Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2010

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

Ontario Highway 401

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 needs a thorough copy edit before heading to

WP:FAC
. My grammar is terrible, but the good intention is there :)

Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, and it's certainly an interesting highway. Unfortunately, PR is the wrong place to look for a copyeditor. For a complete grammar check and copyedit, you might have luck asking one of the copyeditors listed on the volunteers page at

WP:PRV
.

  • The article may have a few too many images for a pleasing layout, although you may be able to move them around to better effect. Three things to avoid are text sandwiches between images on the left and images on the right; images that overlap sections instead of fitting entirely within a single section, and images that bump against or displace subheads or editing buttons. I see a text sandwich in the "Route description", a text sandwich and a head displacement in "Southwestern Ontario", and so on.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find a small number of problems with dead links and dabs as wall as several images that lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the text sandwiching, what resolution should I be using to test it? The alt texts I'm aware of, have been slowly chipping away at them :) Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a standard setting, and I doubt there is one since readers use whatever settings they like. When anyone says my images are overlapping sections or otherwise behaving badly, it's usually a close call, and I make minor adjustments such as moving an image up or down a bit. It helps sometimes to look at a particular article on multiple screens to get an idea of the range of appearances. Finetooth (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria's comment: The automated peer review will also offer some suggestions for what to look for before heading to FAC. I'll take a look at the copy-editing situation shortly...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although alt text is useful and beneficial to some readers, keep in mind that it's not currently a requirement for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jhfortier's comments: I shall copyedit as I go, but major comments will go here. Upon my first read-through, the following issues popped out at me:

  • "Tall mall median barrier" -- what is this? A quick google search didn't reveal much, perhaps this is a typo?
  • Due to the lack of engagement along the flat and straight lengths of highway,he section of the 401 from " This sentence is a bit troublesome; I get the feeling it's meant to say something like "The flat, straight lengths of highway tend to cause drivers to lose focus, and result in car accidents etc". The term "lack of engagement" is a bit vague here, and could be re-worded.

More to followJhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the first one, and the third is a typo (they are Ontario Tall Wall barriers)
The second I'll change it to "the just-in-time auto parts delivery system of the highly..."
The fourth, I used a term that several media outlets (Cbc, City, Toronto Star) used to describe the highway, but I agree that it could be clarified. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

  • Route = Overall, this section is really well done. I made a few little changes here and there, but was really impressed with how in-depth and interesting the information was. Nicely done.

History

  • "While initially gravel and today only a two-lane road, it was a fully paved four-lane roadway by the end of the decade." This could use some clarification.
  • "its new extension to Newcastle and Highway 2S were designatedHighway 401,[2] a move scorned by one critic" Perhaps explain why this was scorned?
  • A lot of the changes I made here were to do with tenses and some extra words, but overall I've found this article quite well-written. Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future A few changes made -- overall, a good section, with lots of well-researched facts.
  • Images - As Finetooth mentioned above, there are a lot of images here. You might consider removing one of the two old photos of interchanges; the photo of Highway 2A; and one of the two "construction" pictures from the Futures section.
  • Redlinks - I haven't removed any of these, in case one or more of the major editors of this page are looking to start these articles in the near future, but you might consider removing some of the Wikilinks to minor highways, which are unlikely to be written in the immediate future.
  • Overall This article looks excellent, and I've seen a number of good editors making edits throughout the PR. Best of luck taking it to FA! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both Nikkimaria and Jhfortier for your in-depth examination of the article! With regard to the redlinks, I find that it is useful for any article that could ever be written that wouldn't be deleted. All numbered county roads have a potential, and at the very least they will be linked to their appropriate county's list of roads in due time :)
As for the images, the ones that I feel need to go are the pictures of the highway today. Boring, and next to zero encyclopedic value. Three is good, maybe four. I count eight that don't serve a second purpose (ie illustrating signs and such). The historic photographs offer something unique that can't be found on most of the external links. But I digress, I agree that the number of images needs to be reduced. I'm going to go make some of the other fixes right now. Thank you very much again, wish us luck at FAC! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt, Floydian, that you'll use excellent judgement when trimming down the number of photos. I'm glad I could help out the smallest bit on this article, and I'm sure you'll do well at FAC! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle (The Beau Brummels album)

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 plan on nominating it for GA. Before doing so, I would appreciate another set of eyes having a look. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks,  Gongshow Talk 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This generally looks good to me. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "Triangle reached number 197 on the Billboard 200 albums chart and received mostly positive reviews, with critics commending Elliott as a songwriter and comparing Valentino's vocals to those of Bob Dylan." - "With" plus "-ing" is usually a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Triangle reached number 197 on the Billboard 200 albums chart and received mostly positive reviews; critics commended Elliott as a songwriter and compared Valentino's vocals to those of Bob Dylan."
  • "Collectors' Choice Music reissued the album in 2002." - I don't think the link to reissue is needed. It would be good to eliminate or move it for another reason as well; it forms a kind of awkward link bump with Collectors' Choice Music.

Background

  • "Titled Beau Brummels '66, the album—a collection of cover songs—was a commercial and critical disappointment due to a combination of poor sales and the decision by Warner Bros. to not release the band's original material, which had been recorded by the band in early 1966 as their previous label, Autumn Records, collapsed." - Too many clauses, perhaps? I'd try to break it up in some way, maybe two separate sentences?

Composition

  • "Triangle also features strings, brass, woodwinds, harpsichord, and numerous types of percussion." - Perhaps link the least familiar of these, harpsichord?
  • I agree that's it's the least familiar of these instruments. It is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence, so I just removed it from this list altogether.  Gongshow Talk 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

  • All but two of the names in this list are written last name first. Travis and Newman could be reversed with pipes inside the links; e.g., Newman, Randy.
  • Definitely agree that the list's format should be consistent. Fixed.  Gongshow Talk 05:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Madonna concert tours

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 to nominate the article for

Featured List and just want some inputs as to whether the language or the show of the article is fine. Thanks, --Legolas (talk2me) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

My suggestions:

Intro

  • It was critically appreciated for Madonna's showmanship and the exquisite dresses.
  • In 1993, she embarked on
    The Girlie Show World Tour
    where she visited Israel and Turkey for the first time, followed by Latin America and Australia.


Tours

  • The Virgin Tour was the debut concert tour of Madonna. The tour promoted her first two albums, Madonna and Like a Virgin. > The Virgin Tour was Madonna's debut concert tour. It promoted her first two albums, Madonna and Like a Virgin.
  • The 37 concert dates of the Who's That Girl World Tour played to 2.5 million fans. It Madonna's first world tour, reaching Asia, North America and Europe. > The 37 concert dates of the Who's That Girl World Tour played to 2.5 million fans. It was Madonna's first world tour, reaching Asia, North America and Europe.
  • Inspired by the 1972 film
    Catholic
    imagery and sexual content.
  • Rolling Stone called it an "elaborately choreographed, sexually provocative extravaganza" and proclaimed it "the best tour of 1990." > Rolling Stone called it an "elaborately choreographed, sexually provocative extravaganza" and proclaimed it "the best tour of 1990."
  • In 1991, a documentary film,
    Truth or Dare
     (aka "In Bed with Madonna"), was released chronicling the tour.
  • The Sticky & Sweet Tour was the eighth worldwide concert tour by American singer Madonna to promote her eleventh studio album, Hard Candy. > The Sticky & Sweet Tour was the eighth worldwide concert tour by Madonna and promoted her eleventh studio album, Hard Candy. (It's already been established that Madonna is an American artist.)

Now then, care to look over List of M*A*S*H episodes? Jimknut (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Jimknut. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Shop Boys discography

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 have done alot of work improving this article recently, sourcing, formatting, layout content etc and would like some idea on how to improve it before nominating for FL. Especially with the lead.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The lists are excellent, but I found the lead rather heavy going. There are numerous individual prose points that need fixing, but I wonder, is there any way it could be made a bit more interesting, or at least a bit more varied? Also, I notice that most featured discographies have considerably shorter leads. Here are some individual points, but really, the whole thing needs working on.

  • Lead prose
    • First line: "comprises" a better word than "contains"
    • Second line: "a number of" is rather vague. Also, I'm not sure that "appearances" is the right word here
    • "Parlophone Records released the duo's debut album, Please, in the United Kingdom in March 1986." Wouldn't it be better to follow this sentence with the album's history, rather than inserting a couple of sentences about the duo's debut single before returning to the album?
    • "After the success of Please they released..." "They" needs to be specified (e.g. "the duo")
    • "...a duet with Dusty Springfield" Can a duo have a "duet" with someone else?
    • The sentence beginning "In the summer of 1987..." has two "ands" in it, and needs to be split.
    • Two "ands" in the following sentence as well. This time you need to rephrase
    • Another two "ands" in each of the first and second sentences of paragraph 2. This is something of a style habit, which needs to be avoided. In the second sentence, "peaked" not "peak"
    • "In 1993 the Pet Shop Boys infamously re-invented their image..." Why was their re-invention "infamous", which means disreputable, shameful, dissgraceful, scandalous etc?
    • "...the only Pet Shop Boys album, so far, to ever reach number one in the UK." You can't have "so far" and "ever" together. Delete "ever".
    • "The following year they released the 1994 Comic Relief single, "Absolutely Fabulous", under the artist name of 'Absolutely Fabulous'." Is there a less clunky way of giving this information?
    • "best-of", an informal expression, should be in quotes.
    • "Then in December 2009..." Delete "Then".

Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! as usual your comments are very helpful and make alot of sense :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

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 intend to nominate it for FA soon and would like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You'll never get an article this controversial through FAC. Believe me, I've tried. Anyhow:

  • Senate:
    • You need to explain some more relevant bits about the Senate. That the government is formed in the House because (a) it is the the more democratically elelected house and (b) it has the power to originate money bills. However Fraser (and others) argued that in order to govern, a government should have the confidence of both houses.
  • Governor General:
    • Prior to the 1975 crisis the Governor-General's reserve powers, including the power to dismiss a prime minister, had never been exercised. This is untrue. Governors General had vetoed legislation in the early years. What you mean is: the power to dismiss a prime minister had never been exercised.
    • The crucial point is the convention that the Governor General acts only on the advice of her ministers. However, in this case, the Governor General acted against the advice of his ministers.
    • The Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked. But a Governor-General holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by a Prime Minister. However, neither of these points is actually true. The Queen's tenure depends on legislation of the UK Parliament; and the removal of the Governor General depends on the Queen acting on the advice of her ministers, and if the Governor General does not have to, why should the Queen be expected to?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • It is entirely wrong to say that the Queen's tenure depends on legislation of the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament has no powers to remove her; she is in for life unless she voluntarily abdicates. Parliament could in theory pass legislation to abolish the monarchy and make Britain a republic, but while the monarchy remains there is no parliamentary control over who occupies the office. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? What happened to Richard II, Charles II and James II? They were deposed by acts of parliament. The UK parliament has asserted that it can impose such terms and conditions on the monarchy as it sees fit, and has done so. There are laws that control the succession, and the occupant can be changed by law. There was a convention that Australia had to be consulted, but in recent years this has been interpreted by the UK government to merely mean that Australia gets informed of changes that it is going to make. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should have added to my comment "provided he or she acts constitutionally". But this isn't the main issue on this article so I will say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am running a fine line here because non-Aussies (I am not Australian) are going to need an introduction to the Oz political system as in effect in 1975. But I don't want that to be the focus. Should I differentiate between reserve powers set out in the Constitution (ie., Governor General withholds assent per Sec 58) to those not? (Kerr fires Whitlam).
Well, I am an Australian :) The crisis is of interest beyond Australia though, because other countries (like Canada) have similar political systems. The constitutional fallout of the political crisis was all about differences of opinion about the meaning of the constitution, literal versus conventional. So these should be carefully spelt out. (Kerr fired Whitlam under sec 62.) Part of the problem was Kerr's background as a lawyer, which tempted him to seek a legal rather than a political solution to the crisis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this is so controversial it will fail because of that. After five articles dealing with Richard Nixon, I am reasonably content I can deal with controversy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got through a bruising encounter on Douglas MacArthur, which was more controversial than I expected. If you know how to shepherd controversial articles through, any advice you can offer would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always be calm and friendly during the FAC, no matter what happens I will play with some language over the next few days. I agree, there needs to be language in the introduction explaining that it is convention that the Governor-General takes the advice of the government in the office. And incidentally, part of Whitlam's blind spot in all of this is forgetting Kerr was a judge and a lawyer, and treating him like Hasluck, a defanged politician.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comment: This is a trifling comment but possibly useful. The dab tool in the toolbox above finds one dab, "dismissal", and the alt-text tool shows that the images lack alt text. It's probably good to add the alt text even if it's not required at the moment. I recently added alt text to my older FAs, and it took quite a while; I wouldn't like to fall behind again and have to add a pile of these later. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take care of those before nominating.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prose review: This is the first part; I will try and complete tomorrow (or Wednesday at the latest)

