Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2013

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure: I think you might want to look at
  History of American Sign Language
  , as well—it seems like there's enough in the sources to support one).

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like the grammar section should, following the Swedish article, summarize what's in the main American Sign Language grammar article. More later. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC) OK.[reply]

• Consistency of referencing method: Per
  our page on Harvard referencing
  : "If you choose to use this style, however, it should be used for all citations in the article, not merely a selected subset. It's a little confusing to have both Harvard referencing and inline footnotes. So pick one and stick with it.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still more to come. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Illustration: I was glad to see some video in the article. We need it because sign language, like spoken language, depends on the "
  signifiers despite being purely visual with no sonic component (which is of course the point). So ... where we need signing illustrated, we should do so with video as much as possible. Wouldn't it be great if we had a short video of someone signing "American Sign Language" in the infobox instead of that image which non-signers won't understand until they read down in the article? Likewise for the pictures of the guys doing ASL on stage ... as still images they could be anyone standing on a stage with their hands in some unusual position, for any reason. With video we'll get it.

  I know there's not a lot to work with in the commons category right now, but that doesn't mean we can't make more videos.

  Also, those three videos illustrating the dialect differences could probably be better managed from a layout perspective by putting them in the one big box that could be created with {{multiple image

  }}.

multiple image  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency in capitalization of "deaf": I get the feeling that when "Deaf" is capitalized, some sort of cultural identity is being asserted. It would be nice if there was some sort of note explaining this. Especially because we have sentences where "deaf" and "Deaf" are used practically side-by-side, like "There is also a distinct variety of ASL used by the Black Deaf community. Black ASL evolved as a result of racially segregated schools in some states, which included the residential schools for the deaf." I don't see the logic whereby one is capitalized and the other not. If there is a reason this needs to be explained.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things after another word from our sponsors. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "See also" and "External links" sections: Both of those are rather large by our standards, and I daresay places where fat could be cut. I'd read
  WP:EL
  and review whether the listings that are there, particularly in the latter section, really need to be there.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, a few single-bullet observations:

• "There is also evidence that ASL is structurally quite different from FSL, and thus should not be taken as its genetic descendant." This is interesting ... perhaps you might give us some of the details of that evidence?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "ASL is sometimes written using English orthography" Some examples (other than the one already given (I think) for "hearing child of deaf parents") and an explanation of how that system works? It might even be worth a separate section.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the example under "Allophony", of how the sign for "tomato" has changed over time, a video illustration would be great.

effectively  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have some ideas for things that could be included in the article provided reliable sources can be found:

• The use of ASL for special education of groups other than the deaf: My son is
  speech dyspraxic
  . They are often taught to sign when they cannot speak clearly, and my son has picked up some signs from them (and thus, without trying, taught them to me ... "thank you" and "more" most notably, so far). I don't know if this is true just in the ASL-native area, but it would be interesting to have something on it. Which would lead into the broader subject of ...

• Influence on/use of ASL by hearing community generally: Some schools, including those I've substituted at, allow students to take ASL for their foreign-language credit. Some information about this might be nice to have. One also thinks of the Occupy movement hand signals, supposedly derived from ASL (and quite useful in gauging consensus response at a meeting composed primarily of speaking/hearing people).

Well, I am now finished with this peer review. Hope this helped! Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metock case

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

Thanks, JaniB (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are a number of issues here, but I'll try to break them down:

• "Groundbreaking" is a subjective term, and as such, doesn't really need to be in the lead. Let the content speak for itself. Same goes for "major political significance". The article should simply tell us the areas of significance and its effects; the lead should summarize that significance and those effects.
• The second paragraph I think is trying to summarize the court's opinion (though I'm not sure). Even so, it should read something like "The court found that..." rather than what it is currently, which is a block of text that may actually be plagiarized. As written, the paragraph actually breaks
  WP:NPOV
  .
• Definitions generally don't need to be included in the lead, such as "A non-EU national is..."
• Since everything in the article indeed should be "facts", that doesn't make a very helpful title. "Background" would probably be more appropriate.

I don't really think I should go any further than the lead of the article as far as specific criticism goes, because it looks like this is basically a start-from-scratch scenario, I'm afraid. It looks like

Remember, BE BOLD. Runfellow (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Runfellow.

JaniB was really asking for comments specific to her concern about so-called "original research" (does the paraphrase of the Court's judgment constitute OR?), but I'll address some of the issues you raise.

The December 2 edit was a considerable expansion, prepared by myself and a number of colleagues, of the original article, one that had been flagged as requiring expansion as I recall. The original material was retained for the most part and that included the subjective terms you mention. I understand your issue, but personally I would prefer to keep those commonly accepted judgements. I'm sure the issue must be often debated within Wikipedia.

The second paragraph is not a plagiarism. It was provided by me to set the backround to what is an issue of ongoing political significance in the European Union.

The article is an article about a law case and reads like a legal article in the same way no doubt as an article about a mathematics theorem reads like a mathematical article. There are plenty of those where I get lost after the first couple of sentences, but that doesn't mean the article is not within the scope of Wikipedia. The purpose of the lede is to make the main effect of the judgment available to all, and that is what we tried to do with, for example, my second paragraph.

"Facts" is a standard heading in any article about legal judgments. You will see it in about pretty well every article about a legal judgment in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). In it, one simply presents the situation put before the court that needed ruling on.

I would be very sorry indeed to see all our hard work reverted! JaniB has already more or less retired from Wikipedia over the reception of her edits (she provided the framework for the current expansion, over which she devoted a significant amount of time researching and mastering the Wikipedia mark-up involved). As things stand, I and a number of colleagues are prepared to devote time to articles about really important EU case-law, but not if our efforts are reverted or edited to extinction! We are not naive about Wikipedia. We do know it is an issue. I have some material to add to this article that I shall incorporate after the New Year and, depending how the article has fared, then consider supplying some more article starts and expansions.

Thank you again for your comments. I still would like to hear from others (perhaps with some experience of editing law articles?) on JaniB's enquiry. Imogene @1d6507f9 10:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Altes Stadthaus, Berlin

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'm hoping for it to become an FA.

Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows NT 3.1

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's a translation of a German Wikipedia GA and I'd like to get it to that level over here as well. Any help to that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuSasori - very brief review:

1. I don't like the lead section much. It doesn't summarize the article's contents very well, focusing on some details and omitting the bulk of the contents.
2. Some of the text is a bit freakish: On the other side, a new operating system called Unix was created a decade earlier - wow, is it a bad translation or something?
3. Here: demonstrate the operating system on COMDEX 1990 - maybe demonstrate at?
4. Bill Gates already dominated the market of desktop operating systems with MS-DOS and Windows and hoped to do the same in the networking market with Windows NT - why "Bill Gates" and not Microsoft?
5. developed from anew -> developed anew.
6. strictly spoken -> strictly speaking
7. Most of the article depends on the Zachary reference. Is there another main reference?
8. It would be nice to change to using a harvnb style reference template.
9. The references would be neater in multicolumn format.

The English needs more work checking details I think.

Bryan v. Itasca County

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 it was just promoted to GA and I want to try and improve it to FA status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State Highway 82

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 becaus I recently expanded this much more than I thought possible. Before I nominate it for GA or anything further, I think a peer review would be nice

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope I'm not the only one who looks over this article, as I did not intend this to be a formal peer review, but here is a summary of the changes I have made. –Fredddie™ 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. CDOT route log is precise to 3 decimal places, so I took it out to 3.
2. US 6 is signed along I-70, so I included it.
3. Removed
   overlinking
   in the references.

Thanks! Feel free to do more. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization

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 to help identify an remaining POV problems or any area of discussion that may be neglected or overlooked.

Thanks, Meclee (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse

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 want opinions on what people think about this article being a featured article.

Thanks, Mickey798 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Well done in producing this comprehensive account of an enduring character. I think, though, that before the article is ready for a full prose review, a few general issues need to be addressed:

• Citations: One of the sections has a "citations needed" tag, and there is eveidence that other parts of the article are light on citations; for example, I note a number of paragraphs not ending with a reference. This aspect needs attending to.
• Images: The article at present has 10 non-free images of Mickey. That, in my view, is way beyond anything intended by the Wikimedia "fair use" policy, particularly as many of the images are quite similar. I think you might get away with three - say, the lead image, and one colour and one black-and-white cartoon picture. But 10 is, I believe, out of the question
• Broken links: Ref 37 is tagged as dead. I also found error or "not found" messages for 39, 40 and 50, and for the external "Toonpedia" link (the last-named could easily be dropped)
• Informal prose: I have not read the article, but I couldn't help noticing that Disney is referred to as "Walt", and that at one point Oswald "thought he had Disney over a barrel". This is the language of magazine journalism, but an encyclopedia require more formal prose. Events need to be reported neutrally, thus the adverb "angrily" is inappropriate. You should check through the text to ensure that an encyclopedic tone is maintained.

These comments should not be interpreted as anything other than a favourable view towards the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good but needs to be fixed up a little.

Sky City

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 wish to take this article to GA status [Not sure if FA status is possible with this article at all, but if it is, I will like to try it too, once I get it through GA.] The article topic seems pretty interesting, and looks like it could do good with getting the community's tag as one of the best articles in Wikipedia.

P.S. If I have placed it under the wrong category please correct it.

