Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2009

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• The lead should be longer (about 2-3 paragraphs per
  WP:LEAD
  ).
• Dates should be unlinked.
• From the perspective of an American who is very familiar with baseball in the U.S., the article is often confusing. What is PCYC? Major grades? Minor grads? This information needs some explaining.
• Baseball terms (run batted in, home run, etc.) need to be linked at first occurrence.
• The history section needs to be expanded. There is a lot of info about the 2008-09 season, just a little about seasons before that, and really nothing prior to 2001.
• En dashes need to be used for date ranges (ex 2008–09). Sometimes the article uses dashes or a solidus (that's a "slash" to you and me).
• Consider hard coding the roster, so you can symbols/terms that apply to Australian baseball (if different) and so there isn't a link to other MLB team rosters.
• Watch the use of "currently". Use "as of [date]" instead.
• More references are needed, especially for the "notable players" section.
• There needs to be some inclusion criteria for "notable players". Why are they notable?
• See also sections are unnecessary when the terms are already linked in the article.
• A good copyedit for grammar, punctuation, and style is in order.
• External links generally come after the reference section.
• The references need to be formatted using the same style and include all possible information (author, title, source, publication date, access date, etc.)
• Is it possible to find a better logo in .png or .svg format? The present image is a stretched and distorted .jpg.

This may be more than you are looking for, but I feel compelled to list everything that stuck out to me. Let me know if you need more information or need something clarified; I'll be happy to help. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere Along the Highway

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to see this eventually achieve GA. There aren't many sources available, so I'm kinda making do with what's on offer. However, it could conceivably meet the criteria, possibly with a little help.

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is very well-written. As you alluded to above, the concerns are more to do with sourcing, although
  WP:WIAGA
  notes that the "broad" standard is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles.
• Lead - This is one aspect of the article which I believe must be expanded. Skimming through the current GA album articles, very few of them have a lead consisting of two short paragraphs, let alone one paragraph (and these were promoted more than two years ago, when standards were less strict). I suggest summarizing more information from the "Recording and release" section, since it contains the bulk of the article's content.
• Recording and release - Citation 6 takes me to an Earache (home?)page that has no info on the band or this album. Citation 8 appears to link to an error page. Also, I see mention of a European tour. Is there enough information available to support a separate "Touring" section, a la Arise (Sepultura album) or Hell Awaits?
• Theme - In the quote, who is "[he]"? If Olofsson, it should read "[I]". If not, I suggest adding the person's name to avoid confusion. If possible, I would suggest expanding this section with one or two examples of specific songs and/or lyrics on the album that relate to the "male loneliness" theme.
• Reception - Citations 9,10,12,13 are dead links. Also, I suggest changing "2006-05-04" to "4 May 2006".
• Again, the article is very well-written and has no major
  WP:MOS issues. In my view, it should not take too much to bring the article to GA standards. The main areas to be addressed are expanding the lead, and fixing the dead links. Nice work!  Gongshow ^Talk 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for this! I'll get on these recommendations and see if anything further crops up. Sourcing is a pain, though. I just don't know how to find some of those deadlinks. Seegoon (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Video

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past two weeks or so I've worked hard taking the article from stub class to hopefully something a bit more worthwhile. Any factual inclusions in the article I've done my best to back up with verifiable references, and have tried hard to not get too verbose in my writing style. That said, there are likely parts that could do with tightening up. I would have included some brief synopsis at the beginning of the "Divisions" section, but I feel like I would have just been repeating what has been already said in the article. I've been unable to find a verifiable location for Broadway Video in LA, so that's out, as well as anything regarding the name of the company (obviously it's called Broadway Video because of its location on Broadway, but without an article stating that was the reason for the name, I hesitate to even mention it in the main article).

Thanks, Mainly.generic (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: THis is interesting and has a lot of material in it, but it really doesn't follow the model of the best business articles in terms of organization, and could be improved with regard to the

• The first sentence doesn't really meet the criteria for
  WP:LEAD
  where it says The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1]
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but the fact that it was founded bu Lorne Michaels in 1979 iso nly in the lead.
• The lead also seems to be incomplete - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the audio productions are not even mentioned
• Spell out abbreviations on first use, so "United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)" - this is also only in the lead and should be in the article body
• Avoid time terms like recently as they are vague and can become outdated quickly. It is better to ise thinks like "As of 2009..." or "Since 1998..."
• The article has a lot of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections. Most of these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article
• Ok, all of these issues were just in the lead (though there are short paragraphs / sections throughout). My biggest problem with the article is that it is porrly organized and as a result does not clearly tell the story of the business. It is often useful to have a model article or two to use for ideas and examples. Wikipedia's finest work is supposed to be its
  Featured Articles (FA) and I looked at every FA on a business I could find: BAE Systems, Elderly Instruments, Icos, Idlewild and Soak Zone, Madman Muntz, Oliver Typewriter Company, Slate industry in Wales
  . Every single one of these has a History section (or sections) as the very first section(s) after the lead (usually called "History"). This goes immediately into a detailed listing of business divisions. Now my guess is that a lot of the history is there (as there are a fair number of dates and names already in the article), but it helps very much to explain how the business was founded, how it grew, where it expanded and where it failed. Without a History section I do not see any chance of this making GA let alone FA.
• A few other points to mention - the tables shopuld be organized conistently - the Selected Productions Audio is chronological, from newest to oldest. The other two tables seem to be alphabetic. I prefer chronological, but just be consistent.
• There are some apparent errors and contradictions in the article - for example the lead says the company was founded in 1979, but in films there are two things prior to 1979 (1973 and 1978) while the TV shows also have two that are older that 1979 (1969 and 1978). I also note that the Rutles All You Need Is Cash was a television movie (but is listed under films) while there is a Coneheads TV show listed for 1993, which is almost certainly meant to be Coneheads (film) 1993 (a movie).
• I also do not understand why it is "Selected productions". What are the selection criteria?
• Filling in the Notes in the tables would also be useful - for example Toonces was a half hour special.
• Release date for television is also just odd - I would think it would be better to have air dates - this would also help show something that was a success (multiple years) versus a one shot or flop.
• There seem to be a lot of people listed as staff that probably do not meet
  WP:NN
  for inclusion in an article.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{
  WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at

Guitar Hero: Van Halen

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to get a peer review, as this is a strange release: the commercial product is not available until Dec but promotional copies with GH5 were sent out already, so there's some reception, but not a complete one.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs more work to make it accessible to readers who know nothing of these games. Here are a few suggestions.

• The image needs alt text.
  WP:ALT
  has details.

Lead

• The current lead says nothing about critical reception. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
• "The game content was developed by Underground Development, with the primary engine code developed by Neversoft and Budcat Creations. The game is published by Activision Blizzard." - Active voice is usually more crisp than passive. These two sentences would be easy to flip to active, thus: "Underground Development produced the game content, while Neversoft and Budcat Creations developed the primary engine code. Activision Blizzard published the game."

Gameplay

• I think more background information that explained the nature of the game, how it is played, and its relationship to the songs would be helpful. How does someone win? Can one person play the game, or is it a multiple-player game? What are the songs for besides listening?
• "The game does not feature the additions that are present in Guitar Hero 5, such as drop-in/drop-out play" - Should "drop-in/drop-out" be explained or linked?
• "are playable avatars in the game for the Van Halen songs" - Wikilink avatar?
• "The band is represented by their current looks... " - "The band members are represented by their current looks... " to avoid "band ... their"?
• "these outfits are also included for Wolfgang Van Halen" - Maybe "an older outfit"? His age wouldn't affect his current outfit.
• The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.
• "notes that the lack of such material was not due to any demands or requests made by David Lee Roth... " - Just plain "Roth" will do since his full name appears just before this sentence.

Reception

• "Early reviews of the promotional version of the game received as part of the Guitar Hero 5 before its retail launch were negative of the game." - Tighten by deleting "of the game"?
• "IGN's Eric Brudvig rated the game a 4.9/10, citing problems with the lack of relevance of Van Halen relative to the culture of the 2000s, including having their avatars based on their older appearance rather than of that during the 80s, the lack of songs from Sammy Hagar's period in the band, and the lack of features since introduced with Guitar Hero 5, and ultimately saying those that got the game free through the promotion "got what they paid for". - Too complex. Split into two complete sentences.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Greeks

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen some work lately and could benefit from a critical eye. Looking forward to hearing opinions on how to improve it. Hopefully this will set it on its way to GA status soon enough. I am looking for general hints and tips, as well as people spotting major flaws that are not apparent to me.

Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Monsieurdl

• The first thing that I noticed is the superlative use of referencing through inline citations, as well as a varied amount of sources. That to me shows a lot of care and pride in getting it right. My only criticism in the area of references is that there are too many in certain paragraphs that reference the same page, such as in the Women section. If you can, use the reference for a couple of sentences, and not every single sentence if the page is the same.

• Your reference number 57 in the Greco-Roman heritage section is extremely clunky. The inline citation tags really aren't meant for lists, so I would suggest splitting up your two best references and retaining them under a [57] and a [58] after the sentence.

• The lead is well written and concise, but the information presented doesn't appear in the article at all, and it is unreferenced. If you are going to make statements in the lead, them must either be referenced or the information must appear in the article and referenced there. I have no idea where I could find that historiography defines the meaning of Byzantine/Byzantine Greek, or that Sir George Finlay introduced the terms to the world.

• The Clergy section needs more information- it seems sparse as compared to the other sections.

• The descriptions of almost all of the images are stilted and don't flow right- I would improve upon them, and make them one sentence if possible. Image size may also be an issue as some are a bit small. Also, placing a couple on the left would help the look of it (just my opinion there).

