series ended in disappointment: He watched from the bench as a furious attempt at tying the final game fell short": Stray capital letter after colon. And the tone of this sentence is not the most encyclopaedic: "furious", "fell short". I'm also a little confused as to what the "furious attempt" was, as it is a little vague.
- Clarified and tried to clean up the tone
- Are we missing a season? It goes from 86-87 to 88-89.
- Nothing special happened that season, but I added a brief note.
- "McDonald was the sentimental favourite as the 1989 Stanley Cup playoffs began": Not sure what this means; sentimental how? And favourite in the popular or the bookmaker sense?
- Reworded entirely
- "McDonald was scratched": Not quite encyclopaedic.
- Reworded
- "who saw a streaking McDonald": Again not sure about the tone.
- I'm not sure how else to phrase "old man flies up the right wing really, really fast" ;)
- Management career
- "Vice President": "Vice-President"? (Not sure on this one)
- Common spelling in the sources does not use a hyphen
- "He chose the corporate role partly due to a fascination with the business world, and partly to remain close to his family as a role in hockey operations would have necessitated greater travel.": Role…role.
- Removed one use
- Big jump from his retirement in '89 and his VP role, to his search for a manager in 2000. Anything in between?
- Nothing major that I have come across. I will perform an additional search before a FA run.
- "While team sources claimed he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired, McDonald denied the claims": Maybe "McDonald denied claims from team sources that he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired".
- Playing style
- "He was often a healthy scratch": Lost by this one!
- Reworded. It means he was left out of the lineup for reason other than injury.
- Legacy
- "The arrival of the Flames in Calgary for the 1980–81 NHL season found a team in transition": I'm assuming that the franchise arrived in Calgary at this point. It may be worth mentioning this in the playing career section. Also, possibly "The Flames were a team in transition when they arrived in Calgary for the 1980-81 NHL season".
- The team arrived in Calgary (relocated from Atlanta) before McDonald was traded to the Flames. I am trying to set the background of what the Flames' situation was like prior to his arrival. I've reworded this to try and make it flow better.
- A few other bits here, such as the WHA battle may be usefully repeated in the earlier sections as well.
- It is touched on, but I will expand the earlier mentions
- "His efforts left a lasting impression on his teammates,[86] among them was Tiger Williams who called McDonald "a great ambassador" for the NHL.": Either replace the comma with a semi-colon, or cut "was".
- Semi-colon it is!
- Personal life
- Possibly an issue with my browser, but the text seems to be overlaying on the quote box here.
- I'm not seeing it on my browser (Firefox), but will check a few other browsers and screen configurations before a FA run.
- Career statistics
- I know hockey articles often leave this section uncited, but I really prefer a reference for statistics.
- It is effectively cited in the external links section. But I will add an entry to the general references section that specifies it supports the stats table.
- General
- Really high-quality and really enjoyable. The prose seems very good, and as a non-hockey person, there was little that I found difficult. I have listed anything I was unsure about. Very easy to read.
- I have not checked the referencing or done spot-checks.
- I do not watch peer reviews so please let me know on my talk page if you have questions or comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your review and compliments are very much appreciated! I'm glad you found the article informative, especially coming from a non-hockey background. I'm always concerned about ease of understanding for unfamiliar readers, so this is quite beneficial. Thanks again, Resolute 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your review and compliments are very much appreciated! I'm glad you found the article informative, especially coming from a non-hockey background. I'm always concerned about ease of understanding for unfamiliar readers, so this is quite beneficial. Thanks again, Resolute 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ranch to Market Road 187
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for a peer review because I wish to nominate it as a featured article, and wish for it to pass on the first or second try.
Thanks,
Comments
- It's short. Very short. You may struggle, despite quality, to get this to fly at FAC. But good luck!
- "Ranch to Market Road " is really just "farm-to-market road" (i.e. without all the capital letters).
- "and made an appearance" no, too active, it "appeared in" but didn't "make an appearance".
- " longest Ranch to Market Road in " per above.
- " line on June 11, 1945. Just 14 days later, on June 25, 1945," don't think you need to give us two clues about the second date.
- Solve the [not in citation given] tag.
- Make sure the table complies with MOS:DTTfor row and col scopes.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the Texas Department of Transportation maintains a Farm to Market Road System and a related Ranch to Market Road System, so in this case, they are proper nouns. For the other states in the US, I agree though that it would be a common noun. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Rihanna videography
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… when I removed the direct from
Thanks, —
- Comments from What a pro.
- was disco and dance inspired[2] as its lyrical theme Uh, what?
- I don't understand your point here. What I wanted to say is the themes of both the song and the video are dance and disco themed. — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Oh, then change "as" to "like". Alternatively, put "as" after "was".
Done—
(talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)]
- I don't understand your point here. What I wanted to say is the themes of both the song and the video are dance and disco themed. —
- in a dangerous love triangle struggled between her lover and husband. Remove "struggled", and replace "between" with "with".
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- In 2006, Rihanna also starred No need for the "also".