Thanks,

It will be good if you could point out where specifically are citations reqd on this page. Though i'll myself see about the one-citation per paragraph thing and see if anything is left out.

talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In general, almost all paragraphs meet this rule.

talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any template that will convert the two and/or display both, or is manually converting and adding the only way to do it?

talk) 06:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevermind. Got the template. Did the conversions partly. Do the others too need to be converted? Mind pointing which ones?

talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Just any which have both metric and imperial units (all weight and length ones) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.

talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It wont. The project plans to have both of them - Building in 3 months; and being the tallest. Could it be reworded, or does the correct one make sense?

talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to reword then, as it sounds like that its status as the tallest building depends on it being completed on schedule. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good enough now?

talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If built as planned and to schedule, Sky City would likely be the tallest building in the world at the time of its completion, with 220 floors and a total height of 838 meters. - presumably there is another very tall building being built at the same time? If so, slot a mention in.

i believe no. The only other to-be-constructed tall building seems way away from being completed. But I wanted to make sure we were not biased against the possiblity of other taller buildings coming up (as they always do) and so worded it that way. Should it be changed?

talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

same issue as in lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. How about now?

talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As of June 8, 2012, the Broad Group had not yet obtained the final approval of the government. On September 5, the Economic Observer Online reported: "[Sky City project] is now kept in secret, and any information about the Sky City is not suitable for the public." - are these sentences still needed given the sentence which comes after them?

Not sure. I chose not to remove it since they seemed correct, and had already been there when I was editing it. Should I remove them?

talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It just sounds like the sentences have been added as they have happened. It needs to be more cohesive. The June sentence is irrelevant now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Timeline in order now.

talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

See lead.

talk) 19:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

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 take it to FAC status, and believe it concisely and completely covers the history of this fort. Though the subject is comparatively minor, I believe the comprehensive coverage of a minor topic can be worthy of FA status. One thing I'm concerned about, however, is archaeological information. There have been three archaeological reports (I'll refer to them as South, Israel, and Babits, after the authors), but none are available much beyond one or two local libraries and a university library (unavailable even to me, although I'm desperately trying to get ahold of at least the latest -- Babits). I'm concerned about citing to these because I would question whether they'd run afoul of

Update: I have the 220 page Babits study, which is unpublished. There's a lot of great material in there about the archaeological work that I'd like to condense to 1-2 paras, but I'd like input about using an unpublished source that's apparently available only at the Historic Site or in the East Carolina University library.

Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• On the Babits study, it's not really a question of "Is this reliable?", it's "How do we typically use a source like this?" Other people are better at answering that than I am. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Babits study is genuinely unpublished (has never been made available to the public in any form), then it can't be used as a source on the wiki; as you say, it would fail verifiability. There's a difference, though, between a work having limited availability/only being held in a few libraries, and it being unpublished. Being made available to the public at the historic site, for example, would count as being published. The more limited the availability, the more onus I'd argue is on the editor to then provide quotations from the work or answer questions from other editors if the material was contentious or particularly unusual and attracted queries or comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So, then, if the research work is readily available from the historic site or from ECU's library, we're considering that published? I've contacted both places, and both have assured me that the research can be obtained by anyone interested, at least for temporary on-site viewing. As for quotes, I would hesitate to add that much additional content which could be summarized, and is relatively un-controversial. Do you think that's something I should do for FAC? Thanks for your comments, by the way! Cdtew (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, yes, I think that would meet with the definition used on the Verifiability pages. Someone could theoretically go and check it themselves if they wanted to (awkward though that would be if you live in the UK!). By quotes, I just meant that if on the talk pages someone for example asked "is that really what was said on pg. 5???", then if it's a rare work, the onus is more on the editor who has been to North Carolina to help them out! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One other thought on this is that the verifiability of the source relates to whether it is a "reliable" source. This is part of the first sentence in the
  MOS guidelines on verifiability in that it is available to the public and could be reviewed by a third party. I echo the caution and suggest using the source to support generally accepted fact rather than relying on it for controversial items and/or straight supposition. That will help your cause at FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Flank is a disambig link

• I've changed the wikilink to one for Flanking maneuver, which I think is closest to what I'm looking for, although a static fort isn't per se a maneuver.

• Given the length of the article, lead should be a bit longer

• Is what I have now long enough? I surely wouldn't need to exceed two or three good-sized paragraphs for this article, would I? I see its about 20k characters with spaces, so I read
  WP:LEADLENGTH
  as requiring two to three paras. I'm not great at lead-writing, so let me know what you think.

• Yes, much better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't start headings with "the"

• Removed.

• File:Collet_Map_excerpt_showing_Fort_Dobbs.jpg: why the doubled template?

• Because of my lack of expertise! Removed.

• File:Fort_Dobbs_Panorama.jpg: should use creation not upload date

• Done.

• Use a consistent date format

• I think I had one in the footnotes that was "Date Month, Year". They should all now be "Month Date, Year" format.

• Almost, just FN1 is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected. Had to figure out how to use that template, too.

• Special:BookSources/978-58465-542-8 and Special:BookSources/684-13536-1 both return errors

• I was missing one digit in each. Done.

• "by 1754, six western counties—Orange, Granville, Johnston, Cumberland, Anson, and Rowan—held approximately 22,000 residents out of the colony's total population of 65,000" - give some context here. How much of the colony's territory did these counties represent?

• Unfortunately, the source I used doesn't spell that out -- it (Lefler & Powell, 1973) was primarily concerned with showing the disparity in political representation between the eastern (established) counties and the western (new) counties. Without delving into OR, I don't know of a source (yet) that will give me this information (at least re: square mileage). I did however find this map, which gives good visual context. My questions, however, would be (a) is this too irrelevant? (after all, someone with the same question could gain context by going to articles about those counties to find out how they were formed and where their original borders were; and (b) is that file useable -- I mean, it does have a CC 2.5 license, at least as far as I understand the page's copyright notation.

• Its licensing specifies non-commercial, which for our purposes means it wouldn't be considered free, and you'd have a hard time justifying it as a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a shame, but at this point I don't know a concise way to give a comparison.

• "construction of Fort Stanwix in New York, ...constructed in" - repetitive

• Removed redundancy.

• "nearby Catawba raiding parties" - do you mean raiding parties from nearby Catawba encampments/settlements?

• Your version is correct, and much clearer.

• The " good and substantial building" quote is long enough to require blockquoting

• Done, and the version I was using was a second-hand trasncription; I dug up the original quote, and it's longer and mentions Hugh Waddell, so I am using that (naturally) instead.

• "North Carolina General Assembly petitioned King George II for assistance, indicating that the frontier remained in a relatively defenseless state" - not clear what you mean here. Did the assembly indicate to the king that they were defenseless, or did the fact that they petitioned indicate this to later scholars?

• The assembly indicated to the king they were defenseless. I cleared up the wording.

• "approximately 15 of the Middle Towns were destroyed" - out of how many total? Any estimates of Cherokee population in the area?

• I've seen estimates of 60 towns, but I can't put my hands on the source that said that, so it's just from memory. I did add in Cherokee pop totals, and town size numbers for context.

• "that had was rumored"?

• Intended to be "that was rumored" - corrected.

• "discovered in the 21st Century" - don't need caps on century

• Removed.

• "a 1,000 square feet (93 m2) lot" - should use adjectival form

• I was using the convert template, and don't know how to change the form. I instead modified the sentence so that (I believe) it's more correct.

• Okay. For reference, you could change the form by adding |adj=on to the concert template. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Biggest lesson so far - templates have all sorts of wonderful tricks to them, I just have to take the time to read the template pages.

• "the site was opened as a historic site" - repetitive

• Replaced first site with land.

• "archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs, and have located" - why the switch in tense?

• Corrected tense to all-past.

• "By 2006, archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs...by 1968, the site of the fort was confirmed" - seems contradictory?

• I guess I was trying (and poss. failing) to differentiate the "site" from the "exact location" (meaning foundations and outline of the fort in the soil), becuase the former was known by 1968, whereas the latter wasn't really discovered until 2006. I'll try to figure out a different phrasing structure.

• Don't use contractions outside of quotes

• I found one he'd, which I removed, but I don't see any more outside of possessives?

• FN49: page?

• I didn't put that particular source in, and I can't seem to find it on the net. Are pages generally required for newspaper articles? If so, would it be on Highbeam? (I don't have Highbeam). Cdtew (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added this in. Page number is there now. At present it is cite number 51. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joanna! I was sick this week, but was going to get around to asking you to help with that anyways. Thanks for keeping tabs on me, and thanks for that source! Cdtew (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added in locations for two that were missing; added states for Chapel Hill publishers.

Comments from H1nkles

• You're going to want to read
  How to satisfy Criterion 1a for writing assistance. Don't rush to FAC, it's better to let it evolve and take your time. I'll post more specific comments in the coming days but one thing the above article stresses is that you want to look for superfluous words. Don't say in 10 words what you can say in 5. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I appreciate your advice already. Over the next few weeks (after the peer review period, more likely), I plan to "walk away" from this article and come back with fresh eyes. As for now, though, any advice you have is much appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the fort was primarily built to protect the British settlers..." Remove "primarily" as a superfluous word. If it was built for any reason other than to protect British settlers then you should list it otherwise adverbs like "primarily" become unnecessary fluff that gets picked off a FAC right away. Especially when it's in the lead, which is often the first impression reviewers get of your article. "...and constructed entirely of wooden logs..." "entirely" is another of these removeable adverbs.