• Overall, your article is outstanding! With a few minor tweaks, it could very well be a highly-rated article. I was very impressed- great work! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and make recommendations for improvement. It is much appreciated. I will begin implementing your suggestions immediately. Once again thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of civil parishes in Somerset

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it is nearly ready for nomination as a Featured List. There are a few entries without images as I can't find any appropriately licenced ones. It is also very long and I would appreciate guidance about whether either of these would be likely to fail FL? Any other comments are also welcome. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 16:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if you run checklinks you will currently find lots of 403 Forbidden see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Somerset#Links_to_Somerset_County_Council_web_pages for details.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the Internet Archive? Or WebCite? Assuming the information is printed as well as online, a cite to the print version would also be OK (and I assume this would also be available in local libraries or perhaps government offices). Review to follow shortly... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webcite seems to have done the trick.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is generally well done, though there is a lot of detail work that needs to be done before this would pass

• To address the three points raised above, I do not think that a few missing images would be any reason for this to not pass at FLC. I am not as sure about its length, but if that does become an issue, I think that it would be fairly easy to split the article into several shorter articles, probably based on geography in some way.

Thanks

• The references are a bit more worrisome, but as I mentioned above, it may be that they are archived on the web somewhere (in which case you can just link to the archived version). Actually I just checked one link and it is on the Internet Archive here
• Assuming they were printed as well as published online (and I assume in 1991 that they were), a cite to the print version would suffice. So bottom line is, I think this problem can be fixed. On to the rest of the article.

Internet archive gave me all sorts of grief but webcite has found the population data.

• There are a lot of phrases and links in italics - I doubt that they all meet
  WP:ITALIC
  and even if they do, there are inconsistencies - for example in the lead Local Government Act 1894" is not italicized but "Local Government Act 1972" is italicized. They should either be both italicized, or neither should be.

Done

• Per
  WP:CITE
  references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like The South Somerset district is the largest and covers and area of 370 square miles (958 km2)[5] ranging from the borders with Devon and Dorset to the edge of the Somerset Levels.

Done your example but some of the others have 2 sets of population figures in a sentance & therefore I have left the ref with each number.

• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the History and Current position sections - to improve the article's flow, these should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.

Done

• Where one reference is used for every entry in a table, I would try to use it just once. This could be in the header for that column of the table, or perhaps as a ref for an introductory sentence. See ref [2] in the Bath and North East Somerset section, for example - since this is used for population, it could be added as a ref for the header on population.

Done

• Looking at the this ref, it does not have enough information - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{
  WP:V

Done

• Many such tables will have a comments section - I looked at one or two parish links like Ashwick and the article mentioned that more than one village was in the parish - could information like this be included here?

I've not done this as the list is of civil parishes rather than villages (see List of places in Somerset for these)

• I would have someone copyedit this - the prose is OK, but the commas especially seemed to need some work.

I will ask an expert to look at my abuse of commas

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at

Thanks for all comments, when I have some time I will also try to contribute something to

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are very welcome - I also noticed that the order of units is inconistent in the lead - sometimes it is English units first (sq miles), other times it is metric first (sq km). Since the UK uses metric as the official units, it should probably be metric first every time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks done— Rod ^talk 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the original author of the article I welcome someone trying to get it up to FLC. I had to work pretty hard to get it to B, (adding in the London Gazette citations took quite while to locate and then link) so I got tired and moved on. Anyway, one suggestion I have is that perhaps an image of the recipients could be added to the table. I've seen this done before with some of the Medal of Honor and Knights/Iron Cross lists. Many of the Gurkha recipient articles have images already, and others could be sourced from the IWM, I think. Just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion I have is to try to get rid of those red links, as they cut down on visual appeal of the article. I don't know whether its a requirement or not, but if you could create some stubs or find appropriate pipes that made them blue it wouldn't draw the eye off the content so much. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment on the Military history project talk page, directing any interested parties to the peer review, so hopefully some more comments will come soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! I didn't realize you were still interested in the article (I checked the history and there hadn't been any edits for quite a while), so I would love any help you are willing to give on this - I'm not trying to steal your thunder or anything :) The photos sound like a good idea, I'll work on adding those, and fixing the red links is also something that needs to be done, although there are only a few of them and they probably won't take away from the FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at these two issues, and upon further review I've changed my answers a bit. On the images, none of the other VC featured lists have images, and I think it would be a good idea to keep them consistent. I've tried to find information to create some of the red links, but I honestly haven't been able to find even enough to create stubs. These same red links are present in other FLs, so I don't think they would be a big deal on this nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would recommend that you have a good look at the other Victoria Cross related lists that User:Woody has raised to FL level, and see if you can extract some ideas from them. Also, it might be a good idea to contact Woody and see if he would comment on the article as he is a great source for knowledge and experience on lists in general, but especially on those pertaining to the Victoria Cross. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a look at some of the VC FLs that Woody has written, and can't seen anything major that this article leaves out, although I'm wondering if it might not be best to combined the lead and the first section. I've dropped a note to Woody, though, asking him to comment here on the issues raised (photos, completeness, article naming), so hopefully he'll stop by! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to name this article "List of Brigade of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross", given that several of the recipients are not actually Gurkhas but served with the regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I see your point. Possibly, but I'd like to see what others have to say on the subject, especially AustralianRupert. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about this myself. I can see where you're coming from as the terminology here is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that even then the term would be correct, as I don't believe that the Brigade of Gurkhas existed until after the Second World War (I might be wrong, not sure on this point). If I'm correct, however, then it would really only be a list of one, as there has been only one post Second World War Gurkha VC. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, although the lede section might need to clarify that in this list then, as it currently implies the Brigade of Gurkas has been around since 1815. I do really think the name needs to be better worded though. The link to Gurka tells the reader that a Gurka is someone of Nepalese or Northern Indian descent, and that apparently comes from the International Journal of Human Genetics. A fair portion of the men in this list aren't, and while they have every right to be there, I'd have thought calling the list "Gurka recipients" would be pretty misleading. to about List of Gurkha Regiment recipients of the Victoria Cross? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or List of Gurka regiments recipients of the Victoria Cross to avoid suggesting a particular regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (outdent) Hmm, I appear to have walked into a minefield in naming this article in the first instance. As a combat engineer, I'm frankly quite embarrased! ;-) Anyway, I will have to do an IMAP on this one and get back to you. (Only sort of joking, as I will have to have a think about this). I do agree with your point about the name as it is confusing, but I'm just not sure of the correct solution just yet. Two up, one back is the template solution, of course, but I'm not sure it applies here...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not just take out all the non Gurkhas, all the others are included in the other lists and the Gurkhas are also included in the Indian Army list. I would also then suggest the list is moved to the nationality area in the template. Also the entrys for Allmand and Pun needs to be changed to
  6th Gurkha Rifles they were not names Queen Elizabeths at the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure that Gurkha is actually a nationality is it? Also, to my mind, duplicating recipients in two different nationality lists seems a bigger problem (see this chat). I prefer the armed force categories personally, and I think serving with a Gurkha regiment would make one eligible to be in this list, but the title should reflect the contents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, the minefield had more depth than I realised...I'm with Ranger Steve on this one, but of course if concensus is against it I'll go with that. Any list I've seen of "Gurkha" VC recipients has included the British/Indian Army Officers attached to the various Gurkha regiments. I compiled this list based on those in Parker and on the British Army website that listed Gurkha VCs. In this case the term Gurkha is being used not as a nationality but as a branch of service descriptor. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I don't know about a minefield as such, I prefer to think of us as sweeping for leftover mines! Anyway, I guess what concerns me about the title is that it currently uses a racial distinguisher (Gurkha) to describe a 'military unit' defined list. The situation would probably be worse if we used a racial factor to define a nationality defined list! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title: I agree with the majority above, this list should go down the "unit" route so List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients would probably be best. Perhaps a RM should be opened and we can get more opinions?

List: In terms of the actual list, I think it looks very good.

• To keep it consistent with the others, you don't really need the "Eligibility" header, it can just merge into the lead and then align the Gurkhas image to the left.
• The image should be probably be changed to the one without the medal bar. No Gurkha has been awarded the VC and bar. (We only recently amended the image so we probably need to do it across a number of articles.  Done
• I fixed the sorting for you.
• Other than that, as I said above, it all looks very good and once the title is sorted I would take it to FLC. Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments (and thanks to everyone else too!). I would also support a change to "List of Brigade of Gurkhas...", as this seems like the best descriptor for the contents of the list. I will work on the formatting and image changes that have been listed above my multiple editors soon, probably starting tonight. Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brigade of Gurkhas would be my first choice, if it is accurate for the length of time. On that note, this external link from the Brigade of Gurkhas page does make it seem ok, but I bow to anyone with more expert knowledge! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not married to the idea as per my above comment, I could live with it being moved to List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients. I've made a couple of tweaks as per the above comments (i.e. designation of the 6th Gurkhas and the image). — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Off the topic of the title, in the prose perhaps just a line separating the first award to a native from the first award to a non native? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title - It seems that a consensus is developing above to move the list to List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross". I'm going to wait 24 hours or so to see if any major dissenters pop up, and then move the article. Please let me know if this is something I shouldn't do! Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objections to this move. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move complete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other comments that need to be resolved before the article goes to FLC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there don't seem to be any further comments, I am going to close this peer review, read through the list one more time, and then nominate for FLC. Thanks everyone for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrichosis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I, along with other editors, have been improving this article over the past weeks. We would like to have an opinion on which parts of this article seem to be lacking in quality and are needing further improvement.