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- For the new album, Rihanna presented completely new image and style.[8] Perhaps "For the album, Rihanna completely changed her image and style."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- scenes of Rihanna naked; only covered in silver paint.' I don't think a semicolon is correct here.
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Seven more singles were released from the album The Good Girl Gone Bad article says there are only seven singles, so remove the "more".
- "(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- "
- ; all directed by Mandler. --> "; all of them were directed by Mandler."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Rihanna flew to Europe, to shot --> "to shoot"
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- ideo for "Run This Town"— a collaboration Remove the space after the em-dash.
- I did it right ? — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Yeah.
- I did it right ? —
- Jesse Williams made cameo appearance --> "made a cameo"
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- In all of them are featured various dance sequences.[32] ––> "All of them feature various dance sequences."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- shows Rihanna naked - only covered in silver paint. Replace the hyphen with an em-dash.
- I hope I did it right. — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Yup.
- I hope I did it right. —
- photography-based, late-1970s/ early-1980s situation.––> "late-1970s or early-1980s situation."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Is there really nothing on the "Live Your Life" video?
- No, there is. I will add. — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- No, there is. I will add. —
- post-apocalyptic inspired video, shot in No need for the comma.
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- makes cameo appearance. ––> "makes a cameo appearance."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- while wearing a stylized military costumes. ––> "while wearing stylized military costumes."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- makes references to some artist ––> "to some artists"
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Laetitia Casta makes cameo appearance ––> "makes a cameo appearance"
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Other notable scene' ––> "Other notable scenes"
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- David Guetta makes cameo appearance. ––> "David Guetta makes a cameo appearance."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- designed 18 feet long bed ––> "designed an 18 foot long bed" Also, consider putting a metric unit for that.
- Could you help me with the metric unit. — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Put this: {{convert|18|ft|m}}.
Done—
(talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Put this: {{convert|18|ft|m}}.
- Could you help me with the metric unit. —
- The video is footage of Rihanna's lifetime that she had during her 2011 Loud Tour. Remove "'s lifetime that she had".
- I don't understand what should I do :S — (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Just make it "The video is footage of Rihanna during her 2011 Loud Tour.
- Re-worded. — (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Re-worded. —
- I don't understand what should I do :S —
- It contains reference to the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange.[82] ––> "It contains a references to the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange."
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Merge the two cells that say "Akiva Schaffer".
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Also merge the two cells that say "The Lonely Island" in the same table.
Done—
(talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)]
- The skit was also shot for Saturday Night Live. Unlink Saturday Night Live.
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Add a note in the "Commercials" table saying what "—" stands for.
- I think this is better. What do you think?— (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- I think this is better. What do you think?—
- Sure.
- Rihanna's track, "Skin" Dablink!
Done—
(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate this help. — (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]
- You're welcome! Oh, and I changed your {{done}} templates to {{done-t}} templates because uh, that's what it says in the "How to respond to a request" section above. on fire. 02:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)]
- You're welcome! Oh, and I changed your {{done}} templates to {{done-t}} templates because uh, that's what it says in the "How to respond to a request" section above.
Algoman orogeny
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be near GA status and could benefit from a review before submitting it as a candidate.
Below I transcribe some comments by Chris.urs-o (talk) from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Algoman_orogeny.2C_a_Good_Article_prospect:
- I changed User:Bettymnz4's Great Lakes tectonic zone to Mid importance. I personally think that the Great Lakes tectonic zone, the San Andreas Fault, the Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone are the most important geologic features in the USA. The
Yellowstone hotspotand the New Madrid Seismic Zone aren't part of the WP Geology. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC) - Rationale
- The USA could be described as: Yellowstone hotspot track, North American craton's motion in or near the Basin and Range Province, the Jemez Lineament has a SW-NE orientation too.
- The USA could be described as: Yellowstone hotspot track,
Thanks, RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Noleander
- " it is known as the Kenoran orogeny in Canada." - reads very clunky. Suggest re-word first sentence: "The Algoman orogeny (also known as K.O.) was a mountain building episode .."
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no See Also section: are there any similar articles that readers may want to know about?
Done A comprehensive article doesn't necessarily need a See Also section, but I found one link that seems relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Continents were much smaller than today; they were a series of granitic nuclei a few kilometers across" - When? Also, this sounds like all continents in the world were only a few km across ... that cannot be right.
Done That detail seems dubious; I have removed some of this and replaced it by introductory material earlier in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Red links: "Wabigoon subprovince" etc. See WP:RED: if it is unlikely that WP will ever have an article on these subprovinces, then remove the links.]
Done - I unlinked them; they don't seem likely to have separate articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- "protocontinents" - Im not a geologist, but it seems odd that such a fundamental term is red-linked. Can another term be used? Does WP have an article on it by another name? Do the sources use that term? Why has no editor yet created the article?
Done - I think "protocontinent" is an informal term, and I have replaced it by "terrane". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Basalts became greenstones." - That may be a legal sentence, but it doesnt read well. Re-phrase.