  • Lead
    • The opening sentence is too complex (around eight statements of fact) for an introduction to the topic. Trouble is, as written it's not that easy just to divide it; there may have to a little rewriting around it. Nevertheless, I would advise that this is done.
    • Will your readers understand "appropriations" and "supply" in this context? They need to know that the terms are financial, and that a government's ability to function depends on the passage through parliament of these bills.
    • "It urged Kerr..." "It" refers to the Opposition, which is referred to as "they" in the previous sentence. Apart from which, "it" has become somewhat removed from its subject. I suggest: "The Opposition urged Kerr..." etc
    • Third paragraph opens a little heavy-footed. I suggest: " On 11 November 1975, in an attempt to break the deadlock, Whitlam sought Kerr's approval for a half-Senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place."
    • "The Coalition": this is unexplined. Perhaps, at first mention: "...the new government, a coalition of the Liberal and Country Parties,..."
  • Constitutional
    • We need to avoid some repetition here: "...in exercising the reserve power. The reserve powers are those powers..."
    • In the last paragraph you say "where the question arose..." I think "where these circumstances arose" would be stronger.
  • Political
    • "It enjoyed a nine-seat majority..." Once again, "it" is not clearly defined. This should read "The new government enjoyed..." or some such.
    • Another rather unwieldly sentence, which also has a double "...ing" towards the end: "At Kerr's request, Whitlam informally agreed that if both men were still in office in five years, Kerr would be reappointed, and secured legislation to address Kerr's financial concerns about the position, including authorising a pension for the Governor-General or his widow." The sentence splits quite easily: "At Kerr's request, Whitlam informally agreed that if both men were still in office in five years, Kerr would be reappointed. Whitlam secured legislation to address Kerr's financial concerns about the position, and authorised a pension for the Governor-General or his widow."
  • Scandal and vacancies
    • There is not really a sense of "scandal" in he loans affair as described here. It seems an unconventional, and perhaps undignified way for a government to raise money, but it doesn't seem scandalous - unless there were backhanders or bribes, etc. Later, I see mention of Cairns and his affairs; perhaps this information should be merged into this first paragraph?
    • Third paragraph: I think it needs to be underlined that Whitlam's careless loss of this Senate seat was the first step whereby the Opposition was able to acquire a Senate majority.
Well ... it really wasn't. Bunton voted with the ALP on all the crucial votes of the crisis. We started out 29-29, with two independents. One independent (I don't bother to mention this) joined the Liberals, so it was 30-29 Coalition, with Senator Hall the sixtieth vote, and he generally voted with the ALP. So it was effectively 30-30. What hurt was the loss of Senator Milliner and his replacement (so to speak) by Senator Field. That made it 31-29 Coalition, and Field's leave of absence 30-29. The Murphy/Bunton did not immediately hurt the ALP, except they exchanged a reliable ALP man with an independent who probably didn't vote the ALP way all the time on matters outside supply.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Whitlam had offered Barnard a diplomatic post..." This is the first mention of Barnard, so we need his full name and should be told who he was.
  • Deferral of supply
    • "If the ALP won Field's and Bunton's seats, and one seat in each territory, and if the second ACT seat was filled either by a Labor candidate or by an independent, former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton, now estranged from his party, Labor would have an effective 33–31 margin, at least until 1 July." This, with all its conditional clauses and explanatory phrases, is very difficult to follow, and should be simplified. In any event, how significant to this particular story are these various ifs and buts? They relate to a hypothetical 1976 situation, by which time our story will be over.
    • "It could be a question of whether i get to the Queen first for your recall, or whether you get in first with my dismissal." There's a lower case "i" in the quote - is this a typo?
    • First mention of "MHR" needs an explanation
  • Consultations and negotiations
    • "Throughout the crisis, Kerr did not tell Whitlam of his increasing concerns about the crisis,..." Last three words are redundant.
    • "...and that Whitlam's decision not to call a House election could not be influenced by him." The double "nots" are most confusing. Could this be rephrased for clarity. (...and that he would thus be unable to influence Whitlam's decision not to call a House election"?)
  • Kerr reaches a decision
    • Section heading has a non-encyclopedic feel. Could be just "Decision"
    • "He decided that as Whitlam could not secure supply, and would not resign or advise an election for the House of Representatives, Kerr would have to sack him." This is awkward, because it is not obvious that "He" and "Kerr" are one and the same. Suggest something like: "The Governor-General decided that as Whitlam could not secure supply, and would not resign or advise an election for the House of Representatives, he would have to sack him."
OK, good stuff. Looking forward to the remainder. May be a couple of days before I get to it but I will fix them before I take it to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Meeting at Yarralumla
    • I suggest you make the image caption a bit more informative, at least to the extent of explaining that Yarralumla is the Governor-General's official residence.
  • Parliamentary strategy
    • "Labor strategy had been to put pressure on the Coalition senators, and to that end, the Labor leadership had planned to introduce a motion that the Senate pass the appropriation bills." What "pressure" did this plan create?
  • Dissolution
    • "...who advised him that 21 bills fulfilled the double dissolution provisions of Section 57..." Have I missed a part of the story? What's this about 21 bills, etc?
The appropriations bills did not fulfil Sec 57 as they had not been passed twice by the Representatives with a three month gap between. However, there were 21 bills which, over the course of the year and a half since the last election, fulfilled the Section 57 requirements. Without citing bills which fulfilled Sec 57, there could not have been a double dissolution election, the best that could have been done was an election for the Representatives and half the Senate. Kelly writes Kerr would have accepted it, but he preferred the double dissolution as it allowed the people to pass on all the legislators.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Whitlam later stated that it would have been wiser for Scholes to take the appropriation bills with him, rather than having them sent ahead." Again, I can't fit this information into the story I've been following.
As a means of making a deal. Whitlam reinstatement for supply. There are other things they could have done, like having the House revoke its passage of the bills. I may slice this, it is getting too much into the wudda cudda shudda of things Labor could have done if it really wanted to escalate the crisis. For example, Whitlam has said he could easily have gotten the crowd to march to Yarralumla.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Even as Scholes and Kerr spoke..." Not really encyclopedic - perhaps lose the "Even"?
  • Campaign
    • "During the campaign, the Kerrs purchased a Sydney apartment and Sir John was prepared to resign in the event that the ALP triumphed". The "and" conjunction is wrong; could be a comma after "apartment", followed by "as".
  • Participants and legacy
    • Slightly awkward title?
  • Ambiguity: "Christopher Boyce, an employee of a CIA civilian contractor and convicted Soviet spy..." It needs to be clear that Boyce, not the civilian contractor, was the convicted spy.
    • Pronoun confusion in the following: "However, he has also written that in 1977, United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes." The identities of the various hes and hims needs some clarifying. I would also find a way of adding emphasis to the "again", as that is the main point of the quote.

That's my prose review. In general the article read very well and was genuinely gripping for a politics story, even though the ending was known. I'm sure this will polish up into featured quality and I'll look out for it there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will put in the things I have not questioned and modify to make those things clearer. Depending on internet access availablility, I will get this to FAC within the next two or three days.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 am hoping that an experienced biography editor could help refine the style of writing and make it easier to read. I am looking for the article to be peer reviewed, without drastically changing anything other than the style of writing. I am not familiar with academic terminology, and believe there may be some room for revision in the information on "Education and Research". I know that the flow of the article also needs some help. Any help would be fantastic. Thank you for your time,

Thanks, Sn0fl4k3 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This appears to be a personal vita rather than an encyclopedia article and to involve a conflict of interest. Please see

WP:COI
. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

  • Significant parts of the article lack sources and therefore violate
    WP:V
    . A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one reliable source per paragraph (except the lead) and to provide a source for each set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.
  • The sources should be reliable per
    WP:RS
    . Generally, blogs and personal web sites are not considered reliable. Reliable sources would include books, newspapers, magazines, government web sites, and other publications subject to editorial scrutiny.
  • The article includes a lot of unnecessary detail, most likely because it is promotional rather than neutral. For example, it is unlikely that a true biography would include a section called "Post Graduate Education & Current Research".

I think I need say no more. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will begin working on this. Sn0fl4k3 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African philosophy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because:

1. Depending on cultural viewpoint, the material may or may not appear to meet verifiability standards. I think it does generally reflect a faily verifiable view of African Philosophy. What do you think?

2. Many authoritative articles in modern African Academia are not widely publicised in the west. I want to hear from African academia (and hopefully get their help improving this page).

3. Wikipedia is global. Do you see a western cultural bias on African issues?

Thanks, DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Philcha

Verifiability

Cultural bias

  • The Western and Middle European countries are extraordinarily homogeneous in their cultures, economies and philosophy. Other regions of the world have much greater variety, and perhaps Africa most of all. For example: Mediterrean Africa is Muslim; what is now Ghana build the Ashanti Empire distinctive civilisation, and later became a major centre of the slave trade; some tribes are herder or hunter-gathers, etc. Jared Diamond's "How to get Rich" describes factors that explain the homogeneous and dominance of Western and Middle Europe. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use more neutral language

  • At present the article looks like a
    Neutral point of view is another policy that will be enforced, and language is a part of that. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

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 believe it could one day be a featured article. The article is GA, and during the review, a user left a comment stating that it is close to being an FA:

Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/GA1
. I nominated it for FA earlier in the year and it failed. They asked that I open a peer review. I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it can be an FA.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cyrus B. Comstock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to submit this for GA review and would appreciate any suggestions as to how I might improve the article. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting, well-written account, fairly broad in coverage, reasonably well-illustrated, stable, neutral, and verifiable. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Citations

  • Although each paragraph in this article has at least one citation, in a few cases the only citation occurs early in the paragraph. Other sentences and claims follow, but since they are not linked to a source, it's hard to tell whether they meet
    WP:V
    or not. For example, in Early life and education, the last two sentences say: "Following his graduation, Comstock was assigned to the Army Corps of Engineers and assisted with the design and construction of several fortifications. He also served as an instructor of engineering at West Point." If this is supported by the citation in the middle, it would be better to move the citation to the end so that it will be seen to cover all the claims in the paragraph. If, on the the hand, the claims in the last two sentences are supported by some other source(s), you need to add another citation or citations.