• Removed both; looking for more...

• "...implying a very small total population." The context tells us it was a small population, no need to spell it out.

• Removed; I suppose it is self-explanatory.

• "Within three years, most of North Carolina's population increase, driven mainly by immigration of Scots-Irish and German settlers traveling from Pennsylvania on the Great Wagon Road, was occurring in seven western counties created after 1740." Be judicious in using parenthetical references. This is frowned upon at FAC - not completely rejected but discouraged if that makes sense.

• I'm not sure what you mean. To my mind, "parenthetical references" means a reference in parenthesis rather than as a footnote. If you mean that I'm using refs that have an author name and page number, I'm still confused. I see articles all the time on the front page that use scads of "author-year-page number" refs and easily made FAC -- see: Action of 1 January 1800, Little Moreton Hall, etc. If you mean something else, let me know.

• I think I should amend the comment to "parenthetical remarks" as being more descriptive of what I'm trying to say. Yes parenthetical references do refer to items in parentheses, but they also refer to information in a sentence that is set off and explanatory but may not be bracketed by parentheses. Commas are the other common punctuation used for parenthetical remarks. Using parenthetical remarks isn't bad per se but should be used judiciously, in my opinion.

• Ahhh! I see. Ok, I'll look at how I can rephrase. I think that's one of my only instances in the article.

• All punctuation should go before citation, check throughout for consistency.

• As of this time, all citations look correctly-placed.

• The first sentence in the "Construction" subsection is a bit unwieldy. I would end it after "parties" with the citation. I would then start a new sentence with the quote from the letter. Check
  WP:QUOTE
  for MOS guidelines on the use of quotes and some formatting suggestions. Since it isn't a short quote you may want to format it a little differently. That's a style suggestion that is completely up to you as long as it conforms to the MOS.

• I broke that first sentence in half, and re-tweaked how the quote sits in the para. Since it's not terribly long, i'm not in love with the idea of making another block quote, so I just tried to fit it in as un-awkwardly as possible.

• Is there a reason the fort cost so much less than contemporary forts of its time? Anything in the research that could be added here? You make the point that it cost comparatively little to build but don't tell the reader why.

• The fort was wood, and built somewhat quickly. I've not seen any direct comparison between the forts I listed and Fort Dobbs, but if I had to hazard a guess it's because Fort Stanwix is larger and built in a more modern Vauban style; Fort Prince George, on the other hand, was smaller, so I have no idea why it cost more, and haven't seen an explanation. This is all OR, and I would prefer not to put anything in unless I had a source; while it'd be great to have further comparison, I think the cost alone tells the story that needs to be told -- this fort was cheap (implying temporary, and implying the poor finances of North Carolina at the time).

• You link "militia" in the second paragraph of the Construction sub-section though it is mentioned in the first paragraph and not linked. Make sure the first instance of a term is linked per
  WP:LINK
  . Then subsequent references to that term do not need to be linked. Check throughout the article.

• Moved that link to para 1 of the Background, although I could move it to the lead...

• The subject matter of the second paragraph in this sub-section is too variant. The start of the paragraph discusses who had a role in designing and building the fort. Then it strays into further reasons for the fort's construction (the subject of paragraph 1), then wraps up with a fact about it being the only military building between SC and VA. This needs to be addressed. Keep the subject matter of each paragraph discreet. I'd question the premise for including the fact about the congregation house at all. By simply stating that a settlement was growing in that area you make the point that needs to be made. File that under my opinion though.

• I broke up that second para, and moved the information relevant to "reasons" to above the construction portion.

• I think the long quote in the "Descriptions and shortcomings" sub-section needs quoatation marks but I could be wrong. Check WP:QUOTE on that.

• MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  says use either quotation marks or block quotes. Since it is now a block quote, I'll omit the quotation marks.

• The name of the sub-section is plural "Descriptions and shortcomings" but I see only one description. I also don't see specific shortcomings, which I would expect from the title. Perhaps you want to rethink the name of the title or see if the fort had any defined shortcomings.

• I see what you mean. I changed the title to "Description and effectiveness", because that's what that section is really talking about.

• I see at least two different links for Pennsylvania, select one and then remove the other.

• Done

• "The fort was primarily used as a base of operations for Waddell's company...."

• Removed. I guess I love words of ordination too much.

• The chronology in the first paragraph of the Early Uses section is a little weird. You start with its use at its inception then cover its role during the French and Indian war when Waddell was in PA, then double back to its use before the war (at least I think it's before the war since Waddell is back in the fort). It's a bit confusing and probably needs to be tiddied up.

• Re-arranged to clear up the timeline. Waddell's absence was approx 1758-1759, so I think the article conveys that well enough now.

• "In addition to warning nearby natives against attacking settlers in the Carolinas, Dobbs also instructed Waddell to attempt to keep peace with the Catawba, going so far as to instruct Waddell to turn over a settler who had killed a Catawba hunter in order to placate the hunter's tribesman, in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws did not persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina." This paragraph is one long sentence. I think it should be broken up.

• Done. Broken into 2 sentences.

• I'm not sure I understand the point of the paragraph on the aborted construction of a second fort. What does that have to do with this fort other than that Dobbs was a part of that construction? Unless you have a good reason to keep it in this is probably information that can be cut. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it should be kept in because it shows a (relatively) comprehensive (though aborted) plan to fortify other areas of the frontier. What I want the reader to get, though, is that this plan was disrupted by poor relations with the natives, and thus left the frontier in its relatively defenseless state, with Fort Dobbs as its only protection. I think this comes through the article, and would prefer to keep this paragraph in.

• I'm a little confused by some facts in the "Decline and fall" sub-section. You say that the Anglo-Cherokee War was fought at the same time as the French and Indian war and that the fort was used as a garrison to repel Cherokee raids in 1758, yet in the previous sub-section you say that the fort housed only two soldiers from the inception of the French and Indian war through 1759. These facts seem incongruent. Am I missing something obvious here?

• The French and Indian War was 1754-1763 (although fighting ended for the most part by 1761); the Anglo-Cherokee War was 1758(-ish)-1761, meaning that between 1756 and 1758, North Carolina contributed soldiers to the conflict in Pennsylvania, but thereafter wasn't required to contribute as much. I'll clarify the dates in the article.

• "...albeit against the opposition of several pro-British Cherokee leaders." This is implied from the context and can be removed.

• Since the article doesn't go into a disquisition of Cherokee politics, I'd like to leave something in that clues the reader into the fact that there were Pro-French as well as Pro-British Cherokee leaders. I've modified it slightly.

• Overall I'd challenge the need for the extended description of the causes of the Anglo-Cherokee war. I'm not sure what it does to advance the narrative on the history of the fort and consequently I suggest you think about removing or significantly reducing it.

• Again, I compare this to articles like Action of 1 January 1800 and 1740 Batavia massacre, which gave either more or less detail than I did. I think the detail I've included is beneficial for the article, in part because Fort Dobbs -- as a physical symbol of encroachment on Cherokee hunting grounds and the expansion of the frontier -- was part of the cause of the war. Additionally, I think the reader needs the context to know that this was supposedly a quiet theater of the F&I war after 1758, but this Cherokee "rebellion", as it was known, kindled a fire in what had otherwise been a sleepy backwater. I disagree with taking the extended description out, and I think it balances what needs to be said without going too far.

• I see what you're saying here just be aware that FAC reviewers may not agree. I'll put some comments at the end of this review on my opinions regarding the topic of "tangental" information in articles going to FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scalps is another misplaced link that needs to be linked earlier in the article.

• Moved!

• "...small Cherokee bands attacked homesteads and small communities...." Small - small, consider changing or removing one of the duplicative words.

• removed second instance and replaced with "communities on the frontier", implying small size

• "In raids on April 25 and 26, 1759, several parties of Cherokee led by Moytoy of Citico struck at settlements on the Yadkin and Catawba Rivers against the wishes of Cherokee leaders such as Attakullakulla, killing around 19 men, women and children, and taking more than 10 scalps from those killed, including eight scalps from settlers living on Fourth Creek." This is a very specific sentence that ought to be referenced directly after the sentence.

• Cited, and changed that paragraph structure.

• Fort Prince George is linked twice, once is enough.

• Removed.

• The writing in the Site preservation and archeology and Historic site section is pretty good.

• Thanks! I added some since your comment, but preserved what I had.

• I'm not sure about the formatting of the pictures in the Historic site section. I'd check the MOS specifically
  WP:IMAGE
  .

• I looked at layout, and it seemed to indicate as long as it wasn't disruptive on mobile devices or smaller screens, then it would be OK. I've looked at this on my iPad and iPhone, and don't think its disruptive. If anyone had thoughts about how I could format it better, I'm all ears!

• The key with references is that the format needs to be consistent. Make sure everything is exactly the same.

• I think everything should be uniform now.