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Section name: "Age, names and location" - Is there a more pithy phrase available? "Identification", or "Overview" or "Characteristics"?
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sidebar image: The image of the upper-right sidebar is obviously useful, but it is rather large, and seems to crowd the top of the article. I'd recommend moving it down into the body of the article, and putting a smaller image (or nothing) at the top. The sidebar contain a terse overview of the article's topic ... not too much detail.
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Standard sidebar? - On a related note, the article Canadian Shield has a nice sidebar: can that format be used in this article? It is {{Infobox rockunit}} ✗ Not done - that template is for rock units and this article is about a tectonic event. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Provinces? - The hierarchical breakdown of the region into provinces is not clear. I gather from the table of contents that the thing is divided into three provinces (Sup, Slave, Nain). That should be explained and made clear in the prose _before_ the first (Superior Province) section on a particular province.
Done - This is done in the lead and the overview. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lead: it says the AO is a "mountain-building episode" ... but the text reads as if the AO is a location, or a region, or a formation. I suppose it could be both an event (in the past) as the present physical manifestation of that event ... but that duality should be made clear in the lead. ✗ Not done - I don't see any text where the AO could be interpreted as anything but an event. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Photos? - the maps & diagrams are great, but are there any photos of actual rocks/formations available?
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Caption: "This is an illustration of how the Minnesota ..." - no need to tell the reader they are looking at a picture. Just start the caption with "The Minnesota River ..."
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Terminology - The article assumes that the reader is familiar with geological terms, and uses some rather specialized words without explanation. WP articles on scientific topics are not required to be tutorials, and are not required to define everything. But this article is a bit intimidating to the layman. Top priority is providing blue links to other articles so the reader can educate themself; but you may want to consider adding some more layman-friendly material, especially at the start of each section.
Done - I have defined a lot of the terms, added several links and put more introductory material in. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Links - "cratons" is not linked .. double check all technical terms & make sure the first occurrence is linked.
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Grammar - "During the Late Archean time ... was the mountain-building episode known" - Doesnt read well. Try "During the Late Archean time a mountain-building episode, known as ..., ". Also, "time" seems colloquial ... shouldn't that be "eon"?
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Degrees: " 90°" -
Check theWP:MOS to make sure that is okay, vs. spelling out "degrees". - I checked an the symbol is okay.]Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Clarify: "Most greenstone belts, with all of their ..." - It this talking about the belts in the AO? or all belts in the world? ✗ Not done - Everything in this section is about the Algomen orogeny, so I don't think that should be necessary to clarify it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Also about 2,700 million years ago ..." - that is a few paragaphs after the other "2,700 ago" ... so the "also" may confuse the reader, or make them pause to look up. Consider eliminating the "also", or reword to specifically refer back to the other contemporaneous event.
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Link needed: "Voyageurs National Park" - review all similar terms & phrases and make sure the article links them.
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Map comparison: the map File:World geologic provinces.jpg shows "orogen" zones in the world but the region of the AO is not indicated on the map as an orogen .. am I reading the map wrong? or is the AO too small to show on the map?
Done - this map paints with a broad brush. Most of the orogens marked still have mountains. A lot has happened in the Canadian shield since the Algomen orogeny, so it is classified as "shield". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- GA status: I think the article is close to GA status. It has great sources, nice diagrams, appears to be complete, and uses decent prose. I think, after addressing the items above, you can take it to GAN with confidence.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent comments, Noleander. I have not quite addressed all of them, but I think I'm close enough to nominate the article for GA. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Rockstar (2011 film)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has a good look and feel with all the relevant information that a film article should have. I want the article to be peer reviewed to get further inputs on improving the quality of the article article and going for a GAN.
Thanks, -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
Avoid linking common terms like countries and languages, perWP:OVERLINK.Done
I don't think so. Europe, Italy and quite a few are still linked.
Cast section does not require sourcesDone
"As Ranbir and Kareena happened to be cousins, this would have been a problem." - Sounds like POV. "Was touted as a problem" would be better.Done
Apply italics to "Rockstar" all over the article.Done
"Nargis Fakhri" is linked more than once in the "Production" section.Done
No, its once in a section, not in a sub-section.
"Kashmiri Pandit" linked more than once in the same.Done
Same as above. Its not been done yet.
"Rockstar is a musical journey" - If it is quoted, add quotes, or re-write it neutrally.Done
Remove the "see also" section (unnecessary): Have retained it, but only linking appropriate articles. --Secret of success (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)]- Further comments
More issues:
Secret of success (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)]Why are half the dates italicized in the refs?Done
- Corrected. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Fix the mdy, dmy and ymd to a consistent format in refs. Based on a brief look, I see dmy being the common one, and I suggest the other two be converted to this.Done
The plot summary in the lead does not seem to be adequately boil down the entire plot. Some irrelevant details like the canteen owner should be removed, and other missing relevant ones added.Done
Mention a sentence about the controversies in the lead.Done
Instead of putting up the awards for the individual category, just mention the ceremonies in the lead. In that way, all can be covered.Done
Questionable reliability : 25, 56, 59.Done
- Removed a source, as it was replaceable by an existing source. Replaced another source with NDTV one. This source is very difficult to be replaced -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Saadda Haq, Rockstar.jpg does not have a proper rationale. Its replaceability parameter needs to be justified, its resolution must be reduced and its purpose needs to be elaborated to make it satisfyWP:NFCC.Done
- Even i had taught that it may bring up some issue, hence i have removed it now and added it to the song article. Will add some other screenshot in the polt section later, fine? --
- Even i had taught that it may bring up some issue, hence i have removed it now and added it to the song article. Will add some other screenshot in the polt section later, fine? --
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my class at Ball State University has been working hard to improve it but we feel that we need more advice from other Wikipedia editors.