Thanks, Vancemiller (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some expansion is scope. For example needs sections on:

• epidemiology ( how common is it, how is it distributed globally ) Done
• the economic impact and cultural aspects ( women shave there legs in some part of the world but not in others ) Not done
• do not see anything about laser treatments Done
• needs some work on caps. Done

talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would try to make it clearer in the lead that people who have this are not all like Lionel the Lion Faced Man (pictured in the lead), i.e. it can be quite localized. Done
• There are two images that have no captions - please provide them to give more
  context to the reader
  - it would be espeically helpful to identify which of the tpes of Hypertrichosis are pictured in each. Done
• Watch
  Lionel the Lion-Faced Man is a redirect to Stephan Bibrowski
  , don't need two links to the same article. Done
• Similarly the See also section is usually for links that are of interest but do not already appear in the article. Done
• Watch redirects too -
  acquired generalized hypertrichosis
  is just a link back to this article and so adds no value (if the reader clicks on the link, they do not go anywhere new) Done
• Since the condition involves hair, it might be useful to include a brief discussion of
  vellus and terminal hair
  at the beginning. Not done
• lanuginosa is spelled at least two different ways in the article - please check and correct Done
• The use of bold and italic in the article does not really follow
  WP:ITALIC
   Done
• The article is fairly disjoint - there are lots of little sections that do not connect well or flow together well.  Done
• History section would help - who first described the condition? Are there notable people with the condition in the more distant past? Not done
• Refs need to give full information - journal name, date, volume, etc. Use of cite templates like {{cite journal}} might help.  Done
• I also would check to make sure that all of these refs cited meet
  WP:RS - what makes this
  a reliable source? Also the ABC News ref should go to the ABC News site, not "wolfsongalaska" Done

Rambles in Germany and Italy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm planning on nominating this article for FAC, so please evaluate accordingly. Also, please weigh in on

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

Frill-necked Lizard

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Thanks, Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick thoughts: Sasata (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• haven't mentioned distribution in the lead
• there's no need to cite a fact in the lead if it's non-controversial, and it should be cited in the article text anyway
• currently, the lead reads like a "Description" section, which would normally follow the lead, I suggest taking this info out and putting it into a new section. See
  WP:Lead
  for more details on how to create a good lead.
• Who named the species? What year? What publication?
• Suggest changing "Habitat" section to "Distribution and habitat", and going into more detail about where the species is found. Eg., the article says that it's "... found mainly in the northern regions of Australia and southern New Guinea.", but as a reader I'd want to know if it's been found anywhere else as well.
• "One of the most intriguing facts noted by scientists..." Leave out the fact that it's intriguing, unless you can source it to someone else who's actually said that. For an encyclopedia, the facts just need to be presented plainly without interjecting your personal opinions.
• more wikilinks are needed. For the Habitat section, I'd wlink:
  savannah, arboreal; in the Diet section, link insectivorous
  , cicadas, beetles, ants, termites, agamids, alates, etc. Anything that's not too obvious, but may help the reader understand the contents of this article better.
• last half of Habitat section needs a ref
• use an endash for number ranges (degrees Celsius, clutch size, page numbers, etc.); see dash
• References should be consolidated so as not to repeat the same reference over and over
• Decide whether to put refs before or after punctuation (I prefer refs after punctuation, but doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent throughout the article).
• Only the first word of section heading should be capitalized (unless there's a proper name in there)... see "Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism"
• "Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism" section needs refs for last half
• The four tacked-on sources in the References should be cited, not just listed. If they weren't used, then don't list them. But they look very relevant, so they should be consulted and used.
• The "In culture" section needs a lot more refs as well.

I should also add that these types of sections are generally frowned upon in good and featured articles... to make it work it would have to be really well-written and sourced, and exceptionally relevant... otherwise it's probably a better idea to think of ditching it.

• what's the lifespan of these creatures?
• No mention of people using these animals as pets
• The article seems weak on the research side of things, as there's a number of interesting studies about the species that haven't been mentioned here.
• A copyedit is required; here's a sampling of errors:

"has lead some scientist to hypothesise more then one species"

"Within aforementioned regions..."

"may be a product of the lizards diet"

"...differ phenotipically."

"In the case of the this lizard..."

Watford F.C. season 2009–10

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This makes sense to an outsider (me), seems broad in coverage, neutral, illustrated, verifiable, and not filled with unnecessary detail. Since I'm an outsider, I can spot jargon that other outsiders might not understand. (As I review more and more football articles, I am learning the jargon, so I'm not quite the utter newbie I was a couple of years ago.) Most of my comments have to do with jargon and how to make the material a bit more accessible to readers unfamiliar with the sport, and I have a few thoughts related to the Manual of Style guidelines. My impression is that this will likely be ready for a run at GAN in May or June but probably not before because the ongoing story will certainly change and could even change greatly by then.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of the entire article such that a reader who could read only the lead would understand the essence of the topic. It's going to be hard to complete the lead until the end of the season, because the stats are going to change, and other more dramatic things (injuries, awards, championships) may happen. Perhaps you could add a kind of interim third paragraph that summarizes the statistics to date and then update that paragraph perhaps once a month through the end of the season. Just a thought.

• I agree that this should be done. I think that "As of 20 November 2009" would be too arbitrary, and I don't think backdating to October would be particularly useful, so I'll work on this at the end of the month.

• "There were many changes at the club from the previous season, with Malky Mackay becoming the new manager, and several first team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin leaving the club." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Slightly better might be: "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club."

• Wikilink or explain striker for readers unfamiliar with the sport?

Background

• "Watford finished the 2008–09 season in 13th place in the table." - Would it be helpful to add when exactly the season began and ended? Should "table" be wikilinked or explained?

• "Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club "by mutual consent" in November 2008... " - It's hard to tell scare quotes from direct quotations. If "by mutual consent" is a direct quote from a source, it needs a citation to the source. On the other hand, scare quotes express doubt. Is there some reason to doubt that Boothroyd agreed to leave?

• It seems that part of the terms of his settlement are that he can't answer that question directly, but when interviewed in August 2009 he was quoted as saying "If I had stayed we would have done an awful lot better than finishing 13th." 1 Not sure if that could be considered a reliable source though. As good a fansite as it is, it's still a fansite, so I'd need to make a compelling argument to use it. Hopefully the source I've added will justify keeping the scare quotes in. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "lifting Watford away from the relegation zone in the closing weeks of the season" - Wikilink or briefly explain relegation zone?

• "He subsequently joined Reading in June, with Watford receiving an initial £500,000 in compensation." - Another "with" as a conjunction. Suggestion: "When he subsequently joined Reading in June, Watford received... ".

Pre-season

• "The first team began with matches at local sides... ". - Should "sides" be linked to teams?
• "The club's final pre-season fixture... " - Perhaps write "fixture (scheduled match)" to make the jargon clear to wide audience?
• "and club record signing Nathan Ellington" - Not sure what this means. How could a player sign a club record?

August transfer window

• "handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back" - Wikilink right back or add "defender" in parentheses after "right back"?

September to December

• "Leicester equalised late in the game, with the match ending 3–3." - Suggestion: "Leicester equalised late in the game, and the match ended 3–3."

"3,389 Watford fans travelled to Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers" - Write out the number in words or re-cast the sentence to avoid starting it with digits, per the Manual of Style.

• "despite a red card for Ellington" - Explain or wikilink red card?

• "Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, with Cleverley joining Graham as the club's joint highest scorer of the season." - Another "with" conjunction. Perhaps: "When Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season."

Friendlies

• Add a footnote explaining "friendlies"?

• This is a very good point, but didn't see how this could be done in practise. There is no logical place to insert a link to the note, and full-sized text would be inappropriate in my opinion. Instead, I've inserted "friendly match" into the prose, allowing me to wikilink it.

Management and coaching staff

• The external link to Watford F.C. should be converted to an inline citation.

• Removed altogether, it was redundant.

Out

• "£2m" - Spell out "million"?

Notes

• Wikilink yellow card in note 4?
• Wikilink
  pitch
  in note 5?
• "million" in note 10?

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

Thanks for the feedback, it was fantastic and exactly what I was hoping for. I've made all of the changes in the way you have suggested, except for where I have left notes. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More commentsThis is coming along nicely. Most of my suggestions are breaking up long sentences. This is based on my personal preference and I can't say that that is the best.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead

It looks like this was touched on up above. It will need to be broken into paragraphs as the article grows.

• "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club"

Maybe break this up into a couple of sentences since it could use more commas and that might make it unwieldy.

• New arrivals at Vicarage Road included striker Danny Graham and former Scotland international Scott Severin, along with loan players Heiðar Helguson, Tom Cleverley, Craig Cathcart and Henri Lansbury.

Same as above

• Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club by "mutual consent" in November 2008 and was replaced by former Reading and Chelsea academy boss Brendan Rodgers.

Two sentences "...in November 2008. He was replaced by..."

• The first team began with friendly matches at local sides Boreham Wood, Hampton & Richmond and Wealdstone, before a pre-season tour to Spain where they faced CF Balaguer and UE Lleida.

Same as above. Start a new sentence for the games in Spain.

• Watford sold striker Tamás Priskin to Ipswich days before the start of the season,[7] and started the Championship campaign with the future of several players unresolved, including those of top scorer and player of the season Tommy Smith, highest earner Jobi McAnuff,[8] and the club's most expensive ever player Nathan Ellington.[9]

Same as above. "[They/The team] started the Championship..."

• Section headings

• Most GA season articles break the season down by month. I like that you broke it down into larger sections and how you used it as a vehicle to segment the season. However, the focus is not necessarily transfers which the reader might incorrectly assume. Keep it in mind. Here are some GAs I saw at the footy project:
  York City F.C. season 2008–09
  .