• Overall you have a good article, it's not too long, which will serve you well at FAC. You need to tighten up the writing and look critically at a couple of sections that may stray off topic a little. Make sure the subject of each paragraph is discreet and that you're sourcing the information correctly. Finally make sure you adhere religiously to the MOS. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your comments, and I appreciate you taking the time to review my work! Cdtew (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There were a couple of areas where I felt the information was tangental to the subject matter and could be removed. You disagreed, which of course is your prerogative. What follows are my opinions of what FAC reviewers are looking for based on my experiences. In my opinion FAC reviewers are looking for adherence to the subject at hand and brevity. This is why I looked critically at information that appeared to be obvious from the context and also at information that appeared to be tangentally connected to the subject matter. The reviewers probably don't care about the subject of the article nearly as much as you do and so will be merciless in cutting out what they feel does not add to the article. If you can make a cogent case, should the issue come up, then you're fine. After being beat around the ears enough I've resigned myself to cutting and burning through articles to make sure they're lean and mean when they get to FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand completely. I appreciate your suggestions, and I think (I fear?) that they may turn out to be true. Part of the reason I want more background in the article is because of the terrible state of the Anglo-Cherokee War article itself. I think I'll take your suggestion and use it thusly: I'll come up with a good, concise defense in case that question is raised, and if that doesn't satisfy the reviewers, I will have a pre-determined portion that I will cut out quickly. This all presumes, of course, that I'd have the opportunity to cut and edit during FAC. Thanks again for your time! Cdtew (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• We made a lot of progress during the A-class review. After you've had a chance to respond to requests during this review, I'll review the changes. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've made some small changes.
• Otherwise, per standard disclaimer, all the changes since January 7 when it passed A-class look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again, Dank, for taking another look at my prose. Continued appreciation flows from me in your general direction.

Happy to help, Clark. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Adwa

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 many of the qualities of a GA or FA. However, I would like independent review, especially on the POV. I would like a final review before submission as Good Article.

Thanks, አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just some copyediting notes ... all of these will be useful for

• "usually known as Adowa": If it's usually known that way, shouldn't the article be titled "Battle_of_Adowa"?

 Resolvedchanged to "also known as" - both versions are commonly used. After a discussion consensus was reached to use "Adwa."

• Per
  WP:LEAD
  , the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article; the two short sentences don't do that.

 Doing... we will work on this

• "among the various European powers": among European powers

 Done your right, sounds better

• "recently-obtained": recently obtained, per
  WP:HYPHEN
• "located near Ethiopia": near Ethiopia
• "Somali-land": I haven't seen the old name with a hyphen before, and it's not hyphenated in the linked article.
• "Italian language version": Italian-language version

 Done All above

• "consented (i.e. was required) to Italy representing Ethiopia": allowed Italy to represent Ethiopia
  •  Resolved I found a stronger wording in the Treaty of Wuchale - What do you think? Changes linked below
    • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Amharic version": link Amharic
• "if he wished (optional).": if he wished.

 Done All above

• "As a result, Italy and Ethiopia faced off in what was later to be known as the First Italo-Ethiopian War.": What specific action led to the war, if that's known?

First Italo–Ethiopian War

article. Though it might be outside the scope of this article. More detail than necessary for an intro of a specific battle. I will bring to discussion.

• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, interesting article. I have the following suggestions:

• the lead probably needs to be expanded before taking it to GA or FA;

 Doing...

• some paragraphs appear to be uncited, particularly the first three paragraphs of the Background section. For GA or FA, at a bare minimum, each paragraph should be covered by at least one citation at the end of the paragraph (more may be required if each sentence uses a different source);

 Doing...

• in the Citations section, I suggest adding publisher, author and accessdate information for the web citations (if such information exists);
• in the References, is there an ISBN for the Webb source? I looked on worldcat.org but couldn't find this book. I found a 2011 book called "The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Empire" by Raymond Jonas, but not a 2011 book by Webb. Can we be sure that the author is correct here?

 Resolved

• the full bibliographic details for the work by Prouty don't appear to be in the References section, although there is a citation to them;

 Doing...

• same as above for McLachlan, Ruggeri and Pétridès. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...

Campbell's dwarf hamster

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 want it to become a good article and before I nominate it I want it to be peer reviewed.

Thanks, Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

• File:Campbells_dwarf.jpg: where are you getting that licensing tag from? The given source seems to cite Wikipedia
  • Image changed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " the breeding season for Campbell's dwarf hamster is different, depending on the location" - how about "varies by location" or similar? More concision needed
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Check comma usage throughout
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Campbell's dwarf hamster marks it scent around its territory using harderian glands, skin glands located behind the ears, urine and feces for communication" - grammar. Some general copy-editing needed
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The lowest tolerated temperature from a laboratory experiment showed that Campbell's dwarf hamster can resist temperatures" - phrasing
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The tunnel...are usually" - grammar
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The diets of the three types of hamsters are different to avoid fighting over the same type of food" - which came first? That is, did they switch diets to avoid competition or do they live together because their diets were different to begin with?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "they may be found yurts" - grammar
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "males are at higher risk to predators" - do you mean "from predators"?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "the breeding season begins towards the middle of April in Tuva and towards the end of April in Mongolia... in Mongolia, it begins in May" - which is correct?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In captivity, the gestation period for Campbell's dwarf hamster is between 18–20 days and the shortest gestation period recorded for a captive female was 13 days...oher females have a gestation period of approximately five days" - which is correct?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Females are usually sexually mature at two weeks of age...females become sexually mature at two months of age" - which is correct? Check for other inconsistencies
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Female hamsters that live with the male hamsters after mating" - how typical is this behaviour?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• FN34: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    

Neville Cardus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any British reader of relatively mature years and a passing interest in music (classical) or cricket will know who Cardus was and will almost certainly have read him. He considered himself primarily a music critic, but it is likely that he reached a far bigger audience with his cricket writing. For someone who wrote so prolifically and with such erudition, it is a surprise to find that he was entirely self-educated and had no musical training. Yet he was at the top of both his professions for many years, and was awarded the rare honour (for a critic) of a knighthood. This article is a joint effort from Tim riley and me. Comments welcomed from all quarters on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from Cassianto

This looks fantastic. I feel there won't be many from me here, but I will list them as I go:

*"Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers" -- of cricket, music or both?

• I think the context is clear that this refers to his music criticism, which is what is being discussed here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Cardus spent the Second World War years in Australia, where he wrote for The Sydney Morning Herald and gave regular broadcast talks." -- Whats a broadcast talk? I'm making a presumption that these talks were for radio?

• Your presumption is correct, but I have clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"He also wrote books on music, and completed his autobiography."

• Tim'll fix it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, and was present at on 3 December 1908 for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter". This sounds strange. Maybe say instead: "He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, where, on 3 December 1908 he was present for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter."

• I've adopted your suggestion, more or less. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Would it be usual to link Trumper and Shrewsbury School in the image captions?

• I'd say so, yes. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"...mainly out of admiration for Bernard Shaw"- Is there a reason why he is referred to this and not George Bernard Shaw, the name by which he is more commonly known according to his article? The disambiguation page shows four other Bernard Shaws, all are closely related professionally inasmuch that two are footballers and one is a journalist. Granted, to you and I it would obviously be GBS, but visitors may assume otherwise. Is there any reason for the piped link on this occasion?

• Shaw is, I believe, known as "George Bernard Shaw" in American usage but not in English. He hated the name George and didn't use it. You will find his collected plays and his three volumes of music criticism are by "Bernard Shaw", without the George. The film of Pygmalion has the title screen "Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion". The National Theatre's current season includes "The Doctor's Dilemma by Bernard Shaw". Cardus himself wrote of the older man as "Bernard Shaw" - no "George": rather pleasingly the first example that came to hand refers to another contributor to this very page: "Bernard Shaw wrote of Sarastro's music that it could be put into the mouth of God" ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7). I think Shaw should be allowed his own preferred form of name. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on that then, so do I. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue later. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. Anything further will of course be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else from me. The article is superb! . -- Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All your contributions, above, gratefully received. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: What a fantastic article! There was so much about the man that I never knew. Very easy reading. A few points and questions, any of which you may feel free to ignore.

• "he became The Manchester Guardian newspaper's cricket correspondent": Do we need to say it is a newspaper?

• Non-British readers may not recognise it as a newspaper, but I'll leave it to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've rejigged it a bit, to include the word "newspaper" later in the sentence. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His contributions in these two distinct fields in the years before the Second World War": Perhaps "contributions to" to avoid "to…to"?

• I think you mean "to avoid in...in". Done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes. Late night editing. Apologies! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although he achieved his largest readership for his cricket reports and books, he considered music criticism as his principal vocation.": Lots of "his" here, and is there a way to reduce it to one "he"?

• I can't see a way of doing it, without mangling the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Without any formal musical training, he was initially influenced by the older generation of critics, in particular Samuel Langford and Ernest Newman, but he developed his own individual style of criticism...": Again, is there a way to cut the second "he"?

• Easily done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers.": Is the comma needed?

• I believe it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cardus spent the Second World War years": Sounds a little strange. Is "years" needed? If so, what about "years of the Second World War"?

• "Years" is I think necessary. I'm not sure that your suggested rewording is necessary, but I'll leave that to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very slightly prefer Sarastro's wording; I suggest we leave it as it is for now and see if anyone else has a view. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Neville's mother was Ada Cardus, one of several daughters born to Robert and Ann Cardus": Maybe make it clear earlier that these are the people they lived with?

• Sorry, I don't understand the point at issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, my fault; must stop writing after midnight! What I meant was that these two are introduced, but it does not become clear until later on that Cardus and his mother lived with Robert and Ann; at first I wondered why we were being told who his grandparents were. Perhaps explain it here? Not a huge deal, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "was supplemented intermittently by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution.": This is a little different to what is stated in the ODNB, which does not mention "intermittent" and specifically mentions Cardus' mother.