Thanks, (Amgardner13 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC))
Comments not an expert on the subject matter but some technical guidance.
- I don't think you should capitalise "Situational Judgement Test" in the opening sentence of the lead, it's not a proper noun. Same for "Inventories".
- "Test tend to test " repetitive use of "test", not great prose.
- "organization. [4]" avoid spaces between references and punctuation.
- "to personality. [5]" see above.
- "The situational judgement test have " grammar.
- "came about by Bruce and Learner" what does that mean? They wrote it? They discovered it? Clarify this.
- See WP:HEADabout section headings and avoid capitalising nouns that don't need to be capitalised.
- "A Thesis Submitted to " -> "A thesis submitted..."
- The examples are too much. You should just summarise what an example would be rather than copy/paste the whole question/answer for two of them.
- The Sample tests section, you should try to format links to external sites consistently and preferably using one of the many {{citation}} templates.
- Also, this list should be bullet-pointed.
- References, please re-use them where appropriate using
ref name=
(like ref 1). You currently have the same ref being used in 3, 4, 5 and 14, also in 6 & 7, also in 8 through 13. - Format ref 8 etc correctly so the accessdate is shown properly.
- Use WP:DASHi.e. replace hyphens with en-dash in the page ranges in the references.
- See also section should come before references.
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Brothers Grimm • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I substantially rewrote in a short period it for the Core contest. Eventually I'd like to submit to FAC, but would appreciate another set of eyes first.
Thanks,
]- Yomangani's comments
Bit busy, so this won't be comprehensive and will probably jump about randomly:
- It needs a copyedit: there's partial rephrasing ("and rewrote with the intent of having the stories an accurate reflection of German culture", "causing some of the more grim details have been sanitized", "the 1937 release of Walt Disney's version of "Snow White" as a color animated feature film in the production Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"), lack of variation in the vocabulary ("...often published in English as "Grimms' Fairy Tales"), was published in 1812", "with their tales Charles Perrault's tales", "illustrators. Successful 19th century children's book illustrators ... illustrated", the whole paragraphs on spinning and collecting the legends) and some awkward exposition (In the 20th century educators debated...).
- Rackham and Dulac are 20th-century illustrators (with regard to Grimms' Fairy Tales at least)
- The "Reception and legacy" section is a little confused. "In Japan, like in the US, the tales have spawned two theme parks" Really? Are these some Grimm World parks that I haven't heard of? Disney's Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella also probably owe more to Perrault than the Grimms. "Other stories, however, have been considered too gruesome and have not made a popular transition....Regardless of the debate, the Grimms' stories have continued to be resilient and popular around the world" Make up your mind.
- I'm sure this should be at "The Brothers Grimm" rather than "Brothers Grimm" despite Wikipedia's revulsion for articles (of the definite/indefinite type)
- "Little Red Riding Hood", shown here in an illustration by Arthur Rackham, became identified as a uniquely German tale. The Grimms' version might have become so in Germany, but it isn't quite as general as implied here.
More later, if I get time. Yomanganitalk 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Yomangani for taking the time. I lost perspective and needed another set of eyes - good points your raise. I'll need a few days to get to these.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about a piece of property that has held some wild and fantastic homes, and is now owned by the Hearst Corporation. The article made GA last fall and has rested quietly since then. I would like to advance it to FAC but I could use some objectivity. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Cryptic C62
"Famous architects..." avoidWP:PEACOCKterms. "Humble", which appears later, should also be avoided."sited at two sharp bends in the river" Which river?The lead needs to give some sort of time frame. How long has Wyntoon been established as such?- Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those that appear in the first main section. These should be merged, expanded, or deleted.
- "He advocated for a railroad line to be extended northward from Redding to his location, and was successful." It is not clear from this sentence that follows it to whom Sisson was advocating. State government? Congress? A railroad company?
"and Sisson bought 120 acres (49 ha) in its path, the area of his inn" This phrasing suggests that he bought the land on which his inn was already situated, which doesn't make much sense..."he built a fishing resort a half-day's ride away on the McCloud River" It should be kept in mind that articles are to be written for the modern audience, not for 1800s readers. What is a half-day's ride?"It became known as "Sisson's-on-the-McCloud"—popular with hunters and fishermen." This is an unusual construction, and one which would be better suited for a folksy novel than an encyclopedia article. I suggest replacing the emdash with "and was" or something similar.- How is "Wyntoon" pronounced?