Telegraphic heads

  • I would make some of the heads more telegraphic. "Early life and education" would be fine as "Early life". "Military commission on the Lincoln assassination" might become "Lincoln assassination". "Later work with the Corps of Engineeers" might become "Corps of Engineers".

Lead

  • Rather than making the opening paragraph a one-sentence orphan, I'd consider combining it with the first half of the second paragraph, and starting the new second paragraph with the sentence beginning, "The most significant phase of Comstock's career... ".
  • "After graduating the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1855... " - Perhaps "After graduating from" rather than "After graduating"?
  • "Later, Comstock continued in the service of the Army Corps of Engineers and took part in several engineering projects, most particularly the Mississippi River Commission of which he was president." - Since a commission isn't a project, perhaps this would be better: "Later Comstock continued with the Army Corps of Engineers, took part in several engineering projects, and served on the Mississippi River Commission, of which he was president."

Civil War service

  • "At the commencement of the Civil War, Comstock, then holding the rank of first lieutenant in the Regular Army was from West Point to Washington, D.C." - This doesn't make sense as written. Is a word or words missing? Probably "sent" is the missing word.

Lincoln assassination

  • "Comstock was removed from the commission after his protests, ostensibly because he served on Grant's staff and, because Grant had been a potential target of the conspirators, Comstock could not be counted on to act impartially." - A bit awkward. Make two sentences out of it, perhaps? Maybe the second one could be "The X also removed him because Grant had been a potential target of the conspirators, and X felt that Comstock could not be counted on to act impartially." I say X because it's not clear who removed Comstock. It would be helpful to add that bit of information.

Corps of engineers

See also

  • The two portals overlap two sections on my computer screen. I'm not sure how useful they are since they are not directly related to Comstock.

Notes

  • Page ranges take en dashes without spaces.

Images

  • The Matthew Brady photo of Grant and his staff is good, but the source link on the image description page does not work. It would be good to fix the link, if you can. I wanted to use it to see if a larger file size might be available. If you can find the original and repair the link, you might also be able to upload something bigger than 131 kilobytes.
  • I'd recommend cropping the text from the bottom of the Comstock mug shot. It's too small to read. You could then add the same (or modified) information as a caption, and it would appear in a normal type size.

Ideas for expansion

  • In several places in the article I found myself wanting to know more. For example, the phrase "engineer in charge of the fortifications of Washington" made me want to know what those fortifications consisted of and what exactly Comstock's role was in designing or building them. Ditto for "faced with the difficult task of constructing pontoon bridges over the Rappahannock River". I wanted to know more about the exact difficulties, and an image of a pontoon bridge (especially one over the Rappahannock if any exist in the public domain) would be interesting. Ditto for "set to work on improving the siege works". I wondered what exactly these seige works consisted of and what happened to them, how they were used. Ditto for "During the campaign, Comstock played a key role in coordinating the movements of the various corps of the army and personally conveying Grant's orders to the corps commanders." I wondered exactly what that meant; in the abstract it sounds like he told people where to go and acted as a messenger, but the specifics must have been more impressive than the abstract notion. Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.

Alt text

  • The alt-text checker at the top of this review page shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you very much. These are great suggestions. In particular, I was looking for ways to expand the article, so it was very helpful to hear about areas where you wanted to know more. I hope to start the revisions this weekend. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am absurdly late in getting to this, I wanted to record, just for the record, that I have acted on your very helpful suggestions. Many distractions have prevented me from getting around to editing this article, but I have implemented nearly all your suggestions. The one exception, unfortunately, are the areas where you have indicated you desired more information...regrettably the source information just isn't there to allow me to elaborate. But I will continue looking. Thanks!Historical Perspective (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number one Reco-kyō Chart singles 2006-2009 (Japan)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this to see what it needs to take it to a featured list level. Looking at

List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan), it doesn't seem too far off. Thanks for any pointers! --Prosperosity (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Finetooth comments: This is certainly not my area of expertise, and perhaps for that reason I found it interesting. I have only a few suggestions, mostly related to prose and style.

Title

  • Date ranges in Wikipedia articles take en dashes rather than hyphens. The title should be changed to:
List of number one Reco-kyō Chart singles 2006–2009 (Japan)

Parentheses

  • I'd suggest using parentheses more sparingly. Alternatives include commas and em dashes or re-writes that avoid the need for parenthetical remarks. See example in Lead below.

Lead

  • "The monthly highest-selling ringtones in Japan were ranked by the Recording Industry Association of Japan from August 2006 until February 2009, on the Reco-kyō Chart (レコ協チャート, Record Association Chart) (formally the Yūryō Ongaku Haishin Chart (有料音楽配信チャート, Paid Music Distribution Chart))." - Nested parentheses are confusing. Suggestion: "The monthly highest-selling ringtones in Japan were ranked by the Recording Industry Association of Japan from August 2006 until February 2009 on the Reco-kyō Chart (レコ協チャート, Record Association Chart), formally known as the Yūryō Ongaku Haishin Chart (有料音楽配信チャート, Paid Music Distribution Chart).
  • Fixed, I think? I definitely switched a lot of the wording around, it's much more readable now. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the identically named RIAJ Digital Track Chart" - I found this statement puzzling at first because it seemed to be saying that "RIAJ Digital Track Chart" was identical in name to " Paid Music Distribution Chart". I'm not sure how to fix this except by deleting "identically named"?
  • "Three songs are tied for the most months charted: Thelma Aoyama feat." - What does "feat" mean in this context?
  • "of all-time in Japan across all formats (digital, physical, etc) - It would be better to fill in the meaning of "etc." or else delete it. What does "physical" format mean? I think it would be more helpful to name the formats.
  • Fixed, though it's a bit difficult now. I can't exhaustively list out all the Japanese formats ever used (vinyl, MD, 8cm single, 12cm single, etc.) because that gives the false impression that the song was released in all of these. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-sentence orphan paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Better would be to combine the two one-sentence orphans at the end of the lead.

Other

  • The alt-text tool at the top of this review page shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.
  • The dab checker finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for having a look at the page! It's a great help. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steel's in Town

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 want to promote this article to FA status. I've tried to expand the article and new details have been found out. However, I just want to make sure everything is OK before I nominated it for FA.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • "Other than Steel, Pete Sinclair was the only other writer, providing additional material." Citation? I'd redlink Pete Sinclair; as a comedy writer someone might write an article about him.
  • Do we know who commissioned it? Who else worked on it? Some info here.
  • Has it been re-broadcast, on Radio 4, BBC 7, or in other countries?
  • "The research sometimes took place close to the recording date, for the Walsall episode, but Steel carried out almost no research until ten days before the recording." That sentence doesn't read well. It is ambiguous what the meaning is: state clearly how long in advance the research was usually done and any exceptions. I can't work out from this when the research in Walsall was done, and whether it was typical or an exception.
  • "The programme received positive reviews from critics because of Steel's observations of the locals" is cited to one local review, is there a more general response?
  • The Reception section is very stilted, it just lists various responses. Could they be summarised instead of quoted, and ordered by tone or theme of the reception? I'd suggest that the quote from the Sony Award judges could be in a {{
    quotebox
    }}    .
  • Merchandise: is it only available there? Is this just an advertising link rather than providing any information? Was it released as a retail CD? I'd call this title "Distribution" and include information on the broadcast history here too.
  • Would images of any of the places Steel discusses be a good addition? Just a suggestion.
  • There are some images of Steel visiting places he visits on the BBC synopses of the shows, i.e. [1][2]. There might be a fair-use justification for some selected images to illustrate Steel's approach to his research and the subject matter of his show. I found an image of Steel performing the show in Dartford on Flickr.[3] You could ask "Bitospud"/Paul and Edith very nicely if they would release that image under a CC-BY-SA license.
  • Here are all the sources I can find that you've not used. With the media coverage being as scanty as it is, plenty of them can and should be used to expand the content and show more reception of the show. The article feels a little bit patchy at the moment. Many will add "local colour" and give some background material on him making the show:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
p.s. I'm not saying you should use this for the article, but this was Mark's reaction to getting the silver award: "Mark Steel's in Town came 2nd at the Sony awards last night. But I'm in talks with the show that came 3rd, so I'll end up winner."[25] Fences&Windows 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts:
  • Lead: Don't say "award winning", this reads like puffery. The style guide for WikiProject Film, for example, suggests not to use such phrasing.
  • Lead: The clause "which are not known as well as the country's major cities" in the lead seems wholly redundant. Of course small towns are not as well known as major cities. Maybe Wikilink to Town#United_Kingdom?
  • Lead: Give the first broadcast date of the second series in the lead, rather than just "broadcast in 2010".
  • Lead: It's pedantry, but "'that' defines and 'which' describes", and "which" is almost always preceded by a comma.
  • Lead: "In 2010 Mark Steel's in Town won a
    Sony Radio Academy Awards
    ." I don't think losing to Adam & Joe needs to go in the lead, it is sufficient to mention it in the body of the article (which should be done anyway).
  • Format: "in the town in question" is redundant, a local audience is hardly going to travel to London for a show about their town.
  • Format: "but in Mark Steel's in Town it is instead a lecture about a town". Well, you've already defined that so no need to repeat it. That clause can be removed.
  • Format: This section needs padding out with material from the sources.
  • Production: Do we know what the budget was? (we may not). Could add info about the other people involved in making the show at this point.
  • Venues:
    Blackfriars Arts Centre
    is a bluelink, I didn't check the others but please do.
  • Links: There's a clip of Mark sprout-picking for the show on the Beeb site:[26]
Fences&Windows 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Dallas

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 am not exactly sure what direction this page should go. The University is so young that I don't feel like spinning off some of the material is appropriate. However, thanks to some extensive editing by Stan9999, the page seems to have a new sense of professionalism.