• True, ODNB doesn't say "intermittent", though this is can be deduced from other sources. However, I have withdrawn the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1902 he saw the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch and thereby won a permanent place among Cardus's heroes.": Why "the" Test match, as the general reader (and even specialists) may not be familiar with that match.

• The phrasing is "the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch", as one might say of a TV programme "the episode in which George Costanza's fiancee dies" etc. So I think the wording is right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On the Attewell point, I may be able to help on one of the references. Of the two Attewell profiles on Cricinfo, the one for William is not his Wisden "profile", rather a frankly rubbish review written in 2000 before the site became a little more "professional". The same page links to his actual Wisden obituary here. Walter's page has his actual obituary which was published rather later and is perhaps more reliable. Doesn't quite clear it up, but perhaps not worth claiming that Wisden says they were both the coach.

• Thanks. I have removed the references to Wisden. As you say, the confusion remains. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard story that I have seen elsewhere is that he had a "breakdown" in 1919. While I suspect the version here is correct, can any more details be added?

• Cardus in Autobiography says he suffered a breakdown but gives no medical details. I have relied on Brookes's more precise account. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The other old chestnut is that he was a sensation as a cricket reporter, and people bought the paper just to read his reports, etc. Here we have "Nevertheless, he developed a style of cricket reporting that quickly lifted him to the forefront of contemporary sports writers." Can any details be added; e.g. when was he first noticed, when did he become "famous"? Although I suspect this may not be possible to elaborate on.

• I don't honestly see a need to elaborate here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As early as 1922 the Australian writer of the quote at ref 95 was calling Cardus "one of the most interesting writers on cricket of this or perhaps any other generation" – Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "tending to treat the actual scores as secondary": I may have to disagree with the source here. If you have a copy of "The Roses Matches 1919-1939" which collects his reports, he does quite a lot of factual reporting as well as his character stuff. They are quite good just as cricket reports in themselves.

• Well, the source is Cardus himself. On the page that I have cited from Full Score he adds: To look at the scoreboard while Hobbs was on view, as master batsman, was as unimaginatively pedantic..." etc etc. Also, treating the scores as "secondary" does not imply that he ignored the figures, rather that he looked beyond them. I am sure that as a good reporter he made sure that his readers knew the state of the game, but he made certain that they were informed of much else, besides. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The MCC tour of Australia under G.O. Allen was the occasion of Cardus's first visit to the country.[101] During the tour": Tour…tour

• Unavoidable, I fear, without undue contortion. Also, the repeated word is in two separate sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On Fry in Australia: Don't know if you've heard the story about the outward journey when Fry was talking everyone to death. Paraphrasing a little here, but the gist is that immediately before a 2 minutes silence on the ship (I think) Cardus said something like "This will be your biggest ever challenge", leaving Fry no time to reply. (I'm not suggesting including this, by the way!)

• He said (according to himself) "This'll irk you, Charles". The story is in Cardus on Cricket, and I've read it elsewhere. Nice story, but as you say, not really appropriate in a summary encyclopedia article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While there are a couple of cricket quotes in the article, is there room to include a famous music quote or two?

• Under consideration Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A possible runner: NC on The Magic Flute – "The opera in fact is the only one in existence that might conceivably have been composed by God". ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7)

• "—though his rationalism was shaken, he confesses, when he came to understand the late string quartets of Beethoven.": Sorry to betray my ignorance here, but not quite sure what this means here! Probably just me…

• I think he means that the beauty of the late quartets was such as almost to convince him of divine inspiration, of powers beyond the rational world. That's how I read it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that several of the references are given as "Cricinfo" (which technically should perhaps be ESPNCricinfo). My personal preference is to give the reference to Wisden, which originally published it, and keep the link to the Cricinfo page, as I find this more accurate and perhaps "respectable".

• I agree with you, and will attend to it

• A couple of composers are mentioned whom Cardus liked but whom were not widely revered at the time. The obvious inference is that general opinion later changed, but could this be made more explicit.

• I understand you mean Mahler, but who is the other one? Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One other point about music: while it is made clear what he achieved as a cricket writer, maybe the same could not be said for the coverage of his musical writing. Basically, was he any good?

• I would have thought that the tributes quoted, of Menhuin and Colin Davis among others, answer your question adequately. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And a final cricket point: It may be worth making the point that some of his match reports were lacking in … well, truth. For example, he (according to him) once reported on a Test match at which he was not present. The point is made about his cricket "characters" but could it be extended slightly?

• Perhaps a tweak in this direction is possible - I'll work on it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is alluded to in the Australia section: "Mr. Cardus mingles fancy with fact. The latter is preferable.". (Inadmissible evidence: at the Festival Hall, circa 1971, I saw him comfortably holding forth in the foyer to a bevy of young ladies: he was there throughout the second half of the concert but reviewed it all.) Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be able to find a better quality copy of the picture of Trumper if it helps, but I would have thought that MacLaren was a greater hero of his. Or Ranji. (Not worth including, but he was just about the only person to rate MacLaren as a captain) Sarastro1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather like the Trumper picture. If you can improve the quality, that would be welcome. Thank you for your thorough review and the many helpful points that you raise. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article looks to be an obvious FA candidate. It looks flawless to me, an excellent account of the critic and thoroughly enjoyable to read. Unlike many wikipedia editors I get the impression that the authors have actually read his article many times to ensure it is satisfactory; it represents the very highest standards of writing through much experience on wikipedia. I'm afraid my critical eye is unable to detect anything major. I suppose the only thing which was a little tricky to read was registering his constant post war movements between Sydney and London, anybody would think that Sydney was Oxford!! I don't think its a writing flaw though. I'll have to scrutinize this a lot later if I'm to be of any critical use to you, it's that good Brian and Tim! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Doctor! Praise naturally lapped up gratefully, but if on later consideration you find any faults, we'll be glad to hear. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the Doctor says above, this is positively first-class in all departments, and truly a credit to the whole project. I can find only a few very minor nitpicks in what is a marvellous article. The prose is particularly fine; well done to you both! Anyway, here are my contributions to this peer review.

• "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing, and the household income was supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution." I'd break this up myself: "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing. The household income was further supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution."
• Caption: "Albert Square, Manchester, (1910), where Cardus and his self-educated friends met regularly for discussion and debate" The brackets and the commas are not necessary, either one is fine. I would put "Albert Square, Manchester (seen in 1910), where ..." myself.
• Other captions have dates and so on (such as "modern photograph") in brackets; I would italicise all of these
  • I don't think that's the usual practice, and having just experimented (without saving) I don't think it looks as good with the itals as without. Brian – your thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitelly not a case for italics. The Albert Square view is "depicted" rather than "seen", as it's a panting. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He concluded that he could not satisfactorily review concerts for an evening newspaper, and joined the staff of The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)." I can't help but think a word is missing at the juncture of this sentence. Perhaps change to "and so joined", or similar?
  • Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Caption: "Cardus's friendships in Australia included C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman". There should be a full stop at the end here as it is a full sentence, and I'm not sure the word "friendship" is used correctly. Perhaps "In Australia, Cardus developed friendships with C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman."?
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Box quote: "Reader's letter to The Sydney Morning Herald". Is this letter dated in the source? That would be helpful. Is there a reason for the space between Herald and the reference?
  • Alas, Brookes quotes but gives no date for this letter. I have searched the Herald's online archive, and I cannot find it there. I conclude that it was not written for publication and is somewhere in the paper's old files. It must remain undated, here, I'm afraid. If you don't leave a gap between an italicised title and the <ref> it looks uncomfortably squashed. But I'm happy to go with the majority on this. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Box quote: "Daniel Barenboim's tribute to Cardus:" is the colon at the end here necessary?
  • Removed. Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The eulogy should probably be either indented or boxed.
  • I concur (indented rather than boxed, I'd say). I have experimentally added indents: Brian, what think you? Revert if you prefer, natch. Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again on a fabulously good read, and I hope you both have a wonderful weekend to kick off the new year. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are gratefully received. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat
A fascinating and beautifully balanced read. These are some very minor points and may not even be worth mentioning (or at least you may have considered the alternatives and have reason to do things the way you have).
Ellipses Two of the ellipses used are in the un-favoured shortened version (…), rather than the others, which use the MOS-favoured, slightly longer version (...) These look different in the background text, rather than on the screen. The first is in the first quote ("a war game … with an intensity"); the second is in the final para of the section ("mercury bubbled in the blood … The issue was here a very ache of intensity".

I note that you don't use a   before the ellipses: is this a conscious thing? I find them useful in ensuring a line doesn't start with the full stops, although I appreciate it's just a matter of opinion.

I have standardised the ellipses into the MOS-preferred format. As to the no-break spaces, you are right, these can be useful. It's just that I am too bloody lazy to put them in place. You have strirred my conscience and I will do so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote boxes I notice you have a space between the sources of quotes in quote boxes and the citation (Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography [63]; October 1929 [86]; The Sydney Morning Herald [111]) As it appears in all the boxes I presume there is a reason for this?

I don't see these spaces; can you clarify the problem?

::Now highlighted by use of bolded asterisk:

1. Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography*[63]
2. October 1929*[86]
3. The Sydney Morning Herald*[111])

These are the sources in the quote boxes. -

talk) 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks. I have fixed the problem now Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music critic "prewar": surely "pre-war" would be the better BrEng variant?