• It's a difficult balance. As you say, this is a sensible alternative to a month-by-month. I agree with your point and have removed "transfer window", but those unfamiliar with the English football season will find my choice of headers somewhat odd without the phrase.

• Since this is live in the mainspace, consider removing the January- and February- section headings.

• Hidden.

• After the match Doncaster

Add a comma: "After the match, Doncaster"

Done.

• After the match Doncaster manager Sean O'Driscoll believed that a Dean Shiels shot had crossed the Watford goal line, and that a goal should have been given.

Should "believed" be changed to "said" or "said that he believed"?

Done

• Mackay handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back Lee Hodson, and a first game of the season to goalkeeper Richard Lee.

This comes across a little informal with "handed".

To an extent that was the intention, but maybe it is too informal. Do you have an alternative suggestion?

• Barnet restricted Watford to a 0–0 scoreline after 90 minutes, before Severin and Mike Williamson scored in extra time for a 2–0 win

Both teams restricted each other. Maybe "The scoreline was..."

Changed to "The match was goalless..."

• The match finished 4–2 to Watford, with loan player Tom Cleverley scoring in his first game for Watford.

Consider not using the second "Watford" (ease of reading)

Changed to "the club". I was wary of overusing "debut".

• victory for the League One leaders

"For Leeds, who were the League One leaders at the time/would go on to finish..."

..." You would have to break up the previous line if you did this, though.

I've left it for now, because they were League One leaders at the time and have been at every stage since. Longer term I will certainly edit along these lines.

• In Smith's final game for the club,

Since it isn't established in the article yet, "In what would be Smith's..."

• Days before the end of the transfer window, Portsmouth submitted transfer bids for Smith and Williamson, while Reading were in negotiations with Watford for Smith,[16] and had submitted a bid for McAnuff.

Consider breaking this into two sentences.

Done

• Graham's goal put Watford ahead against Swansea, but Alan Tate scored a late equaliser for a 1–1 draw.[21]

Focus was shifted abruptly. Ease into it more with "In the next match against Swansea..." or something like that.

Reworded, and done my best to mention Swansea as possible while still ensuring the paragraph makes sense.

• "...including Dale Bennett, who was making his first two league appearances."

Should the tens be "..who MADE..."

Done

• The style changed from "A game against so-and-so" to "THE match..." a couple of times in the Sept-Dec section.

• "A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended AN away match against Reading"
• "Preparation for AN UPCOMMING game against Coventry City..."

If I reference the result before the team, I've generally gone with "a X – X win/defeat/draw" (or variants of these). Where I've given a game more than a cursory reference and have started talking about the team (for instance Reading), I've used "the match" or similar. For other games I start by talking about circumstances leading up to the match, and they flow naturally (Leicester and Coventry). I don't really see this as a problem, provided I don't start saying "a game" or "the win".

• A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended the away match against Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers.

"...who were managed by.."?

Done.

• Preparation for Watford's game against Coventry City was affected by a virus affecting six first-team players

Maybe use "hindered" or something similar instead of "affected"

Not done. In the source Mackay has gone out of his way to say that the virus was not an excuse for the two defeats (despite the fact that several players were dropped as a direct result). I think "hindered" would imply that Watford lost partly because of the virus, but it is true to say that Watford were "affected" (otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned at all).

• footnote 1" ^ Matches are normally played on Saturdays, but Watford's game against Sheffield Wednesday was moved to Friday for live television coverage."

Is this important enough to be a footnote? If so, is it important enough to be included in the section? Further expansion is possible from the other footnotes so keep it in mind.

Removed altogether, as it will soon be redundant. A direct reference to TV will come in the prose in a week or so. We're playing the team furthest away from us on the Saturday, followed by the team nearest to us (and our second biggest rivals) on the Monday. Meanwhile, the team nearest to us gets to play a home game while we're tired from all the travelling. Longer term I am considering creating an ownership/commercial/finance sort of section, which would allow me to cover this side of it properly without talking about things which have no direct relation to what happens on the pitch.

• Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season.

Consider adding the total.

Attempted, it looks a bit clumsy though.

• I was under the impression that using images directly below level three headers was something to avoid. I'm not sure if this is still the case. The benefits of the image might also outweigh whatever the drawback is.
  • Using them on the left directly below a header is generally a bad thing (but I don't want all of the images to be on the right). Hopefully the section will be long enough that I can move it down a paragraph at the end of 2009.
• The second Don Cowie in the International appearances table (14 November 2009) was a disambiguation. Also, consider removing the multiple wikilinks for him in the main body.
  • Removed extra wikilink.
• Liberty Stadium, Swansea was a disambiguation
• "United States national soccer team" was a disambiguation.

Thanks for your comments, they were pretty helpful. I haven't dealt with the lead yet, I plan on a major re-write soon but I've said I'll do many things over the next few days. Thanks for your on the article and help with the redirects btw. WFCforLife (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have based this list on the current

• There has been a trend away from starting each list with the boilerplate "This is a list". Two of the three other featured articles (Crimson Tide and Terrapins) you mention using as models start in a different way. You might consider recasting to make this one start in a fresh way.
  • To me, it just doesn't seem right to not have a bold title in the first line. Unless it comes up in the FL comments, I'll keep it the way it it.
• "since the team's inception in 1925". I would suggest unlinking any dates in the article that don't relate to the article's content in a fairly specific way. This one, for example, links merely to the year in question, whereas the next one, 1932, links to a football season. You should probably review each date link and decide whether it is helpful or not.
  •  Done I changed the years to college football seasons.
• "and 1960–present" - Rather than "present", which is inherently ambiguous since it means something different from moment to moment and year to year, it would be better to fill in the missing number.
  • If I read in a person's biography that was still alive and saw the current year, I'd assume they had died that year. I'm going to keep it as "present" because the team is still a member of the conference.
• "The Texas Tech Red Raiders football team compete... " - "Team" is singular, but "compete" is plural. "Competes"?
  •  Done
• "The team was known as the "Matadors" from 1925–1936," - "from 1925 to 1936"? The hyphen doesn't scan well as a word in a construction like this.
  •  Done
• "to reflect the influence of the campus' Spanish Renaissance architecture." - Slightly better might be "to reflect the influence of the Spanish Renaissance architecture." This and the phrase with "to" instead of a hyphen are easier to read out loud, which is what I mean by "scan".
  •  Done
• "and resulted in a 6–7 loss to the... " - Shouldn't the winning score come first; i.e., 7–6?
  •  Done
• "In 1932, the Texas Tech joined... " - Delete "the"?
  •  Done
• "the nickname they have today" - Perhaps "the nickname the team has today"? This would avoid the slight singular-plural problem.
  •  Done
• "The team remained in the SWC until the conference ceased operations 1996." - "operations in 1996"?
  •  Done
• "The Red Raiders have the distinction of being the only one in the Big 12 to have a winning season each year since the conference was created in 1996." - Tighten to "Texas Tech is the only team in the Big 12 with a winning record each year since 1996, when the conference began."?
  •  Done
• "Described as a program on the rise," - Since this is a judgment, it might be challenged and should probably have an inline citation to a source supporting this specific claim.
  •  Done

Seasons

• Some of the scores in the table need en dashes instead of hyphens.
  •  Done

Notes

• Note 3 needs some attention. For example "three way tie" should be "three-way tie", and the second instance of "head to head games" should be "head-to-head games". The long sentence beginning with "Because the first four tie-breakers did not dictate a winner... " is too complex and needs to be recast as two or three separate sentences. November 30 should not be linked.
  •  Done I did the best I could while keeping the same information in the footnote and fixed the Nov. 30 link.

References

• The last three citations are incomplete.
  •  Done Removed a dead link left other two citations that still provide same information.
• What makes fansonly.com a reliable source?
  •  Done It isn't, that's for the catch. I found the information it was based off of from the Big 12 Conference website and changed the citation with the reliable host.

General

• The image needs alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images.
  WP:ALT
  has details.
  •  Done
• The dabchecker tool finds one link "Tangerine Bowl" that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
  •  Done
• The link checker finds one dead url in the citations.
  •  Done Removed the dead citation

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for all the tips. I'll be sure to finish the rest of them soon!
    talk) 05:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    

Apolo Anton Ohno

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked this page to a GA and now looking for possible improvements in hopes of getting the article to FA. The biggest concern, something brought up during the GA nom, is the referencing of the table of scores in the Dancing with the Stars section. I have tried to find references for each score, but have been unsuccessful in that. I'm not sure what to do with that table! Anyway... any feedback or comments are appreciated. Thanks, oncamera^(t) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. The problems I noticed have to do with prose and style issues. Sorry, I can't help with the refs for the table, but the claims do not seem especially controversial (though the information isn't common knowledge and must have come from somewhere). Here are a few suggestions.

Heads and subheads

• To avoid repetition, something like "Beginnings" would make a better subhead under the head, "Career" than "Early career". Under "2002 Winter Olympics", deleting "Olympic" from "Olympic qualification race controversy" would avoid repeating "Olympic". The next subhead in that section could be shortened to "Games". The subhead for section 2.6.1 could be shortened to "Trials".

Lead

• "competitor and a five-time medalist (2 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze)... " - Numbers from one to nine are generally written as words, and bigger numbers are written as digits except at the beginning of a sentence. In this sentence, you use "five" but also 2, 1, and 2. Better would be "competitor and a five-time medalist (two gold, one silver, two bronze). Ditto for other instances in the article.