Thanks for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved automatic peer review to UTD talk page. Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few preliminary thoughts. The text could use some polishing. One example, "While the school initially awarded only graduate degrees, the school opened up to upper level undergraduates in 1974 and freshmen in 1990." The second "the school" could be replaced with "it." I'm not fond of "opened up" here either. Later in the lead, "powerhouse chess team" is a bit peacock. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs in the Rankings subsection. Also, the lists need to be converted into flowing prose.
There is a lot of content to the article and many good citations. I think with a few dedicated editors and a bit of effort, it can get where you want it to be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I admittedly put a few of those peacock terms in myself. I will get on it sometime this weekend. Oldag07 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this gets more feedback. I think articles would have an easier time getting through the GA and FA process if editors would give more advise ahead of time. Let me know when you'd like me to take another look. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor said she might give it a look sometime soon. Appreciate the review. Oldag07 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I saw that the PR bot closed this without much feedback, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC or GAN. While it is clear al ot of work has gone into this, I think that more work will be needed to pass GAN.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education has several FAs on universities that seem like they would good models, including Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University
  • The article needs to follow the
    Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles
    .
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the names of the National Academy members and Mobel laureate are only in the lead, for example.
  • To make sure it is a full summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see
    WP:LEAD
  • The article has four
    WP:NFCC
    - how does it increase the reader's understanding of the subject to see both (they seem pretty similar to me)?
  • Could more free images of the university be taken and added to the article?
  • Even though this is a fairly new institution, the History section seems very short. Comprehenisveness is a
    FA criterion
  • There are a few places without refs that need them, for example UTD offers a distinguished season of musical, theatrical and visual arts events. The independent movie Primer was partially filmed at the University of Texas at Dallas in 2004 by Shane Carruth. The film went on to win the Grand Jury and the Alfred P. Sloan awards at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.
  • Most of the references are to things from the university itself - while some use of such primary sources is OK and unavoidable to some extent, I would add as many independent third-party sources as possible. See
    WP:RS
  • Some of the references are incomplete and need more information. For example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that b reak up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

List of French football champions

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 believe it can be a featured list candidate.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from FLC by Sandman888 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single reference. That does not meet the FL criteria :)
lead cd be longer. Try writing more about why it was started, how it became professional.
tables cd be sortable. If sortable, wikilink all clubs in table
images, on the right there could be some picture of perhaps players who have won it a lot, or for two different clubs or something else.

1989 Pacific hurricane season

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 do nto know how much info on each storm should be. I had one paragraph, but it was reverted. I trimmed the sections down, but there seemed to be no good reason to remvone info.

Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

For now, I would expand the sections on TD 22-E and 23-E atleast past the one sentence it is now. --
North 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Finetooth comments: It appears to me that you have collected all or at least most of the basic data and that the main remaining problems have to do with organization and layout. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, including ideas about the short subsections.

  • I'd suggest grouping at least some of the shorter storms while maintaining chronological order. For example, Tropical Depression Four-E and Tropical Depression Five-E could be combined under a single subhead, "Tropical depressions Four-E and Five-E" or something like that. This would solve the short-section problem and would give you room to make the illustrations fit properly within a single section. Section overlap of images is layout no-no, best avoided if possible. Further down in the article, maybe Seven-E, Erick, and Flossie could be combined. And so on.
  • To keep from overwhelming the page with images, you might consider removing some or all of the illustrations for the tropical depressions.
  • Since you use miles for Tropical Storm Adolph, you should use miles throughout rather than nautical miles, as with Tropical Storm Juliette. I believe miles is the conventional measure for hurricane articles; most readers won't know how long a nautical mile might be. If you think it important to include nautical miles, you could use both as well as kilometers.

The citations should follow a consistent formatting. Some of the author names are italicized but shouldn't be. Citation 31 starts with "Gross" before the date and title, whereas citation 32 puts Gross in italics after the title. The article looks pretty clean, but I'd suggest a top-to-bottom proofreading to catch and fix all the little things like this.

Other

  • The alt-text checker in the toolbox at the top of this page shows that all of the images need alt texr, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.
  • The link-checker tool finds five dead links in the citation urls. These should all be repaired or replaced.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonita Lattimore

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 needs some cleanup. GA1 reviewer insists that there are a lot of issues. He may have some valid points. I am willing to address concerns.--

WP:FOUR) 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks,

WP:FOUR) 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This article was quick-failed at GAN on 15 May. A main reason for its failure was the inadequacy of its prose. However, it was immediately renominated at GAN, without any effort to tackle the prose issues which, at a quick glance, seem considerable. Examples:-

I feel that some attempt should be made to deal with some of these matters before the peer review, which, as the

WP:PR page makes clear, "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Age of Discovery

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is now quite complete, and intend to proceed to featured content. There are several interesting articles related to the theme in different areas (such as economics, geography to medicine) and the "Age of Discovery" article helps understanding and context. I'm always missing something and discovering mispelings, so I thank your collaboration to help tune details. The topic is extensive, so I suggest to avoid excessive detail, and focus on exploration and travel, keeping the chronological order, to help understand the evolution of events often linked.

Thanks, Uxbona (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and very comprehensive project. I especially like the ambition to explain the period in a greater context. I'll try to read the whole article through if I have the time and get back with detailed comments later. A first impression is that the article would benefit greatly from a complete conversion to shorthand notes with the full source under a separate heading. It has been done partially with DeLamar, Crosby, Gernet and several others, but not consistently. It's not entirely clear why works like DeVoto and Cipolla are included under "Bibliography". Perhaps a "Further reading"-section would be a good idea for works that aren't actually cited.
Personally, I tend to favor the use of refs with a minimum of template code, preferably none at all, though this is usually considered to be the prerogative of the primary contributor(s).
Peter Isotalo 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just have added the entire section about the Russian conquest of Siberia into the article, so now it is really complete. Greyhood (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ratner Athletics Center

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 am not an expert on some of the technical issues, especially regarding the masts. This article needs to be reviewed by someone from either

WP:FOUR) 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a member of wither WikiProject and am not an expert on technical issues like the masts - sorry. As is often the case with your articles, the information seems to be all or mostly all there, but I have some issues with the organization. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

International co-productions of Sesame Street

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 additional input before it goes further. I'd like to get it ready for a successful GAC, and eventually, a FAC. I'd appreciate any and all assistance on this interesting and fun article.

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about a show I really like. To make GA, though, the article will need more specifics, more fun, and more active prose. I'd like to hear more about the individual co-productions, the Muppet variants, the story variants, and the specific cultural problems encountered; I think the last section could be expanded, and perhaps the earlier sections could be shorter or at least more pithy. I'd like more active verbs in places like the third paragraph of the "Production" section, which starts with this string of passives: "puppeteers were cast and trained; puppets were constructed; puppets were made; sets were developed; videos and animations were made; each was developed, produced, and aired; research was conducted". Here are some other suggestions:

Thanks, Finetooth. I haven't been ignoring you or this pr for the past few weeks; I've just been generally burnt out and took a little wiki-break, I suppose. It's hard to believe, I know, but the project went on its merry way without me and my watchlisted articles didn't wilt from the lack of attention. Anyway, just finished fixing the passives as requested. Christine (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Shortly after the debut of the children's television program... ". - Maybe add the word "educational" here too? Then maybe replace "educators" later in the sentence with "teachers" to avoid repetition?
  • I'd consider expanding the lead to include more specific examples (like the mention of the HIV muppet). Otherwise the lead is too abstract. Most of the verbs in the lead are passive, and most of the others are weak "there is, there are" variants.
It was several days ago, but I think that I improved the lead as requested above. I paid special attention to the passives, and made it more "specific." Christine (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "Shortly after the 1969 debut of Sesame Street in the US, the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) was approached independently by producers from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Germany to produce versions of Sesame Street in those countries." - This so closely mirrors the opening sentence of the lead that I'd revise it to make it (or the version in the lead) significantly different.
  • Dann's appointment resulted in television critic Marvin Kitman, referring to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show, stating, "After he [Dann] sells [Sesame Street] in Russia and Czechoslovakia, he might try Mississippi, where it is considered too controversial for educational TV". - Slightly too complicated. Suggestion: Dann's appointment led television critic Marvin Kitman to say, "After he [Dann] sells [Sesame Street] in Russia and Czechoslovakia, he might try Mississippi, where it is considered too controversial for educational TV". (In May 1970, the Mississippi state commission had banned the show.)
Addressed first two comments above.Christine (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the formal name of the Mississippi state commission?
It was the commission for educational television. Made the change.
  • The caption, "Set of the South African co-production Takalani Sesame, with its unique set and some of the show's characters" doesn't need a terminal period since it's only a sentence fragment. Also, it repeats "set". Maybe "The South African co-production Takalani Sesame, with its unique set and some of its characters"?
Followed both recommendations. Christine (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "consisting of dubbed versions of the show with local language voice-overs and instructional cutaways" - Wikilink cutaways to Cutaway (filmmaking)?
  • "Eventually a flexible model, which came to be called "the CTW model", was developed for independently produced preschool television shows, based upon Sesame Street, created in other countries." - Maybe "... based on Sesame Street and created in other countries" for slightly better prose flow?
Made above two changed as recommended. Christine (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Workshop recognized that the production model developed in the US, which reflected its needs and culture at the time, served as a framework for other countries that wanted to repeat it. According to the 2006 documentary, "The World According to Sesame Street", the producers of the co-productions repeated the "experiment" accomplished by the original US show. As Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell stated in 2009, the US model of depending upon government and foundation funding would not necessarily be effective in countries with different economic and political structures." - I get lost here. Could this be simplified and made more clear? Maybe something like this: "Workshop executives realized that the model that had worked in the US might not work in every country. As Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell stated in 2009, the US model of depending upon government and foundation funding would not necessarily be effective in countries with different economic and political structures."
I think you got lost because it wasn't clear. What I meant to say was that the co-productions used the experiences of the original American producers as a framework, but changed it as the situation warranted. What worked in the US may not necessarily work in other countries, especially when it came to funding. Depending upon government and corporations worked in 69, but it may not necessarily work in other countries, with their differences in economics and culture. I think that the way these sentences now read make that more clear. Christine (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the producers of Sesame Street accomplished in the late 1960s, the need for preschool education in each country was accessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts." - Maybe "Imitating what Sesame Street's producers did in the late 1960s, CTW sought to determine preschool educational needs through interviews with television producers, researchers, and education experts."
  • "The puppeteers were cast and trained by Kevin Clash... " - Also, wikilink puppeteer?
  • "The co-productions consisted of unique characters, sets, and curriculum designed to meet the needs of their own children." - "curriculums" or "curricula" instead of the singular, curriculum?
  • "As of 2009, the Workshop opened their entire library of episodes... " - "its entire library" rather than "their entire library"?
Followed the above recommendations, thanks. Christine (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-productions

  • The little flags are decorative but don't add information not otherwise available from the text alone. I'm not sure I'd keep them.
They were in the original article, before I got my grubby little hands on it. We'll lose 'em when I follow the recommendation below. Christine (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starting in 1978, its producers became a 50–50 co-producer... " - Should 50-50 be explained? I'm not sure everyone will know what it means?
That's the wording in the Cole book, which doesn't explain what it means. My solution was to delete the phrase, since I think that what Cole was trying to say was that the German co-production gained more control over their own show. That's what I think; there's no way to know that for certain, thus the cut. I think keeping the part about filming their own puppets in their own studio keeps that implication and stays true to the original source. Christine (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its set is a branded block" - What is a "branded block"?
  • "There have been three productions in Portgual, including one co-production with their own characters." - What does "their" refer to?
Cut the phrase as per comments above. I've just learned something; when the original source is unclear, it's best to not include the information. Christine (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Manual of Style suggests replacing lists with prose where feasible, I'd suggest modifying this list so that it becomes a series of prose paragraphs. Some of the list items like Brazil are already long enough to stand alone. Others might be expanded or combined.
I agree, so I'll go to userspace to create a prose version. As implied above, this article used to basically be a list. I added the sections preceding it, bulked up the items in the list, and made sure they were accurate and had sources. I kept the list format because I wanted to be respectful of the original version, until consensus or a review told me otherwise. In other words, I suspect that I'd have to make the list into prose, so I'm more than happy to oblige. Christine (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take a terminal period.
  • The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.
  • The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.
  • The dab-finder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • It might be a tough sell to convince reviewers that three fair-use images are needed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Followed the above suggestions and made corrections where appropriate. Regarding the FU images: I know, I know. Ran into the same issue with the GAR of History of Sesame Street. My justification is that the article, like this one, is about a TV show, so it makes sense (I think) to use screen shots. We'll see how far we get as we get further along in both articles' development. In the coming days, I'll list-to-prose (just made up that phrase!) to last section of this article. Thanks for the feedback, FT, and sorry for our long it took me to address your points. Christine (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah Valley Academy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Please review this article. I've done a lot of work on it and would like to see what other editors think as well as get some help with it. Special attention would be nice on the History and Curriculum section.