No, either is acceptable as BritEng, which has tended increasingly to do away with hyphenated forms though some still remain. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final years "Howat describes his appearance in this years as": these years?

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. -

• "As a small boy he had begun to visit Old Trafford cricket ground": the Old Trafford? I'm not sure your version isn't the correct one, but it's worth a check at least.
  • It's curious how the idiomatic use of the definite article for venues differs on each side of the Atlantic. The article would look odd here to an English eye, yet contrariwise we should never dream of referring to, say, "Philharmonic Hall" without the article. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you are right and I've tried to mull over why I think it looks odd: the only thought I had was I would say that "playing at Old Trafford is fun"—sans article, but "playing at the Old Trafford cricket ground is fun". I don't know why I would make the distinction, (apart from not paying sufficient attention at school) but I know I'd be wrong at least 50% of the time! -
      talk) 14:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Interesting! Our Test grounds cover the whole range: you couldn't say anything other than "the Oval cricket ground", but equally you could definitely not say "the Lord's cricket ground" (even when the Rev David Sheppard was batting). I think perhaps Old Trafford, Headingley, Trent Bridge and Edgbaston are betwixt and between. What a pleasing point you raise – thank you!

Cricket correspondent

• writing on 5 March 1933,: "[h]ad [Jardine]: comma and colon both needed?
  • No, and now pruned. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor stuff. A top-drawer article and one I am sure will acquire FA status in the near future. -

Some very helpful comments there: thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments from GuillaumeTell (it's a long article and will take me some time to get through the lot, nitpicking as I go)

Lead

• (para 1): “His contributions to these two distinct fields [cricket and music] in the years before the Second World War established his reputation as one of the foremost critics of his generation.” – I know about music critics, but what is a cricket critic?
  • Interesting. One recalls the famous tongue-twister, "A quick-witted cricket critic" (don't try this when sober) and the phrase is used widely, but I take the point and will ponder. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (para 2): “He is widely considered ^{[by whom?]} to have influenced every subsequent cricket writer.” Every??

• I am leaving Tim to deal with most of your comments as I am somewhat preoccupied at present. But I'll pick this one up. I agree that "widely considered" is too vague, but as to "every", Howat and Gibson, to name but two, certainly thought so. See the "Reputation" section. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (para 3): “produced books on both his specialisms”: “both of his specialisms”? What is a specialism?
  Discipline (specialism)
  looks like a rubbish article to me. How about “specialities”? Oh, no, Wikipedia says it’s a specialty…

• I can't help the "rubbish" nature of the linked article, But I think anyone but an idiot would know what a "specialism" is, and I far prefer it to "speciality" or indeed "specialty". Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family background and early childhood

• “commonality of their forenames” Must we be so orotund?
  Commonality in Wikipedia redirects to Fleet commonality
  …. How about “apart from their sharing the same forename”
  • This comes of writing in committee. The phrase was perpetrated by me when tinkering with BB's earlier wording. Your phrasing is much better and I'll adopt it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Final para: do we need the comma after “schoolmates”?

• There does seem to be a natural pause there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester, 1901–12

• End of first para: Beatrice “remained a potent inspirational force" throughout his later life as a writer. Really? I bet she didn’t live until 1975.

• Well, it's a quote. It simply means that her inspiration continued to influence him during the remainder of his life, in the same way that some current Tories might claim to be inspired by Winston Churchill who's been dead these 50 years. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd para:
  Manchester University ought to be the Victoria University of Manchester
  , oughtn’t it? And “or in the winter at the Lyons café” would look better as “or, in the winter, at …”

• I have piped the link and tweaked the punctuation Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 4th para: “Manchester league cricket” doesn’t link anywhere and might puzzle some readers (including me). Lancashire League (cricket) doesn’t mention Manchester. Might club cricket help in some way?

• Neither Cardus nor Brookes are precise here - Brookes refers to "local Manchester leagues". Probably linking club cricket as you suggest is the best we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury

• "to finance his winters' studies": I'd go for "winter studies"
  • I see what you mean, but there's a tiny hint of natural history about the latter, I think. On balance I think I'd prefer to leave it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His application was successful, and in May 1912 began his duties." Surely, "in May 1912 he began his duties". ["And don't call me Shirley"] Sorry about that!
  • Definitely. Will alter. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the nascent Labour Party" - really, who knows what "nascent" means? I suppose you could direct the word to Wiktionary. And incidentally, the Daily Citizen (British newspaper) article isn't very enlightening (sorry, Doctor).

• "Nascent" is hardly such an obscure word as to invoke raised eyebrows or a Wiktionary link, but I've made it "early". The Citizen article is a stub, which anyone is welcome to develop, It was either that or a redlink. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #44: what on earth is the Tom Webster Biography doing here, and why?

• This is the only reliable source I was able to find that confirmed the closure date of the Daily Citizen in 1915. This is relevant because, according to Cardus, he was writing for it in 1916-17 (see footnote at end of paragraph) Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Brookes, the influence of Shrewsbury School affected Cardus to the extent that "[t]he playing fields of an English public school..." What's with the "[t]he"?

• It indicates that, in the original, the letter was a capital. In this context the flow suggests a lower case; the brackets show that I have altered the original slightly. This might be thought pedantic, but it is commonly done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • More later when I have time. --GuillaumeTell 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have dealt with these, rather than Tim, because I wrote this part of the article. If I have not commented on a point, you may assume I've adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

It's extremely well written and fairly seemless in that I'm not sure who wrote what.

Lede

• "and the same newspaper's" Perhaps "and that newspaper's"
  • To my eye (and ear) the latter is rather more formal than the former: useful sometimes, but I think the existing version is less stiff. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "He is widely considered" Given how sweeping the sentence is, I think you can do without the "widely".
  • This has already provoked comment from Guillaume Tell above, and I think BB and I will need to put our heads together and decide what to do about it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "his specialisms." Is this better than "specialties"?

• See an earlier reviewer's comment. "Specialties" is mainly US/Canadian. As between "specialisms" and "specialities", I won't headbut an editor who prefers the latter, though it carries with it the hint of restaurant dishes (" Today's speciality" etc). Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• "His birth certificate, however, confirms the earlier date" Surely it is a later date? 3 April rather than 2 April?

• 3 April 1888 is earlier than 2 April 1889 Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have cafe both with and without the accent (or whatever the thing over the e is)
  • Excellently caught! Thank you. Will fix. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (Later: Too late! Already attended to by Brian) Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Guardian

• I assume anyone inclined to read this article is going to get the reference to Twelfth Night in the first paragraph without prompting?

• I fear your assumption is optimistic. I asked four acquaintances, one a literature graduate, to place the quote; none did so correctly. The lit grad at least knew it was from "somewhere in Shakespeare"; otherwise it was two votes for Winston Churchill and one for Jesus. I will add a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "all the energy of Larwood" What's a Larwood?
  • BB is ahead of me and has explained in the text. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Cardus was unemployed," I gather, then, he was paid by the piece and not on salary?

• Unemployed in the sense of have no work to do. Suggest another word/phrase? Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I have pondered and can't think of anything better. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Australia

• "The MCC tour of Australia" Year?

"With no financial pressure" The structure of the sentence, with the semicolon between two dashes, could use some work.

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

• I draw your attention to your using the present tense referring to Cardus in his writings in the fifth paragraph (not counting blockquote). I do not say it is wrong, I simply draw your attention to it.
  • I think we generally follow the convention that even the deadest of authors “says” in his book So-and-So…” rather than “said”, and I think I prefer it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. I am working on them. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All done now, or commented on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by GuillaumeTell (hoping to finish today)

Australia

• "For ABC Cardus presented a weekly hour-long programme, "The Enjoyment of Music", which enlarged the audience for classical music across the country." Does Brookes have any concrete proof of this or was he just guessing?
  • The Australian Dictionary of Biography concurs, and the excellent Trove archive of the Australian national collection of newspapers makes it pretty clear that NC's broadcasts did much to popularise music in Australia. I could add a newspaper ref or two if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up to you, but I think it would be worth doing.

Years of uncertainty

• "Newman, whose retirement as The Sunday Times chief music critic was assumed to be imminent." Seems to me that this should read either "as The Sunday Times's" or (better) "as the chief music critic of The Sunday Times".
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "the London
  WP:overlink
  - linked previously further up (I noticed this after finding that the Free Trade Hall in this section only has one wikilink in the article).
  • Well caught, sir! Done. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London critic

• "The Queen might have been any nice shy young lady in D.H. Evans or Kendal Milnes": Note 11 tells us that these were department stores - but why not just link D H Evans and Kendals, let readers read about these shops and skip the note?
  • We're not encouraged to put blue links within quotations. We all do it, but one tries to keep it to a minimum. I'll be interested to see what reviewers think at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • The rule about not linking in quotes is not absolute. Within the FAC review system I have sometimes been advised to do so when alternative explanation is longwinded and likely to disturb the prose flow. In this case I think GT's suggestion is preferable to my cumbersome footnote and its attendant source websites. I suggest we adopt the suggestion and defend it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final years

• Flora Robson & Wendy Hiller were actresses (or actors, per The Guardian) who don't seem to belong to any of Cardus's worlds of cricket, journalism or music. Was Cardus friendly with either of them? If so, maybe this should be mentioned.
  • Not that I remember from the sources. Any thoughts, BB? Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reference to them in biographical sources is in connection with the memorial service. Daniels mentions Hiller's fondness for Cardus, but there is no other information to work with. I can well imagine them within Cardus's circle of artistic/intellectual acquaintances. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation, honours and influence

• Elsa Mayer-Linsman? No, Else Mayer-Lismann (1914-1990), who was Director of the Mayer-Lismann Opera Workshop and gave explanatory lectures with musical examples on the operas to be performed during the Glyndebourne Festival at the British Institute of Recorded Sound in Exhibition Road, South Kensington. The Cardus photo in the (ahem) infobox was taken by her.
  • Thanks for spotting the typos. As to the info-box, both BB and I considered it par for the course, having checked other FA biogs of authors. Having striven to uphold the consensus agin the things for composer articles it seems only proper to respect the consensus in re authors. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's it from me. Very comprehensive article which I'm sure will pass FA with flying colours. Can't say that I warm to Cardus, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your detailed and careful review. All grist to the mill. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd like to add my thanks for the time taken to provide a detailed and helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    

Anonymous post

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 of the changes made to the article to make it more comprehensive regarding the topic of "anonymous posting" and to improve it's quality w.r.t. to the wikipedia's article guidlines.