Early life

• "Ohno's parents divorced when he was an infant, so he was raised by his father." - "And" would be a better choice since "so" suggests that being raised by his father was the inevitable result of a divorce.
• "Ohno has stated by the time he turned 13 years old, he would attend parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends". - Insert "that"? Change to straight past tense? Suggestion: "Ohno has stated that by the time he turned 13 years old, he attended parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends".

Early career

• "When he was 14 years old, Ohno became interested in short-track... " - Wikilink short track?
• "His father wanted to encourage Ohno's developing skills... " - Perhaps "His father wanted to encourage Ohno to develop his skills... "?
• "...so he successfully advocated for Ohno's acceptance into the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track, despite being underage." - Since Ohno's father wasn't underage, perhaps this would be better: "and, although Ohno was underage, he got him admitted to the Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track."
• "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?
• " He participated in no training from April to August 1997... " - Tighten to "He did not train from April to August 1997... "?

Olympic qualification race controversy

• "By removing Biondo from the competition, Smith finished in second place and allowed Davis to win." - Since Smith didn't remove Biondo, this sentence should be re-cast.
• "The final verdict was that O'Hare's claims went unproven in the arbitration case, all three were absolved of guilt, and the claim was dismissed." - Tighten by deleting "in the arbitration case"?

The Games

• "Ohno was in second place with three laps remaining, and on his third attempt to pass on the final lap, Kim drifted slightly to the inside where Ohno raised his arms to signal he was blocked." - Since Kim wasn't making an attempt to pass, this sentence should be re-cast.
• "thousands of accusatory letters, many of which were death threats" - "contained death threats" rather than "were death threats"?

After Salt Lake

• The Manual of Style advises against sandwiching text between two images on opposite sides of the page. In addition, the Olympic skates photo overlaps two sections. An easy fix for both problems would be to move the skate image up into "The Games" section.
• "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno stemming from fears of a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy." - Since Ohno didn't stem from fears, perhaps re-cast as two sentences, thus: "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno. Their concern stemmed from a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy."
• "Ohno was unable to defend his World Cup title reign from the previous three seasons" - Delete "reign"? Or change to "Ohno was unable to extend his World Cup title reign to a fourth season"?
• "winning the 1000 m and 3000 m races." - When the race names are used as adjectives, they should be hyphenated; i.e. "winning the 1000-m and 3000-m races."

Post-Olympic hiatus and return

• I'd recommend combining the two first paragraphs because they are so short.
• "In 2009, Ohno won his 10th national title,[4] and qualified for the world team; however, unable to defend his championship, Ohno finished fifth in the overall rankings at the 2009 World Championships in Vienna, Austria: he placed second at the 1000 m, and won gold with the 5000 m relay team." - Too many things tacked together. Two sentences would be better.

Olympic trials

• "were the one through top five finishers at the trial" - Tighten by deleting "one through"?

Performance

• In the table, what does "Safe" mean in the Results column? Should this be explained in a footnote?

General

• The images will need alt text, meant to explain the image content to readers who can't see the images.
  WP:ALT
  has details.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
• The link checker finds six dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Thank you for the thorough review of this article. I went through and made changes to the article per all of your suggestions. However, as for this one:

• "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?

There are hardly any well-written speed-racing articles, so after reading

Your explanation about "m" vs. "meter" makes sense in the context of this article. I added a |image_alt = parameter to the article's infobox just now so that you'll be able to add the alt text. You are right in thinking this is a bit tricky; the parameters in the infobox differ from the parameter for most of the other images. If you ever have to do alt text for a map in the infobox, it's |map_alt = . Best of luck with the FA pursuit. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought. Do you want to add the "persondata" info to the bottom of the article? WP:Persondata has an explanation. I have a script that can do most of the work (not much, really) automatically by cloning data from the infobox. Just let me know if you'd like me to run it on this article. Finetooth (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the alt_image to the infobox, but I don't see the alt text when I turn the images off. Do you have to make the change to the

Template:Infobox Speed Skater itself? I don't know how to edit that! If you would like to run your bot for the Persondata, that would be helpful. oncamera^(t) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Puzzling. I'm not seeing why the alt text doesn't show up. I'll keep thinking about this and perhaps ask for help. I added the persondata by copy-paste of the template from WP:Persondata. (For some reason, the script did not work.) You can see the persondata in edit mode. Only four bits of data were relevant. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, flummoxed. I don't see how to fix the alt text. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Persondata template. I will look for other help with the alt tag in the infobox! Thanks for trying, oncamera^(t) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has fixed it and that the solution is a variant that I didn't try. :-) Glad you found help. Now that the technical problem is fixed, I have another observation. The alt text is not the same as the caption; if you can imagine a blind person listening to the alt text being read out loud by a machine, you will have a good idea of what the alt text should say. For example, "The skates Ohno wore at the 2002 Olympics" won't be of much help to a blind reader. Something like "A pair of silver skates with gold-colored blades are mounted in a display case" would be better. You can improve on the other two alt texts as well. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and edited the alt texts again according to that logic; it's better now. Thanks for the advice, oncamera^(t) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Beilein

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is detailed enough to be a

Thanks,

N.B. In some of my editorial efforts, I have been noted for being excessive in use of citations. In this article, at times in Beilein's career where he was in a two newspaper town, I often included both citations.--

WP:LOTM) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi, Tony, I haven't peer-reviewed one of your articles recently, so I'll try this one. Will report soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'm not sure how helpful this review is going to be, but I'm doing my best. Basketball isn't my field of expertise, but here goes.

• Lead
  • "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third year at Michigan..." A season cannot be a year. Suggest: "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third at Michigan..."
    • O.K.--
      WP:FOUR) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • What is the "Division 1 level"?
    • Is the link good enough?--
      WP:FOUR) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Since "Coach of the Year" seems to be an accepted award, it should be capitalised (as here)
    • I have linked
      WP:FOUR) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • He's won this "numerous" times - but you only give three instances. If these are examples from a bigger number you should say so. Otherwise, say he's won it three times.
    • I count four times, but they are different types of Coach of the Year recognitions at different levels of play. I will change numerous to four though.--
      WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • What is the NCAA Tournament? (yes, I know, ignorant Brits, but there's quite a few of us)
    • Linked.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Early college coaching career
  • This sentence is somewhat intrusive, placed where it is: "Beilein first applied to coach Division I basketball at Canisius in 1987."[9] The information should be placed at the end of the section, as part of the lead-in to the next phase of his career.
    • I have clarified that he was not hired the first time he applied. The sentence is in the correct chronological place.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • I would expect the section to end with information about his second, and evidently successful, application to coach at Canisius, rather than the somewhat flat statement about him unsuccessfully seeking other jobs.
    • I don't know how much you want to see, but I added a bit.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Canisius
  • What is the first sentence about? How is Beilien compiling a record for the 1991-92 season when he doesn't join te college until 1992?
    • Fixed.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Dodgy grammar: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College, which was also the first position at which he hired assistant coaches." Needs to be something like: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College as head coach, and was able for the first time to hire assistant coaches."
    • O.K.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • No spaces around mdashes (I fixed this in the lead, not elsewhere)
    • Fixed.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "team into a team" is repetitive. Use a word like "outfit", "line-up", "squad" etc, for the second mention of team.
    • Changed the first one instead.--
      WP:FOUR) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Second paragraph: after the words "Coach of the Year" the text becomes very confusing. Who were "the number one seeded team", and what is the relevance of this sentence to Beilien? What does "The conference earned three NIT invitations" mean? I am equally lost with the rest of the paragraph. No doubt it all makes good sense to followers of American basketball, but it needs to be understood by the rest of us.
    • How is it now.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Who are the "Golden Griffins" - is this a nickname for Canisius?
    • I have added a sentence to the LEAD that includes all the Division I school nicknames.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "...and it continued to have never won the conference tournament." Very awkward phrasing. Perhaps "and it continued its record of never having won the conference tournament.
    • O.K.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • I'm having great difficulty trying to follow a tournament structure that I don't understand. As I've said, it's probably clear to those that know these things. However, one thing that bothers me is that Beilien, the subject of the article, is pretty well invisible in this section, which is basically a record of his team's results and little more. Perhaps we could do with fewer results and more about Beilien's coaching methods, and why he was successful.
    • I have detailed what I can about his style. I will probably await sports discussant at FAC in the future.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Richmond, West Virginia and Michigan sections
  • I don't see much purpose in my commenting on these sections, which mirror the Canisius material in largely presenting team performances under Beilien, with little about the man himself.
    • See current FA
      WP:FOUR) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Coaching style: disappointingly brief. I would have expected something about the influences on Beilien which helped him develop his particular coaching style, also indications of how the style has changed and developed over his fairly lengthy coaching career. Also, please note that "notoriety" implies fame for the wrong reasons; Al Capone was "notorious". In this case it might be better to say that Beilien has gained "recognition" rather than notoriety.
• Personal life: I'm unhappy about this section. I think there are
  WP:BLPNAME
  issues, and also issues about the relevance/trivia of some of the information. Most of the final paragraph adds little of value to the article.
  • Could you just consider the issues above and strike as is appropriate.--
    WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'm sorry, Tony, if I haven't been able to provide much help. I've done my best, but it really isn't my area. I hope that you can pick up something from the review, however, and I wish the article success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your perspective and attention.--
  WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've struck the issues which are clearly resolved. As to the others, my lack of familiarity with the sport makes it difficult for me to comment constructively, so I'll leave these to be resolved by more knowlegeable reviewers. I hope I've been of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    

Pudú

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Thanks, SixStringz (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)SixStringz[reply]

Couple things: I would take the diet section out of the "behavior" heading and put the reproduction section at the end (which is often done with animal articles). In the habitat section, you mention the amount of rainfall typically expected in the areas where they are found, if the pudu relies on this much rain specifically than I would leave it in, but if it doesn't really depend on a specific amount than I wouldn't. If it turns out that it does than you may want to say that (in parenthesis). Other than that I would just add to the sections you have already created and you should be okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting creature. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

Heads and subheads

• Generally the heads and subheads in Wikipedia articles take a capital letter for the beginning of the first word only unless a formal name (proper noun) is part of the head. Thus "Physical Appearance" should be "Physical appearance". Ditto for the other heads and subheads.