Thanks,

talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • To the Reviewer: I have made some specific comments at
    User talk:WikiManOne#SVA Reassessment
    . Below are some specific comments about where I think that the History section is lacking (And that is, in my opinion what is holding this article back).
    • Who did Zirkle donate the land to? What did Zirkle and others use the land for before it became a school?
    • Where did the other 405 acres come from? That is a fairly large campus; what do they use the extra land for?
    • How was the church (or others) involved in financing the school?
    • The school has grown considerably, what buildings, fields, ect. have been built? Do any of them hold architectural, geographical, or historical significance?
    • You have a list of the early headmasters. What did they do?
    • The only person mentioned is Zirkle; what other people can be considered to have played a role in the founding?
    • Is the school strongly associated with a neighborhood church?
    • Elaborate on how it is both a boarding and a day school. Was it always that way?

Maybe take a look at some school articles that have reached GA and FA and see what the SVA history section lacks. There is no history between 1911 and the present. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His Band and the Street Choir

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 apparently the prose isn't up to scratch for FA and is needing of a copyedit. However some of the editors I've consulted about a copyedit have said it doesn't need one, so I'm not sure what the FA reviewers are refering to. Could the reviewer of the article also suggest anything that at present would prevent it from passing FA, like prose flow etc. Thanks very much,  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try giving it a copyedit using a hardcopy and reading backwards. That usually cements the flow. I'll probably have it finished by tonight or tomorrow and will leave a message on completion; feel free to revert any of my changes. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Many thanks being willing to do a copyedit; it's just what the article needs. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Only things I'd suggest now are reviewing Wikilinks and the people mentioned (like the biographers) to ensure no one accidentally gets introduced twice, or redundantly mentioned, or something like that. Again, feel free to revert any of the changes, since you know the source material better than I do. I tried to remove some usual offenders in WP:FAC, like "while", "with" (in some usages), etc. Good luck! If you ever get a chance, I'm about to submit The_Real_Adventures_of_Jonny_Quest to FAC. It's a mammoth, but fortunately it's been copyedited several times; a quick glance might pick up on something neglected. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water Newton Treasure

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 after adding x-refs to the BM on-line collections record and further sourcing and correction. As the article is listed as high-importance for the BM, a list of suggested improvements could help drive improvements.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at

Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Informal_review_checklist
which may be useful.

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At present there are only 200 words of text and no structure to the article. It needs some comprehensive development before it qualifies for peer review. It looks promising, with nice images, but there's a lot of work to do yet. I suggest withdraw the PR request for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As noted above, this is a good start, but a lot more work is need before it can be considered for something like

Good Article
. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article needs a lead section and subsections - see
    WP:LEAD
    . The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs have no refs currently. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{
    WP:V
  • The article could be expanded - what sort of items were discovered (only a few of the 27 are shown or mentioned)? What is the culture that produced the objects? What do the objects tell us about the culture? Who found the hoard? How was it recovered, cleaned, restored? How did the British Museum acquire the hoard? That sort of thing.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a
    WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Namadhari naik

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as i want to improve the quality of the article and to quell unreasonable allegations regarding the content.

Thanks, Tej smiles (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I'm going to make comments regarding the adherence of the article to the

Manual of Style
, and I'll make prose/grammar suggestions. I know nothing of the subject matter so I can't speak to the content per se.

Lead

  • See
    WP:LEAD
    for thoughts on writing a good lead. The lead should be a summary of every point brought up in the article. The reader should have a skeletal idea of the article's content from reading the lead. The article then puts flesh to the bones and fills in the gaps. This lead is too small and should be expanded to cover all the points brought up in the article.
  • I note in the lead and throughout the article that there is a space before each punctuation. Why is that? There should be no space, the punctuation should come immediately after. I fixed the lead but the rest of the article should be addressed.
  • This sentence is confusing
"They are also known as Halepaika (ಹಳೇಪೈಕ) and are referred to as the same in most of the literature."
What literature are you referring to?

Etymology

  • Watch the use of speculative words like "seems" in the following sentences:
"The word Namadhari seems to be of later origin attributed to their Vaishnavite allegiance . Initially they seem to have been following Shaiva or Jain belief which was widespread in Kannada region ."
There is no source for these two sentences and the reader is left wondering if this is your speculation or is this the opinions of experts in the field. Remember we are writing an encyclopedia based on verified information, not on speculation.
  • There are some grammatical issues throughout the article that need to be addressed for example:
"In 14th century they were brought to Vaishnava...."
"The" should be added after "In".
"It can be noted here that among the Vokkaligas too there is a grouping called Namadhari Gowda which has similar origin."
"To" not "too".
"This has been referred to by greatest poet of modern Kannada, Kuvempu in his magnum opus Malegalalli Madumagalu."
"The" should be between "by" and "greatest".

This is just in the first paragraph. I made the fixes but there are several of these minor grammatical issues throughout the article.

  • I'm having trouble with this sentence:
"And to refer them as "old soldiers" during that time should convey the fact that Halepaika formed one of the earliest martial settlers in this part of country ."
It seems as though you are leading the reader to a conclusion based on inference. The problem is the term "should convey". You infer that this is the case but there is no reference to support your supposition. Take a look at
WP:OR
. I'm not questioning that what you're saying here is correct, it just needs to be supported by more than simply your say so.
  • In line citations go outside of the punctuation. See this quote as an example: "Govinda Vaidya describes a battle scene where in the Halepaik troops were in action against the invading Bijapur Sultanate army [3]."
  • Watch putting external links into the article. See
    WP:LINK
    for thoughts on this. Most external links should be placed at the end of the article in an External Links section.
  • What is Toddy Tapping? This is mentioned here and in the lead? Can you explain this a bit for the ignorant readers like myself?

Origins

  • Watch using terms like "renowned" and "emminent". This is a
    peacock
    word and should be avoided.
  • Most in-line citations should go at the end of sentences not dropped into the middle of a sentence.
  • The last paragraph in this section is unreferenced, this should be remedied.
  • I have a question about this portion of a sentence:
"...region long ago and these regions still have a population (1 lakh) by name 'Halaba' speaking 'Halabi' language...."
What is a lakh?

Culture

  • This section is very poorly referenced. Three in-line citations for the entire section isn't enough.
  • "The worship of Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam] during Deepavali has been continuing since ages and is common to almost all communities..." Instead of "...since ages..." choose wording like, "since antiquity".
  • This section has several one, two or three sentence paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding these to help with the flow of the article.

Tradition

  • I'm not sure that the name of the section fits the subject matter of the material. This seems to be a list of temples and a bit about religious rituals. Not sure how this ties into "Tradition".
  • What is Sati? It seems to be both a noun (virtuous wife) and a verb (suicide?).
  • Sati only needs to be linked once in the section.
  • "...Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam]..." This parenthetical reference, "King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam" is mentioned in the previous section, is there a need to do it again here?
  • Also only three in-line citations. More should be added.

In popular culture

  • No references here or in Present conditions and social status section.
  • More comments on this section are below.

Present conditions and social status

  • "The literacy rate is high in both males and females and presently the emphasis has been rightly placed on education as may be evident from the fact that many youngsters are opting for higher studies abroad."
It's not our place to say that something has rightly been done or not. Opinions about the community's emphasis on education should not be expressed here. While you may be correct it isn't the editor's place to be passing judgement in a wikipedia article.
  • More comments about this section are below.

References

  • I can't really tell how you are formatting the references. Are these book titles? Are they articles in a magazine? What are the list of four references after Ref #21? This needs to be overhauled to conform with
    WP:CITE
    .
  • Websites should use a {{cite web}} template and include title, publisher and accessdate at least.
  • Books should use a {{cite book}} template and include title, author, date, publisher, location, isbn, and url and accessdate (if an on-line copy is available).
  • Ref 11 is to another Wikipedia article, this is inappropriate as the encyclopedia cannot site itself as a reference. See
    WP:VERIFY
    for thoughts on using credible sources.

Overall

  • The article is off to a good start, there is a lot of quality content that will add to the encyclopedia. The work now is to organize it and package it better. Here are some suggestions:
  • Why all the Hindi (is it Hindi, if not please forgive my ignorance) script? This is an English Wikipedia. You must assume the readers do not read Hindi. There can be call for a specific word to have the Hindi translation for clarification, but to have so many words translated just isn't necessary, and then the quotes. The quotes in Hindi need to be translated into English. Leave out the Hindi altogether.
  • I can't speak to the issues with factual accuracy but I can tell you that organizing your references so that they are consistent with understandable will help.
  • You use several words like "lakh", "ghats", and "Onam". To the novice these words are confusing and with no explanation I'm left not understanding what is being said.
  • You seem to be trying to push the idea that the Namadhari naik were a martial people. This concept is sprinkled throughout the article's sections. Is this in dispute? Once the point is made I don't think it needs to be brought up again.
  • Remember to fix the space before punctuation issue, it is prevalent throughout the article.
  • There are a lot of grammatical issues that need to be addressed. They are all small but when put together create a distraction for the readers.

This concludes my review. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your contributions to the project and keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Arkansas

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 there are a few dedicated members maintaining the page (for which I am very grateful), but it has failed to achieve "featured article" status in the past and currently has a B rating on most project's quality scale. I would like to know what changes, updates, or additional information need to be incorporated into the page to make it the highest quality possible.

Thanks, mmcnell

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but is a long way yet from reaching Good Article status. The main problems that leap out at me are lack of sourcing in many sections, incomplete or malformed citations, and a lead that is not a true summary of the whole article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You'll find a few FAs about universities at
    WP:FA#Education
    .
  • Much of the article is still without references to reliable sources and is thus in violation of
    WP:V
    throughout. A good rule of thumb for making the claims in the article verifiable is to provide at least one source for each paragraph and to provide a source for each direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that is apt to be questioned. The existing article lacks sources for whole sections such as Campuses and academic divisions, Campus, Football, Men's basketball, Calling the Hogs, Clubs and organizations on campus, and so on.
  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections in the lead and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead discusses tuition, for example, which does not seem to be mentioned in the main text. The lead does not mention sports, traditions, and some other sections. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will see how to write it.
    WP:LEAD
    has details.
  • The Manual of Style suggests rendering lists as straight prose when possible. The existing article has too many lists. The whole Greek life section, for example, consists solely of a list of organizations that most readers would expect to find on any major U.S. college campus. I would consider replacing the list with a short prose summary of Greek life at Arkansas. The "Notable people" section does this well; probably that section began as a list of names. Likewise, I would suggest not simply listing the degree-granting academic divisions on the Fayetteville campus; render this as prose somehow, maybe by reducing the list to a single sentence saying something like "The Fayetteville campus has 14 degree-granting academic divisions such as the Fay Jones School of Architecture and the Eleanor Mann School of Nursing."
    WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists
    has details.
  • I would not include the entire alma mater and fight song in the article. This is too much detail for most readers.
  • Although some articles benefit from image galleries, most are better off with a link, placed in the "External links" section, to a gallery on the Commons. If such a gallery exists, you can link to it with the {{Commons}} template. Readers who want to see more photos of the school can click on the link.
  • Many, if not most, of the citations in the Notes section are incomplete or malformed. For Internet sources, the citation should include author, title, publisher, date, url, and accessdate, if all of these are known or can be found. Also, it's doubtful that all of the sources cited meet the guidelines of
    WP:CIT
    has details.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that seven of the urls in the citations are dead and that three links go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

This is not a complete review, but it should give you plenty to think about. Good luck with this project. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pithole, Pennsylvania

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'd like to get Pithole to FA. For some reason, I not satisfied the comprehensiveness, but don't think there is anything missing (it could just be me, though). Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty good. I will make some minor copyedits as I go through the article. I will especially try to make suggestions on things to add for comprehensiveness.