- Compare "Justin Hinckley Sisson came to the area and established a hotel" with "He established the town of Sisson surrounding his inn". Are the hotel and the inn the same structure? Varying the language can be helpful, but I think in this case it's a little confusing. Assuming they are the same structure, it should be consistently referred to by the same word.
- "The railroad was completed in 1887 and brought miners, hunters, fishermen, loggers, naturalists and tourists." Brought them where?
- "The multi-wing lodge, dramatic with its stone walls and slate roof" The characterization of the lodge as "dramatic" is not a fact, it is the opinion of one author. This distinction should be made clear in the article, or else the description should be rewritten to something more objective.
- "and included an 800-book library with room for hundreds of Native American baskets." Should there be an "a" between "with" and "room"? It seems silly to describe a library by how many baskets can fit inside. Shea Stadium could probably fit thousands of Native American baskets inside, but that's not really relevant, is it?
- "Polk's design was pictured in July 1899 in The American Architect and Building News which described it as a "California Mountain Home"." Lots of problems here. First off, citation definitely needed. Second, "pictured" should probably be "featured". Third, does the "California Mountain Home" really clarify anything here? It's a home that was built by a mountain in California, why would they describe it as anything else?
- "The dining room enjoyed a three-sided view" No it didn't. Dining rooms aren't people. Even if they were, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to speculate as to what emotions they would have.
- "and diners could take the air on a wraparound porch." Take the air? Are they birds?
- A general note, before I go any further: Much of the language used in this article is highly questionable. It seems to me that much effort has been made to write the prose using the same vocabulary as is present in the sources. No. Bad. Language has evolved in the past 100 years. I strongly suggest going through the entire article and updating it to a more encyclopedic tone.
More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I believe I have addressed each of these good points. Thanks for your review! Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You Are the Apple of My Eye • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to list this article at GAN. I would like another editor to have a look through this so that I can correct any problems before its nomination.
Thanks, Lionratz (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- " he self-directed " not sure you need "self-" here. (done)
- "was completely filmed in " -> "was filmed entirely in" (done)
- "lyrics of this film's main " "the" film, not "this" film. (done)
- "... by Giddens himself.[7] Those Years was well-received ..." merge with "himself,[7] and was..."(done)
- "for his role in this film" the instead of this again.(done)
- "claims has no interest " -> "claims he has no interest"(done)
- "the class teacher changes Ching-teng's seat" more "moves where he sits" rather than "changes his seat".(done)
- "he did not bring the textbook" "did not bring his own textbook".(done)
- "moved by his behavior, prepares a practice paper for Ching-teng" I think it would read better as "moved by Ching-teng's behavior, prepares a practice paper for him."(done)
- "Since then, .." "From then on,"(done)
- "not even once" unnecessary if you have "never".(done)
- "manages to enroll at " just "enrolls at".(done)
- "doesn't do well during " avoid contractions.(done)
- "first unofficial date." what makes it unofficial and why is date in italics? (It is noted in the film that this date is "unofficial". Deleted the italics)
- "which upsets Ching-teng and " upsets "him".(done)
- "manages to regain contact " just "regains contact".
- "Japanese AV porn jokes " expand "AV porn" (done)
- Avoid that floating reference in the cast section ([13]).(done)
- "is hyped as the director by the fawning Taiwanese " scathing and opinionated. (done)
- "to produce this film" _the_ film.(done)
- "money for this film" same again.(done)
- "Mypaper" -> My Paper.(The spelling is the original spelling of the paper's name)
- Filming section, use italics for film title.(done)
- "the 3rd highest " -> third.(done)
- Check references for double periods ".."
- Check references for MOS compliance, avoid SHOUTING in titles.
- You don't need "Taiwanese films" as a cat since you have the more refined "Taiwanese romance films". (This category is added by a template, and I dont know how to remove this)
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review! In particular, thanks for alerting me about the opinionated comments. It was not done by me, and it had obviously slipped through my checks. I have added some comments above. Can you take a look?--Lionratz (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
PiPrevious peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I've listed this article for peer review because I"m planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. The reviewer should be someone familiar with the Featured Article criteria, and not afraid to nit-pick the article. The reviewer need not have special mathematical skills (many other editors have taken care of that). Thanks! Noleander (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments from RJH – Overall it looks decent, although I continue to have concerns about the multitude of formulae being presented to what is likely a non-mathematical audience. I've attached a list of comments below; please pardon my somewhat terse style.
- The lead contains the following long sentence:
- π is found in formulae related to the relatively prime, the Mandelbrot set, and Euler's identity.]