Lead

• "Pudús (which translates to mapuche or the people of southern Chile)... ". - I'm not sure what this means. "Mapuche" needs to be explained. Linking to mapuche might help, but the sentence would still not be clear. What is being translated to what? That is, does "Pudú" mean "deer" in one language but "mapuche" in another?

• "Pudús average in size from 36 to 38 centimeters tall and 71 to 84 centimeters long." - Generally Wikipedia articles express measurements in both metric and imperial units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions because it not only does the math, it spells and abbreviates correctly, thus: 36 to 38 centimetres (14 to 15 in) and 71 to 84 centimetres (28 to 33 in) long". I see that you've converted others lower down in the article. (The template uses "centimetres", but "centimeters" is OK too).

Social

• "Uncommonly spotted in its natural habitat, the pudú is a solitary animal... " - "Seen" rather than "spotted" since the latter might be mistaken to mean "covered with spots"?
• "Pudús are nocturnal and diurnal... " - Wikilink diurnal?

Reproduction

• "Newborns weigh 900 g (31.68 oz) on average." - Round to three significant figures, 31.7 oz?

Habitat

• "and can also be found in lower altitudes" - "At lower elevations"? I believe "altitude" generally refers to places not attached to the ground.
• "Annual precipitation in these areas of Argentina and Chile ranges from 74 to 150 in (approximately 2 to 4 m)." - Rainfall is usually expressed in millimeters rather than meters. Snowfall is usually given in centimeters. I'm not sure about a mixture of the two, but centimeters is probably acceptable. Also, if you use metric as the primary system in one place in the article, you should use it throughout as the primary. Since this article is South-America-centric, metric makes sense as the primary. Thus, the conversion would be 74 to 150 inches (190 to 380 cm) flipped to 190 to 380 centimetres (75 to 150 in). You probably have to say "about" in front of this since "74 to 150 in" may be the exact numbers your source supports.

Subspecies

• This needs to have content beneath it, or it needs to be deleted.

Status and recognition

• Ditto for this empty subsection.

Causes of endangerment

• "Many types of parasites can be spread, with the most common being bladder worms, lung worms, and roundworms." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Many types of parasites affect the pudús; the most common are bladder worms, lung worms, and roundworms."

References

• Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. I see that you've used the cite web template for citation 2. If you simply imitate the pattern you see there, you'll be able to fix the other web citations. In edit mode, you can copy the citation 2 ref tags and the template sandwiched between the tags to your computer's short-term memory and then paste the whole business into the main text where you want the next citation. Fill in the correct information for that citation (rather than the citation 2 information), and save. Alternatively, you can copy and paste a blank template from
  WP:CIT
  . If you do this, don't mix the "citation" family of templates with the "cite" family. Stick with "cite" throughout.

General

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds nine wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
STOP! Don't read this article!

Before you look at the dismal shape this article is in, I want you to imagine for me what questions you might have about the idea "religion", and what you would expect to see in an article about "religion". Reading this article will only confuse you. I have looked at it many times and it always confuses me. It is the center stage of a wonderful mixture of esoteric POV pushers, including individuals who have told me on the talk page that scholarly discussions of current issues in religious studies are far less important for the sake of a good "religion" article than promoting their personal POV battle. So, don't even look at it-- imagine it, as it exists in Platonic form, the Featured Article in your head. ANYONE reading this paragraph is welcome to add their comments here even if they don't want to do a full peer review. I am open to rewriting this from scratch.

Even after you look at it, please suggest radical revision. For example, who determined that a section called "religion and superstition" should be prominent in the article, instead of placed under "Related forms of thought"? Why is there no section named "religion and society", or "religion and politics"? I'm asking these questions myself, as a past contributor, because I'm only one voice and I want your input.

Alright, go ahead Shii (tock) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Taking you at your word and commenting without looking at the article, I'd expect it to address the basic "who, what, where, when" questions. The "what" would involve an extended definition of the word, "religion". Since the definition must come from reliable sources, it might actually turn out to be "definitions", and it might be necessary to report on major controversies involving the definitions. The "who" would involve naming and very briefly describing the most notable individuals and groups involved in religion(s). (This might be done as a table). The "where" would involve the geography of religion(s), possibly illustrated by a map. The "when" would involve the history of religions, perhaps reduced to a timeline. The topic is so enormous that I'd never attempt it myself. I don't see how it could be done except as a bare-bones summary of the who-what-where-when type, presented in a clinical way, without bias. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I think the point of the topic being enormous is quite important. I just realized that writing paragraph-long summaries of subjects like "religion and superstition", "religion and society", or "religion and politics" is an immense task that this article should not even try to cover. I'll have to bring that up on the talk page. Shii (tock) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: You are most welcome. I waited two days and then read the article, and I have just a few other thoughts, mostly about form but one about content.

Biased content

• "The word "religion" as it is used today does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The history of other cultures' interaction with the religious category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europe under the influence of Christianity." - On the face of it, this is an extraordinary claim sourced to a single author. It would be easy to object to this claim on grounds that it seems to suggest that before colonization by Western nations, other nations and cultures had no religion. Other writers might well disagree, and, if they do, they should be represented here too. This claim might be interpreted in some other way, but it segues into a discussion of the meaning of Christianity, and a reader might wonder why an article on religion in general has so quickly become a discussion of one particular Western religion. In the first paragraph of the discussion of Christianity, a sentence says, "What we would call religion today, they would only call "law". Big oops! Who is "we", and who is "they"? Whatever else the article might be, it isn't neutral if it divides the world into "we" and "they". I think the working definition at the beginning of the article needs to be broad enough to encompass all religions in all times and places. I don't think you can start with the Romans or simply the etymology of the English word, "religion" without introducing a Western bias from the start.

Form

• The lead should be a succinct summary of the whole article. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can envision what the lead needs to be. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. This lead isn't a summary at all but rather an extended definition. I'd suggest moving the definition into the first main text section. Then the lead could be wholly re-written as a summary or abstract.
• Large chunks of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.
• Bolding is used sparingly in Wikipedia articles. Most of the extra bolding in "Specific religious movements" should be removed. Please see
  WP:MOSBOLD
  for details.
• The editing tags that challenge certain sections or statements need to be addressed.
• Images should be placed so that they do not displace section heads or overlap sections.
• Lists such as the one in "Myths" should be rendered as straight prose.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthie Henshall

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually take this article to

Thanks, @Kate (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oncamera

These are just my thoughts. I have no idea about the person the article is about, so maybe as a "new reader" I can provide a different view.

You will probably want to find the exact pages to wikilink to:

• Annie
• Bernadette
• Marguerite
• The Woman in White

Overall the {{cite}} tags should come after the punctuation marks in a sentences; change reference 3 for example! Check the other references for the same edit. Also, find references for the Citation needed tag.

Biography I would suggest removing the header Biography and replacing it with Career instead. This article is already a biography and that seems redundant.

Career 1980s

• Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey[1] before making her stage debut, at the age of 19, in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea. This sentence structure doesn't seem to flow. Perhaps breaking it up? "Prior to making her stage debut at the age of 19, Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey. Her debut performance was in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea."
• Her West End Theatre debut came shortly thereafter when she was cast in Cats, making appearances as Jemima, Demeter, Griddlebone and Grizabella.[2] Shortly thereafter means? Being more specific when this happens helps the reader chronologically read the article.

1990s

• In 1992, at the age of 25, she was cast as Fantine in Les Misérables, though her first starring role wouldn't come until the 1993 trans-Atlantic transfer of the Broadway smash Crazy for You, with a score by George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin, opening at the Prince Edward Theatre. Change the word wouldn't to would not. Also, I think it would read better as two sentences.

2000 to the Present Change the header to 2000-present?

• Henshall was cast in the title role of the stage musical adaptation of the Francis Ford Coppola film Peggy Sue Got Married,[4] which opened in London in August 2001 to mixed reviews. Perhaps you can expand what sorts of review were given that made the musical close after two months. Seems like something that might interest the reader to read critical reviews of her performances.
• After Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent in 2009, Ruthie Henshall's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables has become a YouTube hit with more than four million viewings.[11] This seems like trivia and probably doesn't need to be included.

Personal life You will probably want to make this a section that isn't a subsection of Career. It maybe better to have it go before her Career section so a new reader of this performer can read about her background before reading about her career.

Theatre Credits/Discography These sections will need more references.

Anyway, these are my suggestions for this article! oncamera^(t) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! I'll implement your suggestions asap. :) @Kate (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's almost ready if not 100% ready for Featured Article Status, I have found that Peer Review helps prep for that process and I may be too close to the subject to know what may be lacking in the article to a typical reader. Thanks, Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 1 needs a last access date.
  • Is current ref 10 (Frantom, Todd, 2005. Cuban Sanctuary. All Hands, June 2005) a book or a magazine article? I can't tell because nothing is italicized like the rest of the references. If it's a book/magazine it needs page numbers.
  • Same problem with current ref 22 (Christian, K. A. 1986. Aspects of the life history of Cuban Iguanas on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, 22, 159–164)
  • Current ref 14 .. the isbn is invalid. It is this book, correct?
  • Current ref 18 lacks a publisher. Also the page here is blank. Has the page moved?
  • Publisher on current ref 17 isn't "Iguana Specialist Group" but the ICN page
  • Is current ref 24 a book? Animal Behavior is a journal, isn't it?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. It needs further work to prepare for FAC, but the job shouldn't be overwhelming. Here are my suggestions.