  • The dab finder finds one dab link
Changed the link to a Wiktionary link, which seems more useful in this situation. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary so I would repeat or elaborate on the largest oil boomtown claim in the lead (which does not seem to be repeated in the article body)
I started doubting the "largest boomtown" claim and redid part of the intro. Does it need to be elaborated on or spelled out elsewhere in the article, now? I think the reader should be able to get the jist of it from reading the article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming section - I think I would mention Pithole Creek here in terms of its name. I assume the creek was named for the borough, but I think it should be mentioned either way (presumably as something named for the ghost town, possibly as the source of the name)
Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seneca are mentioned in the Naming section too - I think I would give the approximate year since it says These "pit-holes", which were found along Oil Creek and in Cornplanter Township, supposedly predate the Senecas who inhabited the area at the time.[6] I also think it would be good to at least mention the Seneca in the History section.
Added. Would it be better to specifically mention the "Seneca" or just go with the "Iroquois" (as it is my understanding that the Senecas were a part of the Iroquois)? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it as the Seneca - I think it is better to be more specific. The Seneca came down into western Pennsylvania, but not all the Iroquois did. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence: Pithole is located almost 4 miles (6.4 km) off Pennsylvania Route 36 and about 2 miles (3.2 km) from Pennsylvania Route 227. Needs a ref - could use the PennDOT map here. I would also mention State Route 1006 as it is shown on the PennDOT map and on your map. Finally, I would add directions to the major highways, so something like Pithole is located on Pennsylvania State Route 1006, almost 4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Pennsylvania Route 36 and about 2 miles (3.2 km) east of Pennsylvania Route 227.
Changed wording, added refs. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of Geography and climate needs a ref - presumably the source(s) used for the map would work here too
Added a ref. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of History I would add a new paragraph with a sentence about the Native American inhabitants, a sentence on the land being purchased from the Iroquois in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), and something with the dates of first settlement for the township, and incorporation of Venango County and Cornplanter Township. This PHMC source would be good for this last part
Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a message on your talk page about "Ghost Towns of Pennsylvania", which has seven or so pages on Pithole, with more details on the people and animals - mostly talks about teamsters and prostitutes and what it was like to live there. It is on Google Books here. I would add some details from that - hotel for 60 built in a day, what it was like to live in such hastily built and shoddily constructed buildings, how horses and mules suffered and were at a premium, the brothels and near slavery of the prostitutes in them. Perhaps a sentence on the claims of ghosts, maybe not.
Added more about the teamsters and about the prosititutes. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stone altar was erected and consecrated by the Methodist Episcopal Church on August 27, 1959, the centennial of the Drake Well strike. needs a ref.
Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I might add a sentence or two about the other nearby oil history sites in the Visitors center section (Oil Creek SP and Drake Well). Especially since the Drake Well Museum operates the Pithole Visitor Center - see this PHMC document here
Added it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I think about it, I think there could be a sentence something like The PHMC operates the Pithole Visitor Center as part of the Drake Well Museum. In 2007–2008, the Drake Well museums had 33,827 visitors, and in 2006–2007 the operating budget was $940,650. (same ref as above)
Would the visitation and budget numbers be accurate? I know Pithole is off the beaten path and, as such, usually recieves less visitors than Drake Well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make it clear that the budget and visitation numbers were for all the Drake Well museums (i.e. Drake Well, Pithole, and the other well listed), but agree it may be problematic - your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder about adding an image, even a fair use one, of Pithole itself in its prime (if such exist). I also wonder about cropping the stereoview to just one of the photos - it might be easier to see the detail in the article that way.
I know I've seen photos and I wonder if they would be considered free as they were first published in 1860s. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added a new photo of Pithole. How's it look? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise it looks pretty good to me. I made a few copyedits - please revert if I made or introduced errors.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, I'll see what I can fix now, but the source for much of the history section is at the library, which is closed until after Memorial Day (interesting book on its own, by the way). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments
  • Someone reviewing images may ask about the historic image of Pithole (newly added). Is there any indication that it was published before 1923? Even if there is not, I think it owuld be fine as a
    WP:FAIR USE
    image.
I've posted a note at
WP:MCQ, no response so far. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it can be sorted out at FAC if need be - as I said, if worse comes to worse I think it is justified under fair use. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also not sure about the license on the image of the model of the town. My guess is that the model may be seen s a work of art (copyrighted). I am not sure if this owuld be the case or not, but again I think one or two fair use images would be OK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, however if it were British, there are exceptions for models of buildings in public places. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the Pennsylvania Ghost Towns book - it mentioned how large buildings were constructed in a single day, but proved drafty and cold in the winter (surpringly). It also mentions the "Mayor of Pithole" I think I would include something on how fast the buildings were erected and how poorly constructed they were. Since the book and the news article you just found both mention the "mayor", I think that might be worth a sentence too.
Added the bit about the hotel and some about Boomtown Day and the mayoral race. Not sure how to mention the mayor specifically (as it is not "official" position). In the Geobox maybe? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning the mayoral race is enough. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, is there any reason not to include the Pennsylvania Ghost Town book in the references somehow? It seems like a reliable source.
Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dincher comments

Lead
The word "located" has been a sticking point in some FACs that I have been involved in. I personally don't have a problem with it, but someone in the future might.
Reworded to the lead sentence to remove the "located". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many bars? This would be an interesting contrast with the churches.
I'm unable to find an exact number, however I have a source that mentions that "every other building was a bar". Should that be included? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The number isn't important. The reader gets a good idea about the number of bars with your suggestion.
talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Added it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naming
Drop 'exact' and just go with, The origin
Dropped. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
Drop 'that was' and go with, Most of the oil produced...
Dropped. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'The oil usually became trapped' - reads awkwardly.
I reworded it. Any better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is better.
talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Link or create article for Venango Third? just a sugggestion
Geography and Climate
two more 'locateds' could go
Not sure how does could be reworded to avoid using "located". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were Duncan, Mason, Prather, Brown and Holmden streets named for town fathers? It would be nice to know.
I've dropped some the names into the History section, so it should be able to be inferred. Should it be expilictly stated (I'm not sure there is a source for that, though)? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up the inference. No need to be explicit about it.
talk) 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
How about including a map of the streets?
There is a map that shows the city streets in the geobox. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History
Suggest changing in only half a year to within half a year
Changed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that at least some of the streets were named for the big wigs.
Do we need at the thes in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Boom subsection?
Dropped all but two. Does it read better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Keep up the good work.
talk) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Visitors Center
suggest changing from cellars to foundations
Changed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article. The history is very interesting.

talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Days of our Lives

Previous peer review
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 to make it better. I want to hear criticism from other users, I want to change things to make them better. If the article needs more work I would like to know. I would like to get it up to featured article status. All comments are welcome. I am willing to put as much time, and effort needed.

Thanks, Sami50421 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I haven't got to the prose yet, but here are some issues relating to images and sources:-

  • Images
    • The rationale for the use of Image:Hortongroup.jpg‎ is very weak and needs to be amplified, to explain why the image materially assists the readers' understanding of the article.
    • Image:Dayshourglass1966.jpg: There may be some difficulty in justifying the use of this under a non-free rationale.
  • Sources
    • Formatting: As a minimum, online references need to show a title, a publisher and an access date. Some of yours lack one or more of these. For example, refs 1, 46 and 57 lack publisher information. 46 and 57 also lack retrieval date. Ref 10 is a bare url. Check carefully, to ensure that all references are properly formatted.
    • Consistency: you have "Time", "TIME" and "TIME magazine"
    • Italics: The titles of journals and newspapers should be italicised. The names of non-print sources shouls not be italicised.
    • Reliability: I have not checked many of these, but I am dubious the reliability of some. For example, ref 1 - why is this a reliable source?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you have responded to above, and I'll continue the review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
From the moment I borrowed that new Robert Altman biography at the library, fate must have stepped in. And indeed, fate led me to work on an article about a largely unknown entity in the Altman catalogue.

Through an IMDb message board listing, I managed to catch it on the

Fox Movie Channel
--at the end of April and again in May. It was tough going with the plot, even during the second time, but I eventually managed.

HealtH, a political satire set in a Florida hotel, was shelved by its distributor in the early 1980s and has been largely forgotten since then--and it even showed at the WP article before I came in. The amount of coverage it received back then is surprising, even with its already obscure reputation.

Out of a 3 kB stub, I expanded the article almost ninefold before it made the Did you know section on Friday night's Main Page (in my time zone). The blurb also mentioned four minor cast members from New York, known as The Steinettes.

Has there been a title so fitting for a PR subject? Compared to this, only

M*A*S*H
can rival its comprehensiveness here, as far as Altman's works are concerned.