- However, for most readers this is probably just going to be a list of things they have never heard of. Is there some way to put these in a context that is more meaningful for Joe reader? For example, many of these, but not all, have ties to the geometry of space. The odd ones out are perhaps Stirling's approximation and the Riemann zeta function. [Done - Noleander]
Regards, RJH (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- π is found in formulae related to the
- Sure, that is a good idea. I'll take a stab at that. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- PS: I might collapse this discussion, so other potential reviewers don't see this and think you've volunteered to do a full Peer Review. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to add more, if that's okay. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The Featured Article criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I'd appreciate it if you could do a pretty detailed review and identify any shortcomings relative to those criteria. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll wait until you finish the review before I begin implementing your suggestions, so we don't get confused. Thanks again! --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yep I'm fairly familiar with the criteria. Regards, User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy. [Done - Noleander]
- "Another definition of π, which also relies on Euclidean geometry is ": this assumes the reader understands the parameters relate to the circle. It'd be better to make it clear. [Done - Noleander]
- "Mathematicians use the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of circumference to diameter." Of any closed/convex shape? [Done - Noleander]
- It looks unchanged. My question is whether π is specifically used for the circle, or for any closed/convex shape. The passage doesn't communicate which perception is correct.
- Thanks. Yep I'm fairly familiar with the criteria. Regards,
- I'll wait until you finish the review before I begin implementing your suggestions, so we don't get confused. Thanks again! --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The Featured Article criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I'd appreciate it if you could do a pretty detailed review and identify any shortcomings relative to those criteria. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to add more, if that's okay. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- PS: I might collapse this discussion, so other potential reviewers don't see this and think you've volunteered to do a full Peer Review. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. I did make the change here. It looks like another editor may have undone it (or I somehow accidentally reverted??). I'll just restore my wording. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. Two consecutive paragraphs in the Name section contain the phrase "ratio of circumference to diameter". I fixed one, but not the other. You were looking at the unfixed one; I was looking at the fixed one. I've fixed them both now. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. Two consecutive paragraphs in the Name section contain the phrase "ratio of circumference to diameter". I fixed one, but not the other. You were looking at the unfixed one; I was looking at the fixed one. I've fixed them both now. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. I did make the change here. It looks like another editor may have undone it (or I somehow accidentally reverted??). I'll just restore my wording. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Salikhov has given the approximation 7.6063" Who is Salikhov? [Done - Noleander]
- "An important consequence of the transcendence" is making a value judgment. Why is it important? See WP:YESPOV. [Done - Noleander]
- "...their efforts are sometimes ingenious, but doomed to inevitable failure..." This statement seems full of opinion and emotive language. From an impartiality perspective, it may be better if it were in the form of a quote. [Done - Noleander]
- "The digits of π appear to be very irregular or random": 'very irregular' is vague. How does it differ from just 'irregular', or from 'random' for that matter? [Done - Noleander]
- "meaning that all possible sequences of digits (of any length) are equally likely": I think the likelihood is at a given length, rather than any length. Thus '111' does not have the same likelihood as '11'. [Done - Noleander]
- "They hypothesis that π is normal has not been proven or disproven." Who are 'They'? [Done - Noleander]
- "digits of π all consistent with normality": 'are consistent'? [Done - Noleander]
- "very evenly distributed" is an opinion, but I'm not quite clear what it is expressing. Is it just a judgment call on the part of the author, or did he perform a statistical significance test? [Done - Noleander]
- In paragraph the "Motivations for computing π" section, the point about breaking records is made twice. Once should be sufficient. [Done - Noleander]
- "Accounting for additional digits needed to compensate for computational round-off errors, a few hundred digits would suffice for any scientific application." This statement seems absurd for a number of reasons. [waiting for more detail from reviewer]
- I think here it may just need a statement about practicality. For example: "In reality, the number of digits needed for any practical computation involving π is less than 20." Not sure how you'd cite it though.
- The article contains the text "For most calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the universe with a precision of one atom...." There are several sources that mention the 39 digits; but I dont recall any saying a specific smaller number like 20. I can look again. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm probably making too much of a fuss about it. It's not a significant problem. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article contains the text "For most calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the universe with a precision of one atom...." There are several sources that mention the 39 digits; but I dont recall any saying a specific smaller number like 20. I can look again. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think here it may just need a statement about practicality. For example: "In reality, the number of digits needed for any practical computation involving π is less than 20." Not sure how you'd cite it though.
- "Some Egyptologists conclude" is bordering on WP:WEASEL, but it does mention some in the reference. Still, it might be good to note that the idea originated with John Taylor (English publisher). [Done - Noleander]
- "Some authors explain": 'some' is an indeterminate number. The reference only lists two. Does the reference say "some authors"? [Done - Noleander]
- There are a number of uses of 'which' that seem to be missing a comma, but that's just an opinion. [Fixed one. The others, I read aloud, and the commas captured where my pauses were. If any particular instances are brought to my attention, I'll double check them]
- "but it is not certain how he arrived at the value, which he may have obtained from Archimedes or from Apollonius of Perga": the statement about uncertainty seems redundant here, since it is clearly implied by the "may". [Done - Noleander]
- In some locations, names of persons are given with their nationality and profession; in others it does not. It would be good to be consistent and list the nationality and profession throughout. Some FAC reviewers seem to like that. [Done - Noleander]
- "Two new algorithms were discovered in 1995...": new is redundant. [Done - Noleander]
- "may be easily extracted": easy for whom? [Done - Noleander]
- In "Geometry and trigonometry" could discuss the formula for an n-dimensional sphere and show how it collapses to the expected formula in three dimensions . [I don't recall any sources mentioning that in relation to pi ... I'm trying to limit the article the the material that secondary sources about pi discuss. - Noleander]
- No problem. It's already covered at Sphere#Generalization to other dimensions.