• The images need alt text. You can check these via the alt-text viewer at the top of this review page. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it differs from captions meant for sighted readers. Alt text is now a requirement at FAC.
  WP:ALT
  has details.
• The link in citation 19 is dead. You might be able to recover it via the Wayback Machine.

Fixed

• It's generally better to have directional images facing into the page rather than out. You can't do anything about the direction of the lead image, but the other two (Prague Zoo and Labem Zoo) could be moved to make the lizards face into the page.

At one time I did that with all my articles, but some other reviewer told me that it was distracting and all should be aligned to one side. I like your advice better, we'll see how it goes at FAC

Some editors prefer to put all their images on the right, but nothing requires it. I don't think anyone at FAC will make the left-right business an issue, but

WP:MOS#Images could be cited in support of left-right variety: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left... ". Lots of FA articles use varied left-right arrangements. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, C.n.lewisi is the older outdated taxon for the Blue Iguana when it was considered a subspecies, C. lewisi is the newest giving it full species status.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "After years of research comparing scale counts on the heads of Caribbean iguanas, including those found on Little Cayman, Cayman Brac, Grand Cayman, Cuba, and the Bahamas, as well as mitochondrial DNA analysis performed by Dr. Catherine Malone of Texas A&M University to re-examine the phylogeography of the different species revealed this original classification to be inaccurate and currently only one subspecies is recognized: the Lesser Caymans iguana (Cyclura nubila caymeanensis)." - Too complex. You might want to re-cast this as two sentences.
• Wikipedia doesn't use the title "Dr." in situations like this but recommends adding a more specific trailing qualifier; e.g., Catherine Malone, a biologist from... or whatever description is most appropriate.
  WP:CREDENTIAL
  has an explanation.

Fixed

Anatomy and morphology

• "These lizards compensate for this... " - Perhaps "poor low-light vision" instead of "this"?

Fixed

• "This ability is highly useful when basking so the animal can ensure that it absorbs enough sunlight in the forms of UVA and UVB to produce vitamin D." - "Ability" seems to refer to "sharp color vision". I think the intent is to say that the double cones absorb UVA and UVB. Perhaps the sentence should be recast along these lines: "The double cones are highly useful when the animal basks, because they absorb enough sunlight in the forms of UVA and UVB to produce vitamin D."

Fixed

Distribution

• "information about the number of distinct subpopulations of Cuban iguanas is unable to be determined" - Tighten by changing "is unable to be" to "cannot be"?

fixed

Recovery efforts

• "The program proved successful with the iguanas reacting to predators, foraging for food, and behaving like their wild-born counterparts." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "The program proved successful when the iguanas reacted to predators, foraged for food, and behaved like their wild-born counterparts."

fixed

References

• Dates in the citations should all be formatted in the same way, either m-d-y or d-m-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not a mixture. I see all three variations in the existing citations.
• "Alberts, A. & Perera, A." - Generally, Wikipedia uses "and" rather than the ampersand.
• "Schwartz, A. and Carey, M. (1977). Systematics and evolution in the West Indian iguanid genus Cyclura. Study of Fauna from Curaçao and Caribbean Islands. 53(173):15-97." - Page ranges and date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will work on it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sledd

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm part of the Wikiproject University of Florida, and I've been tasked with rewriting the biographies of the university's presidents, and then to apply that collected knowledge to the expansion and rewriting of the article covering the history of the university. I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded it beyond the original stub article, and I would like to understand the category "A" article and feature article requirements better as I continue to rewrite, expand and properly source the other dozen or so articles for which I am responsible.

Thank you for your assistance, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, generally well-written, stable and neutral, and has two nice illustrations. I have a fair number of suggestions related to style guidelines and some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO
  says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead is an introductory paragraph rather than a summary. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.

 DoneIntroductory section has been expanded to include a longer summary of Sledd's career highlights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor, Emory College and the "Sledd Affair

• "Although Sledd's essay supported the continuation of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, a public firestorm ensued in Georgia, stoked by the vitriolic letters and editorial attacks of agrarian populist Rebecca Felton published in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper." - Although most U.S. readers would guess from reading this subsection that Rebecca Felton and others denounced Sledd because they favored lynching (if they actually said this) as a means of suppressing African-Americans, foreigners might think they denounced him because he supported racial segregation. It might be helpful to amend this section slightly with a non-U.S. audience in mind and to make the essence of the controversy unmistakable. (It becomes more clear later in the article, but I think it should be made clear from the outset.) Direct quotations might be one way to do this if you can find representative examples, perhaps from Sledd and Felton. The quote in citation 8 might do for Sledd, or perhaps something longer would be better. Anything of four lines or more can be set off in blockquotes. See
  WP:MOSQUOTE
  for details.

General

• The article includes quite a lot of overlinking of the sort described by
  WP:OVERLINK. For example, the first two links in the lead both go to University of Florida, and the second two go to History of the University of Florida
  . Readers will assume that the links are meaningful but will discover that the second of each pair is not meaningful. To enhance the value of the wikilinks, redundancies should be avoided. I'd be inclined to link University of Florida only once in the entire article. Ditto for Methodist, Emory University, Board of Control, and many others. In addition, I don't think you need to add the linked places like Emory to the "See also" list.

 Done"Over-linking" has been purged throughout, per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Date ranges and page ranges anywhere in the article, including the citations, take en dashes rather than hyphens.

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's possible to over-reference. It's not necessary to provide a source for every sentence, especially if the sentence in question contains nothing controversial, no statistics, and no direct quotations. For example, the second paragraph of the "First President, University of the State of Florida" section consists of five sentences, all sourced to the same document. One at the very end of the paragraph would be sufficient to cover the whole paragraph. I'd suggest culling refs that aren't truly necessary. (I realize that deciding which are needed and which are not can be subjective and tricky).

 DoneI do bring a lawyer's bias for footnoting, and philosophically, I feel better about footnoting every statement of fact, especially when the wiki cross-reference footnote citations are so readily available. It makes sourcing the article that much easier for serious readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good idea to use short, snappy heads and subheads and not to repeat the same words multiple times in the heads. Thus, perhaps "Scholar and teacher" would be a slightly better head for section 2, and the subheads could be shortened to "Emory College and the Sledd Affair", "University of Florida at Lake City", etc.

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia normally doesn't use "Dr." as a title. (See
  WP:CREDENTIALS
  ). Thus, the Dr. in the infobox should be deleted, and constructions such as "the son of a Methodist Episcopal minister, Dr. Robert Newton Sledd" should also drop the "Dr."

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• The Sledd Hall image should be re-sized downward. It's too big and on my computer screen overlaps two sections. I'd suggest tinkering with the size until the image fits within a single section and looks good.

 Done Reduced to a single section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured articles must have alt text as well as captions. Alt text describes image content to readers who can't see the images. Although you might not have to have alt text for GA, it's a good idea to add it as a service to this group of readers.
  WP:FAC
  to see how other editors are handling alt text questions.

 DoneAlt text added to photo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

• If available, book data should include ISBNs. The older books won't have any, but something like Dictionary of Georgia Biography most likely will.

 Done All available ISBNs have been included. Older references predate ISBN use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• I noticed something odd in this sequence of sentences in the University of the State of Florida section: "Sledd's role was instrumental in the formation and ultimate success of the new university, but his tenure as its president was a relatively short four years.[22] His political support came to an end with the retirement of Governor Broward, and the inauguration of the new governor, Albert Gilchrist, in January of 1909.[22] The Florida Board of Education, which oversaw the Board of Control, made no secret of its desire to replace Sledd,[22]" Although these are sourced to an article about Buckman Hall, the article does not seem to mention Sledd's tenure, Governor Broward, and so on. It would be good to check the citations to make sure that they directly support the claims they are attached to.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Finetooth. I am just running out the door to my day job, but I will begin to respond to your comments and make suggested changes this weekend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it has FA potencial

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better since the last peer review. I think the language could still be improved and will try and point out as many examples as I can of rough spots. There are some other mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement beyond language too.

• LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth season, something like that. The first paragraph is a bit short anyway. The set in a fictional version of Rhode Island sentence could probably be added here too.
• LEAD - awkward sentence - MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and renamed him Peter, also redesigning Larry's dog Steve, who developed into Brian. Should use parallel construction (so "also redesigning Larry's dog Steve" doesn't match - should be redesigned. The sentence could also be tighter, perhaps something like MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and his dog Steve, and renamed them Peter and Brian.

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LEAD - "ratings on" doesn't sound right in However, favorable DVD sales and high ratings on syndicated reruns convinced the network to renew the show in 2004. how about "ratings for"?

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LEAD - this could be tightened too: Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards, of which it won three. The show has also been nominated for eleven Annie Awards, winning three times into something like Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards and eleven Annie Awards, and has won three of each.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LEAD - I am nopt really sure what a "low review" is. Family Guy has also received negative criticism, including three lawsuits, and low reviews for its similarities to the animated series The Simpsons. Perhaps replace "low reviews for its similarities" with "unfavorable comparisons for its similarities"?

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LEAD - there is very little about the show itself in the lead - it seems to me that someone who had not seen it would know more about tie-ins, awards, and criticism, than what to expect watching a typical episode.
• History section has this sentence The network also began production of a film based on the series.[12] with a ref from 2004, then nothing more on a film until the film section, where this is not mentioned at all. I think I would either remove this (a 5 year old reference to a film in planning which has never materialized) or perhaps it owuld be better to move it to the film section and change it to something like When the series was renewed in 2004, the network announced its intention to begin production of a film version.[12] Although this has not yet materialized...