Looking forward to

GAC
soon enough.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have to admit I did not recall ever hearing of this Altman film - sounds interesting. I think most of the information is there, but it needs some tweaking in terms of language and perhaps organization for GAN and especially if FAC is on the horizon. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • If the title of the film is "HealtH" (which the article uses a bunch of times), shouldn't the article be moved to "HealtH (film)" too?
  • The article seems a bit
    Idiosyncracy
    (to name a few)?
  • I also felt that the lead was a bit sparse - per
    WP:LEAD
    the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • I did not understand why there was a separate Synopsis section - it seemed to me to either be items that should be in the lead or else in the Plot section that follows it.
  • Similarly I was not sure how the Themes section differed from the Reception section - most of Themes seems to be material from critical reviews of the film. Could this at least be a subsection of the Themes section?
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow - could they be combined with others or perhaps expanded?
  • There are places where the article feels repetitive - for example, the Steinetts, Carol Burnett and Paul Dooley are listed in the cast section, so why then have the sentences "The Steinettes, an a cappella group from Greenwich Village, New York,[16]:1-D were on hand as the singers. Carol Burnett, who appeared in A Wedding,[5] starred as Gloria Burbank. Paul Dooley, who co-scripted with Altman and Barhydt, played Paul Dooley.[4]:82" in Production?
  • Or Dick Cavett and Dinah Shore's roles are mentioned in the Synopsis, Plot and Cast sections
  • There is no requirement to do this, but moist articles do not cite the lead - since it is a summary, the cited refs should all be in the body of the article too.
  • Similarly, references usually come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • If a reference is to something in all capitals, the
    WP:MOS
    says to convert it to title case - so "ROBERT ALTMAN'S SATIRE 'HEALTH'" would just be "Robert Altman's Satire 'HealtH'"
  • If the production began in February 1979 and was completed in three months, how can it be a satire of the Reagan Carter campaign? Reagan wasn't even nominated until July 1980.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The Circus Starring Britney Spears

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 nominated it a few weeks ago for GA and it was failed throughout the process. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Well, the biggest issue at GAN was prose, so really once other issues are gelled getting the
    WP:LOCE
    or somebody to run through it would be best (I'll try, but I don't have much wiki-time these days so I'm not sure if I'll get to it.)
  • Anyhow, I'm concerned about using multiple references to prove an assertion. For example, "The performance received worldwide attention which exceeded expectations. Her singing, her dancing and even her wardrobe were all commented on extensively, and it was considered hurtful for her career." That first sentence is unsourced. The second sentence is sourced to three sources from the time, [27][28][29]. The sources are reliable, but I'm concerned that they are more the opinions of the authors than stated fact, and it would be erroneous to use them to assert a blanket statement; perhaps more recent sources looking back at the performance would be better. This is an issue I see a couple of other times on first glance ("After its premiere performance, the tour tour received generally positive reviews from several critics" is better, but it might be better to be a little less committed than this.)
  • The article could do with a trim; not that it's too long an article, but because similar details crowd together and turn the article into a morass of repetitive phrasing in places. Take the background section, for example. I count ten instances of "In [MONTH/DATE], [YEAR]" phrasing. This feels like a current events story coming together, but we've got hindsight working for us now. Not all these details are necessary, and you can combine and synthesize some summaries to cut down on the looping feeling.
  • There are lots of curly quotes in the article (“, ’, etc.) These should all be converted to straight quotes (", ') per
    WP:PUNCT
    .
  • I'm concerned about undue weight given to altercations and controversies (around 10 paragraphs and four dedicated subsections.) Condense this stuff to bare details and merge it back into the rest of the article where relevant, or give it a paragraph at the end of the tour section describing difficulties on the road or whatnot.
  • There's a lot of free images of the show—great. The problem is that sometimes there seem to be too many, in that barely-related images are put in a section because they won't fit elsewhere. You've got a commons link at the end of the article—I suggest judiciously pruning images.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Lara

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has just completed a good article review and I would like to see what needs to be done to take it to the next level.

Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

May Revolution

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 all the important work (checking books, adding footnotes, explaining things, detailing all the things that had happen, moving excesive information to secondary articles, etc.) is mostly done. If there's something missing, it may be small details, easy to fix.

However, I'm not a native english speaker, and I'm too familiar with this topic. I need a review of 2 things: first, languaje (if there are things wich are not written correctly, or may be improved), and second, whenever there are details that may seem confusing to people with no knowledge on the topic and that may require higher explanations (or, on the contrary, if somewhere I overexplain something that is already clear for the casual reader).

Thanks,

talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by H1nkles

From what I can tell you wish to get some input on areas of improvement from someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject matter. Well I can help with this. I will do my best to make suggestions and where I can fix prose issues I will do so. It is a very long article so I may gloss over areas and make general statements. I'm not sure what your goals are for the article. I see that it did fail GA review once, I think this would be a good initial goal. This is a rather long article so the review may have to be done in chunks as I have time.

Lead

  • This sentence is a run-on:
"The May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo) was a week-long series of revolutionary events that took place from May 18 to May 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a colony of the Spanish Empire which included the present-day nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay."
Consider ending the first sentence at 1810. Then the next sentence starts with, "The revolution centered in..."

Causes

  • I'm not going to change all instances of linking country names, I'll leave that to you. In general generic links to countries is not helpful. If you want to link to a country please try to be more specific than just linking to the country. In the context of this article, linking
    United States
    , that would be more specific and more useful.
  • American history buffs would question the accuracy of this statement,
"The United States had emancipated themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1776, which provided a tangible example that led Criollos to believe that revolution and independence from Spain could be realistic aims."
The US declared independence around 1776 but had not in any way emancipated themselves by this point. 1781 would be a more accurate date since it was then that the English surrendered.
  • Your description of the Abdications of Bayonne is very well done in my opinion.
  • This sentence is confusing to me:
"This whole situation created two antagonistic groups: leather products manufacturers who wanted free trade to be able to sell their production, and retailers who benefited from the prices of the smuggled imports, which they would have had to sell at lower prices if free trade was allowed."
No where prior to this do I see anything about leather product manufacturers. Weren't there a great many different types of products produced in Argentina? Why key in on leather? It just sort of comes out of the blue. I would be less specific about the first group, unless there was some very contentious issue with leather manufacturers or if I'm misreading this whole thing.
  • There are quite a few small errors in spelling and grammar. While they are small, given the frequency of them it becomes distracting. I would recommend requesting help from
    WP:COPYEDITORS. You can do so here. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Prelude

  • I'm looking for areas in which to trim down the information. I feel that this section is too long. It adds a lot of good information but how this information really pushes towards the revolution is unclear. I'm not saying the entire section should be removed but I think it could be significantly trimmed and combined into one section. The Cisneros government section, for example, is longer than all three of the articles listed as the Main article, and the see also articles combined. Usually this information is done in
    summary fashion
    and the Main article tag is meant to direct readers to a more indepth article on the subject. The opposite is the case here. I would move a majority of this information to the main article and trim it down significantly.

May week

  • You only need to link a term once, open cabildo is linked at least twice. Plaza de Mayo twice and Junta several times.
  • There are several grammatical errors in the long quote under the Sunday May 20 sub-section. Is this directly quoted from the book or are the errors on the part of the editors of this article? If the errors are in the book this is quoted from then please put a (sic) after errors to show the reader these errors are intentional. If they are on the part of the editors of this article then please fix them.
  • This sentence is a fragment:
"At the time of the vote, Castelli's position coupled with that of Saavedra."
What is this trying to say? Did this position win out? I don't know.
  • I don't see the need to outline every plan that was put forth and then count the votes for each plan. It seems a bit to detailed. Give the two competing ideas along with their plans for resolution. I think that would be sufficient.
  • The last paragraph in the May 24 sub-section has a lot of important information but no reference. I added a [citation needed] template.
  • The article bogs down in the May 25th sub-section. Listing all the names of the various parties involved in signing the form just seems a bit too much. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm going to have to end my review early. I have some real life concerns that will require much of my time and I won't be able to get to the rest of the article. I apologize but I hope that I have given you some thoughts to help with the article. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will take those advises in consideration. I haven't replied here to allow for the review to end as a block of text rather than set of dispersed advises between comments, but I had already started working at some of the points. Good luck with your real-life tasks, and thanks for the help
talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

2010 Auto Club 500

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 renominate it for good article status, but I do not want to see it fail. On June 1, 2010, the article was nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and was failed after the time to improve it ended. Since then I have improved it and would like to see how it would do as a good article nomination.

Thanks,

Nascar1996 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Royalbroil's peer review

Nobel Prize

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed Nobel Prize for Peer Review because I need help with improving prose and consistency of word usage. I have tried to nominate it for FA twice and it has failed both. On those nominations many comments were about the prose which was not quite FA style according to some editors. So I would be very happy if I could get some help with improving this article so it can reach FA status!

I would be grateful for any help I can get, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kokia discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to know what it would take this page up to featured list status, other than creating articles for the notable singles/EPs that are still redlinked.

Thanks, Prosperosity (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The list seems informative, but there are numerous points of presentation to be addressed:-

As I am unable to watch peer reviews at present, please use my talkpage to contact me if you wish to raise points from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-planes

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 looking to bring this list to FL status, and would like feedback on what needs improving to reach it. (For the record on one issue I'm aware of: there's no image of the X-16 because the two photographs on Commons of it are both listed for deletion). Anyway, any and all help and suggestions would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Flank speed 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

GraemeLeggett
    • Thanks. I think I've got page numbers in. I'm not sure about the citation comment mention - everything in 'Bibliography' currently uses either cite-book or cite-web? -
      Flank speed 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Brianboulton

Brianboulton comments: A well-prepared and comprehensive-looking list. The lead could be developed more, to give a better sense of 60-plus years of history, and there are numerous prose issues requiring attention.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much thanks! I'll get to work fixing those things. :) -
    Flank speed 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ian Rose

What a good idea for a high-quality list! Looks thoroughly cited, and of course well illustrated. Comments:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, the multiple links remain from the original table. I'll see about lead expansion and delinking soon. Thanks for the feedback! -
Flank speed 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Mono (Japanese band)

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 feel the article, while fairly informative at present, could be expanded upon and improved, hopefully with the help of a peer review. I have contributed considerably to the article, and would greatly appreciate any comments/criticism with regards to advancing it to (at least) Good Article status.

Thank you, Thom (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Esuzu Hello, I am Esuzu and I will try to help you with this article. Other comments are very welcome. I will add comments now and then but I am quite bust atm so it might take time sometimes. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, references needs to be according to Template:Cite web. Just bare references will not do. (I made some for you but for example ref 2 still needs to be done)
  • Ref 6 is dead.
  • ref 9-17 is only images. We can not use that as a good source. (
    Wikipedia:Secondary source#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources
    is good to read.) In wikipedia we can only say and summarise what other people already have said. Thus the whole "Instrumentation" section needs new references.
  • Almost the whole History section is missing references. You need to have at least one closing reference in each paragraph. Take a look at, for example, Confessions on a Dance Floor for see how a GA article should be referenced.

Storm Prediction Center

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 looking for further feedback on improving the article to where it will pass a Featured Article Candidacy. Please peer review the article as a Featured article would be reviewed.

Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments. I think it needs some work before FAC.
  • "Day x" is capitalized in some instances but not in others.
  • Date ranges need endashes.
  • Overall, I feel more general information is needed on the history and use of the SPC, based on outside sources. It seems only one source cited in the article does not come from the SPC itself (or related agencies).
  • I'm also not sure the example boxes are needed. They're hard to read, and they're more relevant to the particular advisory than the SPC.

Just a few things I noticed at first glance. Hope this helps a tad. Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I garee with all of Julian's comments above. Here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to FAC.

  • The disambig links tool finds two circular redirects (links in the article back to itself) that should at least be looked at.
    • Everyone keeps bringing this up. Those two redirects I have categorized as "Redirects with possibilities" because theoretically those two topics could have their own article, but right now the content on those two topics is located in the SPC article (mainly because no one has gotten around to writing separate articles for those topics yet). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although alt text for those who cannot see the images is no longer required for FAC, it is still a nice thing to add to images - see
    WP:ALT
  • In the lead, I thought that the repetition of "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4–8" and the similar days for fire weather was a bit much. The lead is supposed to be a clear summary / overview, so I would explain the forecast days, but avoid the repetitive detail in the lead.
    • I attempted to make it seem less repetitive, but I don't know how I can achieve full non-repetitiveness while also explaining what day segments the fire weather outlooks are issued for. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which disrupt the flow for the reader. I would either combine them with other paragraphs or perhaps expand them.
  • The table in the "Issuance and usage" section have odd uses of bold and italic text - why for example is it sometimes "MDT" and other times "MDT"?
    • That is explained in the header for the tables. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - see
    WP:PCR
    . For example in the Mesoscale discussions section, there is this large lump of text (the example discussion) but no real explanation of the specifics in it - I am not sure the average international reader would necessarily know what "WRN KS...PARTS OF WRN OK/ERN TX PNHDL" means, for example.
  • Similarly the maps could identify the states depicted
    • Those maps are the original SPC products, but would not be so if I added state labels to them. Which is better, having the original example or having state labels? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to also discuss the actual weather to compare it to the predictions for both examples?
  • For refs 8 and 18, I would still give publisher, date accessed, etc. Agree that more independent, third-party sources are needed, especially for this to pass FAC.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The Story of Marie and Julien

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 thinking of making a Good Article nomination and would like to get comments and improvements first. Though an established editor, this is the first article I've brought to the point I thought it might be of Good Article standard.