Thanks, Raunaqg (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuSasori minor notes:

1. Some of the references are
   WP:USERG
   .
2. Doesn't specifically mention anonymous usenet posting via funet, was all the rage in 1995: [1].

• Regardless of how many references you have, the list generally looks better in columns and it reduces the amount of white spaces. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  

Concord, Massachusetts

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 many of the qualities of a featured article. It is comprehensive, concise, well-supported by citations, links effectively to articles on related topics, and has a quality set of photographs to accompany it. I am eager to hear the thoughts of fellow editors on how this article could be improved and potentially moved forward to FA status. (Hopefully "History" is the proper forum for this article as it largely regards the history of a small but significant American town.)

Thanks, Venicemenace (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

Although nice, this article is quite a ways from featured standards. There are major issues with references, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance (as a start) that would need to be addressed before the article would have a chance at even

• The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three paragraphs is appropriate. Once the article is expanded to cover everything necessary for comprehensiveness, up to four paragraphs might be necessary. The lead should be a summary of the body, and not include information not present in the body. See
  WP:LEAD
  .
• By reading the article, one would think that nothing happened in the town during the 20th century. The section needs to be expanded to include more recent history, into which the short sections "Concord grape" and "Plastic bottle ban" could be integrated. Multiple short, choppy subsections make the article look unfinished.
• The article is missing a number of sections that are generally present in good and featured city articles. These include Climate, Government and politics, Economy, Infrastructure and Culture. Other sections sometimes included (if applicable) include Architecture, Law enforcement/crime, Media, etc.
• References needed in Geography and Demographics sections - statistics always need references.
• Bullet point lists (such as the Points of interest, Education and Transportation sections) are frowned upon by the MOS. These can easily be transformed into prose, with additional prose that describes why these links should be important to the reader.
• External links (such as the ones in the Points of interest and Transportation sections) should not be present in the body of the article. Instead, they should either be references or located in the proper "External links" section.
• Reference #20 has a dead link tag
• Reference #42 needs to be expanded with more information

Reading the

Theory of Literature

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's a fairly heavy topic and I would like some feedback as to what could be developed further, if anything, and language. I've spent quite a bit of time in the trenches with this one, so I'm not really able to give it an objective read.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

• File:Theory_of_Literature_cover.jpg: why PD-shape over PD-text?

• Was thinking of the grey bar, but PD-text added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sadness,_by_Julia_Margaret_Cameron.jpg: source page?

• Pinged the uploader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Witkacy_Roman_Ingarden_1937.jpg: when/where was this first published?

• Source page says family archives, removed until better information found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What was wrong with Eleanor?

• Not in source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,[26] treating literature as literature" - this might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with literary theory, is there a way to better explain what you mean by this?

• Added "and not part of another field." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By "linguistic differences", do you mean different languages, different styles, or something else?

• Different languages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "two levels of operations" - should clarify that you're referring to general manuscript study rather than specifically forgeries

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the second level may require greater initiative from the student" - is the text specifically targeted to students? If so, at what level? The mention of publishing seems odd for a student text

• They don't explicitly state such an audience, although they use the term "student of literature" ("student") quite often. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by "ideas" in the extrinsic section?

• The chapter is entitled "Literature and Ideas", so I've used the term here. Their discussion is closer to "Literature and Philosophy", so do you think an Easter egg link will do? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think that'd be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "contrasts these definitions with those of other scholars" - any specific approaches being criticized?

• Gave a couple examples, but worried about giving too much weight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wellek and Warren consider only an analysis of the psychological types of the characters in the work to be a legitimate application of psychology part of literary study. Such an analysis they find lacking on its own merits, as individual characters do not fit (or even exceed) psychological theories of the time they are written" - this phrasing is a bit awkward

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the author shapes said tastes" - you haven't mentioned tastes in this paragraph

• reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the same effect as another art, through effects" - repetitive

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "will have provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged" - grammar

• Dur, "have" trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "dual fluency in several modern languages" - dual suggests two, several suggests more - which is correct?

• Good point, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They also and recommend the teaching" - missing or extra word?

• Extra, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Down to "Theoretical", more later. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "borrows the formalist-turned-structuralist Roman Jakobson's term literariness" - but you've just used this term in the context of Russian formalism. Is this a contradiction in sources?

• Jakobson came up with the term while a formalist. Could be clearer — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied" - awkward
• "Unlike Russian formalism, however, their theory recognized possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied, Wellek and Warren emphasized the intrinsic aspect of literary criticism, looking at aspects within the work itself" - missing a word or a punctuation mark somewhere in here

• Reworded (goes for both this and the above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be careful with tense in Reception - for example, you start with present for Hatzfeld and then move into past

• Think I got this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "he believed to be most of the of the literature"?

• Clarified — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ingarden, who considered...considered...He also considered" - repetitive

• Threw in a few synonyms — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could be a bit clearer about why the book lost influence in the 1960s

• Had to go outside the source for this (Holquist didn't say much). Hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "leading to them becoming binary opposites" - I think you mean intrinsic vs extrinsic here, but the phrasing suggests Wellek vs Warren

• I think this works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is Evanston?

• Illinois — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Page for Thomas Jr.?

• Added URL, sorry — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This book's entry in the References list is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  

Xerocole

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've recently rewritten the whole article, and want to know what I can do to further improve it.

Thanks, Prof. Squirrel (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good rewrite, making the article enjoyable and informative. I did want to know more about mechanisms, and perhaps examples beyond the high school textbook - there is a bit of a biology lesson about it at the moment. Would suggest therefore two directions for improvement: a) add some more advanced texts and scientific review-of-the-field papers to the bibliography (which is very short...), and trawl them for detail on the key mechanisms; b) consider drawing a diagram or two of the mechanisms, not too much like Roberts, e.g. to compare Camel and Horse nephrons (or Gerbil and Mouse). Since you have quite a few 'easier' texts already, why not subsection the bibliography into 'Research texts', 'General reading', 'Children's' (or something along those lines)? There are plenty of colorful and informative books for children as young as 4 on desert beasts. Better include the intended reading age! And a few more photos would go down well too. Finally, on anti-predator defence, Camouflage came to mind - feel free to lift some material on countershading (Oryx...) and flattened and fringed desert animals (horned lizards...). I've done a quick CE of the article. Comments by Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. A 'History' section on pioneering research and natural history of the subject would be welcome too.

Zong Massacre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to turn this into a Featured Article. The topic is difficult and the sources used are quite specialist, so I'd appreciate advice on issues relating to the prose, clarity of the content and any MOS issues. Thanks, Celuici (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• The lead should generally devote at least one sentence to each section (not necessarily each subsection); that's the usual interpretation of
  WP:LEAD
  .
  • Done -- I've added a sentence covering the "... in modern culture" section – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "tons burden": link to Builder's Old Measurement
  • Done, although I would be grateful if you would review the change I made in this edit, since one of the image captions needs updating and I'm not sure how to describe the tonnage of ships. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was" is right, "had" is wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "While some historians have seen this as evidence of his lack of experience at navigation and command": I don't understand ... why wouldn't the lack of a previous command be evidence of lack of experience with command?
  • Yes, it is implied, and so I've changed the wording -- but I think it's worth mentioning his lack of experience explicitly, since it was an important issue in the legal proceedings and is often mentioned in the sources. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "This may have had some influence on his later conduct.": What may have had influence, on what later conduct?
  • Done -- I've updated this sentence. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per
  Zong_Massacre#Massacre. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• On your changes ... I recommend against "claim for", since it's not supported by
  SOED or other BritEng dictionaries. "put in a claim for" would work. "had an important place in the commemoration of the bicentenary of abolition in 2007": Sometimes that's okay if the sources are trying to be really careful not to say too much, but some consider "was commemorated in ..." to be "stronger" writing. I'm not wild about this bit, it feels too speculative ... but I've got to move on, I'll leave this for someone else: "Sometimes these killings happened immediately in the presence of the surgeon himself. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood already had experience of the murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the additional comments. I've changed the sentences to "Sometimes these killings happened in the presence of the surgeon. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood had already witnessed the mass-murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." The sentence about the 2007 commemorations has also been updated. Celuici (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: 'Claim for': the full OED has 'To make a claim for' as a definition for the word 'claim' as a verb, and refers explicitly to claiminig for insurance in this instance. So I think we can go with that. Celuici (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Btw, I think either
  A-class or GAN would work as your next stop, when the peer review is done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just a note, but the lede really should be longer than it currently is, and should be divided into more evenly sized paragraphs; I doubt it would pass FA in its current state. For instance, you refer to Liverpool, but many readers might not have the foggiest idea where that is, and you refer to the year in which the massacre took place, but not the date. There's a lot more basic information that is contained in the article but is missing from the introduction. If you wished, message me and I could draft a longer introduction, although as this is your project, I do not wish to impose on your work here, which is otherwise very good! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done – I've expanded the lead and adjusted the structure. I think the first sentence could use a little more work though, but it's difficult to include all the information without making the lead hard to read. Thanks for your comments. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Under "Fatal Voyage", your two images have bunched up on the right hand side; consider moving the map of the Caribbean to the left, for aesthetic purposes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    

Canis Minor

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 buffed to for GA…felt okay about it without being deliriously happy with how it came together....would like to finish the job and take it to FAC.....but every time I look at it I just feel a bit blocked...all input gratefully accepted.