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the material seems a poor fit in the section - it might need to be moved elsewhere or the section title might need to be revised. For example, what does the nice little story about early episode naming conventions really have to do with "Staff" (the section it is in)?
• There are a fair number of places that could provide context to the reader - see
  WP:PCR
  For example could the years the people were on staff be added to the Staff section's a list of various types of producers? For another example, why not add the year (2004) to Since the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, the writers have been required to tone down the show's crude humor for television broadcasts.[20] Also not really sure what this has to do with the Staff section, though it does mention the writers.
• Also per
  WP:IN-U
  , I owuld describe who Peter, Stewie and Brian are at the beginning of voice cast, so Seth MacFarlane voices three of the show's main characters: [father] Peter Griffin, [Peter's dog] Brian Griffin, and [Peter's infant son] Stewie Griffin.[25]
• There is a one sentence paragraph on MacFarlane's other voice roles that should be merged with the preceding one on his main voice roles to improve flow.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a ref Other recurring cast members include: Patrick Warburton as Joe Swanson; Adam West playing himself as mayor Adam West; Jennifer Tilly as Bonnie Swanson; John G. Brennan as Mort Goldman; Carlos Alazraqui as Jonathan Weed; Adam Carolla and Norm Macdonald as Death; Lori Alan as Diane Simmons; and Tara Strong as many additional voices, most notably Meg's singing voice. as does most of the last paragraph of Characters

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say
  eponymous
  in Adam West playing himself as [the eponymous] mayor Adam West - he is not really playing himself (is the real Adam West a mayor?)

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain that 31 Spooner Street is the fictional address of the Griffins in This is supported by the fact that the real-world "31 Spooner Street" is located in Providence, immediately west of Roger Williams Park.[43]

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wyach needless repetition - the Adam West the actor voices the character Adam West the mayor bit is in twice and is not important enough to be in the article twice.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I watch this show occasionally - the whole talking dog that everyone can understand and talking baby that most people cannot understand aspects are not really explained well.
• OK, this is enough - I think it is a lot better, but it still needs some work before I think it could pass an FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at

Harvest (Numb3rs)

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to see if any improvements can be made to the article. Thanks, SciGal (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend expanding the lead. Probably two paragraphs long. If any of the secondary sources describe any visual elements of the episode, it would be nice to illustrate that with an image (which has a good fair use rational, see

From Liquidluck (talk):

• I agree with Peregrine Fisher above; follow what he or she said.
• Delink the airdate in the lead per
  MOS
  for dates.
• Delete the "(a fictitious mathematics prize)"; Since it is a plot summary of a work of fiction, it can be assumed it is fictional. You may want to change the "Milton Prize" to "a prestigious mathematics award", though.
• "determine the time of death as earlier in the day." The time of death of who? Currently, the plot makes it sound as though it was Santi. Please clarify.
• "the team learn that Santi and Prita's other friend had died" Is this the same friend Santi identified earlier?
• Add the airdate to the reception section.
• 13.22 million it what country? Also, please add that they saw it live.
• There aren't any actual television critic opinions here. I would split this section up; first viewership, then responses from critics (you might find these in episode recaps by reliable sites), and finally responses from experts.
• This isn't a rule, but references generally go on the outside of punctuation. It isn't required, however, so do as you please.
• Overall,
  Wikilink
  way more. Algorithm, organ donation, I'd even say black market.

Nice, neat plot summary, and I think Peregrine Fisher hit on everything else. If you have questions, please post on my talk page. Good luck! Liquidluck (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I am making corrections to the article, although I still have more to go.SciGal (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

I don't think this is far from GA. I think possible expansion could be done on production; if the season has come out on DVD and you have, watch the directors commentary. I'm just going to give some comments on how to massage the prose (although this isn't needed for GA).

General

• HLA is a disambiguation link
• The date uses inconsistent date formats. References use date then month, but the body of the article uses month day. I would prefer month day because this is an American topic.

Lead

• I think the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm not sure with what.
• "Inspired on a Christian Science Monitor" what do you mean "on"?
• What is an "organ tourist"? The article never defines the term
• link algorithm in the lead
• Add "After airing on January 27, 2009" before "the episode received a mixed reaction". The date aired is needed to give an overview of the article, which the lead is supposed to be
• The last sentence of the lead is awkward: "however" seems to be indicating something negative, but the awards are positive. Also, per WP:AVOID, "however should be avoided. I suggest: "It has inspired academic case studies and received two awards." or something similar.

Plot Summary

• "Summary" in the header should be lowercased per
  MoS:HEAD
• "call to a hotel and find" I don't like "to a" here; I would replace it with "from a"
• "blood-stained hotel basement" you repeat "hotel" twice; it's redundant here
• "goes to the hospital to see if Santi's sister is at the hospital and finds" repeats "the hospital" twice
• "them that it was a friend of theirs" replace "it" with "she"
• "that there was a friend who is also missing" can be reworded as "that there was another missing friend"
• "team learn that" should have "learns"
• In the last paragraph, the average reader doesn't know what "HLA" is. Spell it out in full
• "team rescue Prita" should have "rescues"
• "use her money from her prize" would sound better if the first "her" was changed to "the"
• "case has caused her to learn" I think "inspired" would be better than "caused"
• "Alan" is not talked about in the article, so is unfamiliar to most readers
• The last sentence is unclear: Don learned Alan needed an organ transplant so only Charlie became a donor? Or did both become donors?

Origin of the episode

• The section title should be Origin or Background
• Is Hardin's last name spelled incorrectly in the first sentence?

Reception

• The first two sentences can be combined
• Reference 5 (CBS) can use {{cite press release}}.
• "The first case study was a" you can remove "case study" because it's clear form the previous sentence what you're talking about
• Link
  George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services
• I think "consultation" should be replaced with "consulting"
• Link University of Southern California and Purdue University
• per
  MOS:QUOTE
  , change the curly quotes and the curly apostrophe after Vickers in the last paragraph to normal
• The second "has" and "award" in the first sentence of the last paragraph are both redundant
• Link Norman Lear Center
• Link either
  Creative Arts Emmy or Primetime Emmy Awards

• Spell out "WJZ" in reference 4; most readers don't know what it is
• Really getting picky, but per
  MoS:TM
  , remove the copyright symbol from reference 8
• Add Category:2007 television episodes
• If a link to the article that inspired the episode is available, I would add it under External links

Don't be discouraged by the amount of issues here, I was extremely picky. Anyway, it makes life easier at GAN. If you have any question, put them here (I'll check back eventually) or my talk page. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes that you suggested to the best of my ability. This episode, unlike several like I had done so far, does not have a commentary on the DVDs, although I wish the episode did. Therefore, I cannot include as many production details as I can. Also, WJZ is a television station in Baltimore; that is why I can't spell it out. I did expand the lead some; what do you think of the expansion?

Other than that, I have been able to make the rest of the changes, and I am trying to find more critics' comments about the episode.

I hope that this helps you. Again, thanks for the suggestions. SciGal (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found additional information about Segev and Gentry's algorithm, and I have included it in the "Origin" sectionSciGal (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would would like to take this to the FL level, so any help with grammar and prose would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I just peer reviewed Providence Grays all-time roster a few hours ago, I thought that I would look at this too. I imagine some of my comments will be similar, but I was a bit surprised that the two articles had some differences where I thought they would be more similar. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I also did a minor copyedit of the lead but not of the table text. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors.
• Not sure what this is supposed to mean - missing word? With a stable hitting [something?], behind veterans Tom Carey, Tom York, Dick Higham, and Jack Burdock, the franchise enjoyed two second place finishes in 1875 and 1876.[1][10][11] or just omit the first "a"? With stable hitting, behind veterans... The "two" is not needed in any case.
• First off, while I realize the teams had very different histories, I think the basics of their articles should be as close to similar as possible. I noticed that the colors for the key are different here - I would make them consistent.
• I also think that if the Grays has a History section, this should too (although the lead here is shorter and meets the four paragraphs maximum of
  WP:LEAD
• I think the fact that they played one year of only four they existed should be in the first sentence, and some indication of the time period should be in there as well. Perhaps something like The Hartford Dark Blues was a short-lived Major League Baseball franchise in the 1870s, which was based for three years in Hartford, Connecticut and one in Brooklyn, New York.
• Number consistency in the list descriptions is also an issue here - there are places where small numbers are spelled out (played one game) and others where the digits are used. Do whatever is required by FLC / Baseball WikiProject, but be consistent
• As in the other article, the Alt text tool shows no alt text - this will be needed per
  WP:ALT
• I did not copyedit the list descriptions. They read a little better than the Grays did, but here are a few things to watch for (in addition to overuse of and).
  • Some places it is not clear if a statistic applies to one season or to the player's whole career Barnie's first was also the only season he played more than 19 games, and had a .138 batting average. This is also a bit awkward and could perhaps be something like Barnie had a .138 batting average in 1874, his first season and the only one in which he played more than 19 games. (I know I said not to repeat the year before, but I think this makes it clearer)
  • I am not sure what this means Larkin pitched one season with the Dark Blues, and had a win–loss record of 29-25 in center field during his only game for the 1875 Hartford team. I think maybe this was two sentences that got combined by accident (period after win-loss record, then missing something?)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at

Again, great suggestions. After the Grays' review, I suspected that this one would produce very similar results.Neonblak ^talk - 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Catledge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as my first fully written article, I'd like to know how I did. Don't hesitate to provide constructive criticism!

Thanks, [