- "A complex number z can be expressed in polar coordinates as follows": you might put (r, φ) immediately after "polar coordinates" so that a non-mathematician isn't confused with the i (which is not explained until later). [Done - Noleander]
- "results in the remarkable Euler": for the non-mathematician, why is this remarkable? [Done - Rewrote as "results in the Euler's identity, celebrated by mathematicians because it contains several important mathematical constants:" - Noleander]
- "the number of iterations needed for the point (-.75,ε) before escaping, multiplied by ε, was equal to π": escaping what? [Done - chagned to "diverged". The explanation is rather complex; Im not sure how much detail to put here. The link to Mandelbrot set may be sufficient .. let me know if you think more is needed. Noleander]
- In the "Physics" section, the parameters in the formula for the period of a pendulum need to be explained. [Done - Noleander]
- The "Probability and statistics" says "there are many distributions whose formulas contain π". This is both vague and unsourced. [Done - Noleander]
- "The approximation 355/113 was known in the fifth century in China" belongs in the history section. Does the citation for that statement apply to the sentence before? [Done - Noleander]
- The caption for the image in the "Continued fractions" section repeats a statement made earlier in the article. [Done - Noleander]
- "Poems for memorizing π is have been composed": 'is' or 'have been'? [Done - Noleander]
- What, no mention of the Indiana Pi Bill?
[Done - Noleander]
- The references need some work for consistency.
- Holton, David; Mackridge, – missing a first name? [Done - Noleander]
- OED online", "pi" n.1; "pie" , n.2. [Done - Noleander]
- V Kh Salikhov 2008 Russ. Math. Surv. 63 570 doi:10.1070/RM2008v063n03ABEH004543 [Done - Noleander]
- C. Boyer, A History of Mathematics – more than one instance [Done - Noleander]
- Ogilvy, C. S., and Anderson, J. T., – 'and' instead of semi-colon [Done - Noleander]
- Halliday, David; Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker [Done - Noleander]
- Raz A, Packard MG, Alexander GM, Buhle JT, Zhu H, Yu S, Peterson BS [Done - Noleander]
- Several sources need expansion, such as a listing of the publisher, the work, &c. [TBD]
- "5 Trillion Digits of Pi – New World Record", Oct 17, 2011. [Done - Noleander]
- Plouffe, Simon. "Indentities inspired by Ramanujan's Notebooks (part 2)". Retrieved April 10, 2009.
- Can this be addressed? Bellard, Fabrice. "A new formula to compute the nth binary digit of pi". Archived from the original on September 12, 2007. Retrieved October 27, 2007.
Hopefully this is helpful. Good luck with your FAC. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the scrupulous review. I'll start implementing your recommendations tomorrow. My plan is to get it to FA status, then nominate it to appear on the WP main page on French Academy banned the submission of papers regarding the squaring of the circle in order to "keep the lunatic fringe in check" (per the author). If not, it might be useful on the Squaring the circle article instead. RJH (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)]
- Thanks so much for the scrupulous review. I'll start implementing your recommendations tomorrow. My plan is to get it to FA status, then nominate it to appear on the WP main page on
Comments by NagehI understand that I am probably not as competent as your fellow WikiProject Mathematics colleagues. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try:
- Definition: It is being pointed out that pi is sometimes defined using the trigonometric functions to avoid the particularities of geometry. But it is not being mentioned that in order to avoid these particularities the trigonometric functions must be defined over their infinite series representations. In this regard it should be noted that such definition is more common in analysis. Also, the German pi article knows that Edmund Landau has defined pi as twice the smallest positive root of of the cosine(x).
- I believe that you are correct ... but the sources I read did not explicitly say that, and for Featured Article status, everything has to be given a footnote which names a source. Ditto for the Landau fact. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- A quick Google books search brought up this. This site includes the series and has a reference to a book this is supposed to be in, which I unfortunately don't have access to. You referenced Beckman, does it include a reference? Nageh (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that you are correct ... but the sources I read did not explicitly say that, and for Featured Article status, everything has to be given a footnote which names a source. Ditto for the Landau fact. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Polygon approximation era: "Archimedes' upper bound of 22/7 may have led to widespread belief that π was equal to 22/7", ...a value which was frequently used as a convenient approximation before the advent of the computer and electronic calculator.
- True. But I think lots of values that were "frequently used". Later in the article, it says "Archimedes' upper bound of 22/7 may have led to widespread belief that π was equal to 22/7" which is from a source. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe figure File:Archimedes_pi.svg could be used centered at the end of the Polygon approximation era so it doesn't get lost within the flow of images at the right border of the page. This would also move some of the other images and boxes further up near the text they belong to.