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just skimming through it now. Not a thorough inspection yet, but:

• I think more should be wiki-linked. Examples: northern celestial hemisphere, Bayer, Flamsteed, etc.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps succinctly explain culmination - perhaps just say "reaches its highest point in the sky on..." Culmination seems to me archaic, even in the parlance of astronomy.

placed in parentheses - others would complain of an easter egg link I suspect.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I'll continue looking. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see the mythology section expanded. The article should be more explicit about where the myths are coming from. Don't take for granted that readers will know which mythology Zeus comes from, for example. An excellent source for this is The Constellations by Motz and Nathanson. AstroCog (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. I returned that book to the library the other day...I think I'll be fetching it again... got the book again...not a huge amount in it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may already be doing this, but another suggestion is to use a current constellation FA as a working example. For example,
  constellation task force seems to think that all constellation articles should have the same structure. Granted, zodiacal constellations are going to have much more coverage than the rest, but it's a good benchmark. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

yeah. was musing on that and will probably rejig like that Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GermanJoe - after a first complete, but quick read:

• lead Are Procyon and Gomeisa the two stars, which Ptolemy used for his pattern? Just curious, maybe worth adding somewhere.

yes. Will think of how to work that in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you double-check the magnitude of Procyon? The sub-article has 0.34 instead of 0.38 (not sure if apparent or absolute though).

Aaah, good pickup - this paper and SIMBAD both have 0.34 (these are both Apparent Magnitude), so I'll use that - more up to date than an older star guidebook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two faint deep sky objects within the constellation's borders. - true, but without context this number means little. Maybe just state the total number of deep sky objects - is it 5? The main text is also a bit confusing about this (see below).

Yeah, reworded - really if we had more and more powerful telescopes, there'd be millions of galaxies everywhere... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• History ( "The Ancient Greeks called the constellation προκυων/Procyon, "coming before the dog",..." - In German the phrase would be "auf den Hund gekommen ..." (just a joke, ignore at will) ).
• "... and other variations by Cicero and others." => try to replace the second "others" with something different to avoid repetition and vagueness.

Yeah, reworded and expanded this bit a little Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure, the mix of historical, "factual" information and mythological background is optimal here - both topics are related obviously, but blur into each other while reading and make their distinction difficult. But i have no better idea at the moment (edit for clarity: i agree, the mythological context is worthwhile to add, this (minor) concern is only about its presentation).

I've reorganised the section so para 1 is the constellation and what it represents, para 2 is mythological associations, and para 3 is some alternative designations proposed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It feels, like the end of Western history misses a final sentence: when did "Canis Minor" became the commonly accepted name (after all the strange alternative suggestions listed)?

Agreed - but I can only go on what is in sources - I think reorganising helps. It's been called Canis Minor since Ptolemy and possibly before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Inuit called Procyon Sikuliarsiujuittuq; it was considered to be a separate constellation that did not include Gomeisa." => Did just 1 star form the constellation, or was it "considered [part of] a separate constellation"? If it was a single object, maybe avoid the term "constellation", it's confusing for the layman for only one star.
• "Procyon received this designation because it typically appears red (though sometimes slightly greenish) as it rises during the Arctic winter;" => still not clear for me, why the appearance is red. Is that just the atmospheric effect during rising?

I've taken out inuit segment as it only refers to Procyon - better to just leave in that article, and restrict mentions to ones which include at least two stars Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the actual guideline for apparent and absolute magnitude notation? (suggestion: use "apparent magnitude" once, then only "magnitude". Always specify "absolute magnitude", when used). - check throughout for correct types of magnitude.

yes. That's how books generally do it - will check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stars "[These] stars mark the paws of the Lesser Dog's left hind leg, while Zeta marks the right." => "These stars" is confusing, your last subject was the single star Delta1. Can anything be said about the other 2 Delta stars?

yes/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "YZ Canis Minoris is a flare star, so called due to its solar flares being more powerful than those of our sun." - from the sub-article: "A flare star is a variable star that can undergo unpredictable dramatic increases in brightness for a few minutes." Your description needs clarification, the second part seems to miss some of the most important aspects of a flare star (variable, unpredictable, dramatic). The comparison with the sun doesn't seem to cover the original definition.

checked and reworded - aligned with source Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deep-sky objects "NGC 2459 is a group of five 13th and 14th magnitude stars that lie close together but do not appear to be an open cluster as such.[41] A similar situation has occurred with NGC 2394." => This needs a little more detail for the non-astronomer: Why is NGC 2459 apparently no "real" open cluster? Is NGC 2394 another Canis Minor object? What "similar situation" specifically?

i.e. the stars lie close together in the sky but do not appear to be related, and yes the second one is also in Canis Minor - will reword Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for mortal FAC-sins :) like pp. for single pages instead of p. and similar stuff.

Another nice constellation article, though it still needs some polishing (did some minor copy-edits). GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sources you might want to investigate:

Title: A cannonball star candidate in Canis Minor

Author(s): Marcos, RD; Marcos, CD

Source: NEW ASTRONOMY Volume: 10 Issue: 7 Pages: 551-559 DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2005.04.001 Published: JUL 2005

nice - something to add to the red dwarf section Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title: The colour of Sirius in ancient times

Author(s): ChapmanRietschi, PAL

Source: QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 36 Issue: 4 Pages: 337-350 Published: DEC 1995

only mentioned in passing - nothing to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Ancient and mediaeval observations of comets and novae in Chinese sources

Author(s): Ho Peng Yoke, Ho Ping-Yü

Source: Vistas in Astronomy Volume: 5, Pages: 127-225 Published: 1962

trawled through this - fascinating paper but no Canis Minor events I can see. I think it came up as a false positive due to Canis Minor being depicted on star charts at the end of the paper in a western to chinese constellation star chart. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from

t • c

)

I believe, i sneaked that in for clarity. Was trying to express, that the Ptolemaic pattern and the modern constellation are -strictly speaking- not exactly the same. Patterns evolve: designations change, boundaries change, stars get added or removed. But as this is true for a lot of constellations, maybe that detail is not really useful. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

was mystified for a moment - yeah, sorry GermanJoe I removed those words as I don't think they add much to the meaning. Canis Minor is not exceptionally different to most other constellations really WRT minor changes over time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. In hindsight it really was a little trivial to add. GermanJoe (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would rename "characteristics" to something like "boundaries". Characteristics implies that it would be talking about other important factors, such the stars, which it does not.

good point....we've not discussed this before and I see your point. I think we'd have to change a few constellation articles.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Canis Minor contains only two bright stars" is a subjective statement. I would replace it with something like "Canis Minor contains only two stars brighter than magnitude 3".

yeah....brighter than magnitude 4 actually...changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that the "Lambda Canis Minoris" designation is obsolete?

yes. Bode proposed it - it hadn't been used or thought of by Bayer or Lacaille - and nobody took it up. Pity really as it turns out to be an interesting star Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The examples in the "stars" section seem to be somewhat cherry-picked. I would probably trim this section down slightly; for example, I don't think there is a need to mention VSX J074727.6+065050 or YZ Canis Minoris. If you disagree, however, then feel free to leave them in; this isn't a deal-breaker.

YZ CMi I think is important...will think about t'other. I do see your point though. These articles are at high risk of listyness.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents, I think talking about stars that either have really extensive literature or are mentioned in a couple of the popular astronomy guides makes sense; they're clearly important and there's more than basic information to write about them. I agree with Cas, YZ is probably worth mentioning, but the other may not be. I'll comb through some papers in the next couple of days when I have time. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about it, I'd rather leave VSX J074727.6+065050 in actually. It's a dwarf nova, and they aren't common and I think worth noting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In contrast, the "deep sky objects" section feels a little bare. If there aren't any other interesting objects, that's fine, but I feel that this section could benefit from expansion, especially seeing that the Milky Way passes through Canis Minor (which should get a mention).

Got that in and sourced....there is bugger all to write about! Not surprising as Milky Way would obscure galaxies but surprising there aren't more interesting nebulae etc. Oh well.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these, looks good!

Conclusion/closing comments - thanks muchly all for your input. I'm looking at the article now and feeling much happier as it is looking much more solid and professional looking. The one niggle I agree (naming of characteristics section) is a bigger issue for the astronomy wikiproject to tackle I think, and invite all to comment there at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]