- Done: I centered that picture; fairly near the bottom of the section. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Properties of pi: When was it first speculated that pi was irrational?
- I don't recall any of the reliable sources mentioning that. I Googled it, but found nothing except a few unreliable web sites that discuss it. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Usage section:
- Subsection Geometry: hint to Euclidean geometry?
- Of course, the Fourier transform method has applications in several science fields, including telecommunications, multimedia encoding, signal analysis, in algebra for improving the speed of algorithms, etc. This gets a bit lost in this Usage section, e.g., it isn't mentioned in the Engineering section below.
- I added the Fourier transform to the engineering section. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now it appears twice. :( I meant that its application should be better highlighted resp. the article better organized. Nageh (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I did not see the other mention ... I remove the other one. Again, I'm not sure I see that kind of detailed information about the FT in the sources that are about pi. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now it appears twice. :( I meant that its application should be better highlighted resp. the article better organized. Nageh (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added the Fourier transform to the engineering section. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Related to Stirling's formula, pi is a re-appearing constant in formulas expressing cycle length values in functional graphs. Indeed, Graph theory wrt. cycle detection should probably have its own subsection.
- I don't recall seeing any sources that specifically mention graph theory related to pi. Can you give some sources on that? I can take it from there if you start me off. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Turns out this is rarely discussed under aspects of functional graphs but commonly under random mappings. A Google search for "random mapping cycle length" reveals tons of sources. Do you think you can identify some good ones? Nageh (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The sources I see are not about pi. If you look in the References, those are sources about pi. I think the article should be limited to that kind of material. Other topics that use pi are in the thousands, and this article cannot hold them all, of course. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Surveying has nothing to do with restricting itself to sources that explicitly are only discussing the use of pi. That is why it is called surveying. A more valid argument of course is missing notability of a particular use compared to other uses. And in this regard I probably agree with you – I thought it was being discussed within graph theory but it is not, so no need to cover. Nageh (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The sources I see are not about pi. If you look in the References, those are sources about pi. I think the article should be limited to that kind of material. Other topics that use pi are in the thousands, and this article cannot hold them all, of course. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Turns out this is rarely discussed under aspects of functional graphs but commonly under random mappings. A Google search for "random mapping cycle length" reveals tons of sources. Do you think you can identify some good ones? Nageh (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall seeing any sources that specifically mention graph theory related to pi. Can you give some sources on that? I can take it from there if you start me off. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Approximations: I'm a bit confused about this section. Approximations are discussed at length in the History section. Now it gets its section on its own but it is rather short. Can this be improved organizationally?
- Yes, that needs to be fixed. I'll work on that. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay: I've moved the summary of hex/dec/60 approximation up into the Fundamentals section ... which is good, since a reader quickly looking at the article to grab some digits will see them near the top. As for the MonteCarlo & ContinuedFractions: I dont think they fit comfortably in the history section. It is probably best to leave them outside that, as stand-alone auxiliary sections, not tied to any particular historical era. --Noleander (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that needs to be fixed. I'll work on that. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Continued fractions: It should be noted in a sentence that continued fractions provide the best rational approximations of a number given a maximum denominator, and further that the values 22/7 and 355/113 determined in the antique correspond to two of these approximations.
- Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- In popular culture: I think it would be fair to note that the legislature was accepted by the House of Representatives before it was rejected by the parliament.
- Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope you did find some of these comments useful. Nageh (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
One more: Why are the formulas in the Rapidly convergent series section more important than the other ones? I would suggest that you pick some particularly important formulas for centered display presentation, and box the other ones (without overwhelming the right border). Nageh (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is a good question. I think the article should be mostly words, a narrative. Formulae should be de-emphasized, and place in boxes, generally. However, in that section, I cannot find a way to move those to the right, without eliminating the photo of Ramanujan, which I consider very informative and pleasing aesthetically. I also tried making the formulae smaller (still centered in the text), but that looked bad. Another option is to eliminate the boxes altogether and make all formulae large and centered; but then the article is harder to read for the layman; and may discourage readers from reading the text. I'm open to new ideas. --Noleander (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Another one: Section Complex numbers and calculus could also mention pi's appearance in formulas for contour integration in complex analysis. Nageh (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is a tough call. I think the "Usage" section could get very dry and ugly if it turns into a large list of things that employ pi. The pi article has a subarticle Feynman point be mentioned? Nageh (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC) ← Possibly it could be mentioned in relation to the question whether pi is normal. Nageh (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)]
- That is a tough call. I think the "Usage" section could get very dry and ugly if it turns into a large list of things that employ pi. The pi article has a subarticle
- Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Your suggestions are good. I'll start implementing them in a day or two. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I know you haven't added this text, but can the first paragraph of the Name section be phrased in a better way? It reads a bit awkward currently, and "curves" for serifs is probably not the best choice of word, either. Nageh (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll see what I can do. --Noleander (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)