Points I think may be worth examining
  1. The plot section is about 1000 words, over the film style guide's recommended 700-word limit. I've trimmed it back as much as I can without losing what seem to be important elements. The plot is split into an initial brief summary and then into the defined four parts of the film. Presenting it in this mainly chronological order seems the best approach as there's a very clear story arc. The section also contains some sourced story analysis, which does increase its length and I don't think the article would be improved by moving that analysis into a "Themes" section.
  2. I've included a lot of sources within the plot (which I know is unusual): it helps to verify that certain plot elements are important without needing to sit through 2 1/2 hours of the film, and it avoids suspicions of original research where there is any interpretation of events. I initially wrote the plot outline based on a watch through, but tweaked and added to it based on the sources.
  3. Should any images from the film be included? I've linked to some shots of the film on the talk page, but I am not sure on the fair-use justification.
  4. I've not included French or other non-English sources in the Reception section, which probably needs amending. Many of them are behind firewalls and while Google Translate and my school-boy French are fine for verifying facts they are of less help for faithfully translating opinion.
  5. Despite what I've said above, should there be a "Themes" section? Is the "Production and direction" section fine as one section (I think it hangs together OK), or should it be split?

Thanks, Fences&Windows 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems broad in coverage, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and verifiable. My main concerns are with the prose, which needs polish to get to GA level. The plot is rather long, but that might be remedied by creating a Themes sections after all. The Cast section is just a list, and the padding of the list is repetitive. Here are more specific thoughts:

  • The images look fine, and one fair-use image per article is probably all that can be justified.
  • I found it jarring to encounter critical comments in the Plot section. If you added a Themes section, the length of the Plot section would be somewhat smaller, and the film seems to explore interesting themes. If you haven't already done so, you might look at the featured articles at
    WP:FA#Media
    to see how other editors have handled similar problems.

Lead

  • "Critical responses were mixed, with some finding it overly long, slow and pretentious, while others believed that it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work." - "With plus -ing" constructions are usually weaker and more wordy than alternatives. Suggestion: "Some critics found the film overlong, slow, and pretentious, while others said it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work."

Plot

  • "The centre of the film is the love story between Marie and Julien, with the tale of blackmail helping to tell this story." - Another "with plus -ing". "Tale" and "tell" is a bit repetitious. Suggestion: "The film, centered on the love story between Marie and Julien, includes a subplot involving blackmail."
  • "The film is separated into four parts, named to reflect the narrative perspective.[10][2]" - Serial citations like this should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [2][10]. Ditto for similar strings of citations elsewhere in the article.
  • "finally revealed to be a ghost story— sees dream logic impinging on reality" - "involves" rather than "sees"?
  • The bolded terms like Julien should be unbolded, though italics would be fine.
    WP:MOSBOLD
    has details.
  • "but Marie stands him up" - Slang that some readers might take literally. Maybe "but Marie fails to appear"?
  • "Julien tracks her down when an unknown woman calls to tell him the hotel she is staying at, and she agrees to move in with him... ". - I had to read this three times to make sense of it. At first I thought it meant that the unknown woman agrees to move in with Julien. I think, though, it means that Marie agrees to move in with him, though only one phone call seems to be involved. Can this sequence be made more clear?
  • "He rings Marie's old boss who suggests talking to her friend Delphine" - The boss's friend or Marie's friend?
  • "Marie warns him that if he fails her he will lose all memory of her... ". - Not sure what "fails her" means here.
  • "Marie slowly covers her face with her hands —the forbidden gesture" - Has the forbidden gesture been mentioned or explained before this?

Production and direction

  • "Glenn Kenny notes that the "calm precision" of the mise en scène in the opening dream sequence "put [him] under such a powerful spell" that lasted the whole film." - Missing word? Maybe "that it lasted" rather than "that lasted"?

Reception

  • Film titles inside direct quotations as elsewhere should appear in italics.

Distribution

  • "The film was passed up by both Cannes and Venice" - Maybe "ignored" rather than "passed up"?
  • "The theatrical release in France and Belgium was on 12 November 2003, being seen by 239 people across 10 screens in Paris on the opening night." - Suggestion: "The film opened in France and Belgium on 12 November 2003; that night 239 people watched the film in Paris."
  • "The Arte Video release additionally features commentary by Lubtchansky over a cut-down version of the film (41:45), and an analysis of the film by Hélène Frappat (21:28)." - Does the 41:45 refer to the cut-down version or does it refer to the Lubtchansky commentary? Or are they the same? I don't think the sentence makes this clear.

Cast

  • The bolding should be removed per
    WP:MOSBOLD
    .
  • The details for the cast members seems mainly to repeat information already presented in the Plot section.

References

  • Even when a source uses all caps, Wikipedia uses its own house style. HISTOIRE DE MARIE ET JULIEN should be rendered as Histoire de Marie et Julien.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Timeline of Tanzanian history

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 really like to nominate it as a

featured list
at some point and would like any comments or constructive criticism regarding what else needs to be done to get it to this standard. I think it's pretty comprehensive although I know that some work needs to be done with the early history. Any comments or suggestions for the lead section would also be appreciated.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list with interesting illustrations. The prose needs polishing to reach professional quality; in addition, the list might not be comprehensive. What is a "major" event? Did only five major events occur before 1822? Here are further comments and suggestions.

  • To orient readers, I'd strongly suggest including another map, maybe File:Un-tanzania.png, to show where Tanzania is in Africa and where Zanzibar is in relation to the mainland. It might look good right under the infobox, not sure.
  • Inevitably you will be asked whether anything important is missing from the list. I don't know the answer to that, but it's something to think about. An awful lot of things can happen in 20,000 years, and any list is bound to be super-selective. I noticed that no women but Mary Leakey made the list; health (epidemics, for example) and education (first university, for example) did not make the list. It's hard to say what a comprehensive list of Tanzanian history would consist of. For example, should the completion of the Usambara Railway appear in the list?

Lead

  • "Human inhabitance of the region dates back at least 100,000 years." - Maybe "Human habitation in the region... ". I don't think "inhabitance" is a real word.
  • "European contact with East Africa began in the 15th century with Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landing in 1498." - "With" plus "-ing" constructions are generally weak. Suggestion: "European contact with East Africa began when Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landed in 1498." It might be helpful to add here just where in East Africa he landed in relation to Tanzania.
  • "The 19th century brought increased colonial involvement in the region with German East Africa forming on the mainland in 1885 and Zanzibar coming under British control in 1890." - Another "with plus -ing". Also, it might be helpful to add that Zanzibar is off the coast. Suggestion: "Colonial involvement in the region increased in the 19th century; German East Africa was formed on the mainland in 1885, and Zanzibar, an island archipelago east of the mainland, came under British control in 1890."
  • "Six years later, the Anglo-Zanzibar War was fought on the island; it is the shortest war in history." - Even though this is sourced later in the main text, it's such an extraordinary claim that you might want to add a citation here as well.
  • "Resistance against colonial rule in German East Africa was apparent with the opposition of Chief Mkwawa of the Hehe and the Maji Maji Rebellion." - This seems unnecessarily roundabout. Suggestion: "Chief Mkwawa of the Hehe and insurgents tied to the Maji Maji Rebellion resisted colonial rule in German East Africa"
  • "The 20th century saw the end of German involvement in the area following World War I as the United Kingdom took over Tanganyika as a United Nations mandate." - Roundabout and not quite correct. Suggestion: "German involvement ended after World War I when the United Kingdom took over Tanganyika as a League of Nations mandate." The United Nations did not exist at the time.
  • "1995 saw the country's first multi-party election, won by third president Benjamin Mkapa." - The Manual of Style advises against starting sentences with digits. Suggestion: Benjamin Mkapa, the country's third president, won Tanzania's first multi-party election in 1995.
  • "Mkapa's presidency saw diplomatic ties forged in the region with the signing of the East African Community Treaty, criticisms for overspending by the government and the US embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam." - If I understand this correctly, here is a suggested alternative: "During Mkapa's presidency, Tanzania forged diplomatic ties in the region by signing the East African Community Treaty. However, the Mkapa government was criticized for overspending and for not preventing a bombing of the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam."
  • The line of numbers in the box at the bottom of the lead is somewhat mysterious without the word "century" in at least one place.

18th century

  • The 100,000 slaves claim needs a source. It might help to add where the slaves were from and where they were sent.

Images

  • Interesting and informative images. Licenses look OK to me.
  • All of your captions are sentence fragments, so the terminal periods should be deleted.
  • The alt-text tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page shows that the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. I'm not sure whether you'll need alt text for FLC, but it would be a good idea to add it anyway.
    WP:ALT
    has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at

WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks so much, I will look through all your suggestions.--BelovedFreak 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Barcelona presidents

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'll take it to the feature process as soon as the prose is decent. Sources should all be okay.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • Prose: if possible the entire text should be copyedited by an informed but uninvolved editor. Here are a few specific issues:-
    • It seems a bit obvious to state that "FC Barcelona is a football club based in Barcelona"
    • Linking "football club" is unnecessary
    • "The club played its first friendly match on December 8, 1899." I imagine the main point is that this was the club's firts match, not that it was its first friendly match. Therefore I suggest: "The club played its first match, a friendly, on December 8, 1899.
    • The word "initially" is inappropriate, because it refers to a situation that apparently lasted for 30 years. Perhaps: "For the first 30 years of its existence, Barcelona played against other local clubs..." etc
    • Suggest full stop after "Catalan tournaments", then: "In 1929 the club became on of the founding members..." etc. The sentence beginning "As of 2010..." is unrelated to this list and I suggest should be deleted.
    • Joan Gamper needs some brief introduction before the statement that he placed an advertisement. For example, you might mention that he was Swiss. He should also be linked at first, not second, mention.
    • It is wrong to say that eleven "players" attended the meeting as the club was at that stage unformed. I also question the need to record all these names in this particular list.
    • The wording "came under financial distress" is quaint. We would normally say something like "was losing money", or "was losing money heavily."
    • How was Gamper "25 years at the helm"? His terms as president were intermittent over a 25-year period. Was he "at the helm" even when he wasn't president?
    • The club's nickname "Barça" should be explained before introduction, and shouldn't be in italics
    • "...since then members of Barcelona has elected the club president." Not grammatical. Also, what does "members of Barcelona" mean? And how was the president appointed before 1978
    • "His presidency where to last..." → "His presidency was to last...."
    • "finishing at a shocking sixth place..." This is POV, unsuitable wording in a neutral encyclopedia article.
  • The list itself looks generally OK. It should be made clear that this is the "official presidential history of FC Barcelona", not just "Barcelona". The Gamper image caption says he was the club's "first player", rather than one of the club's first players.

That's all I can offer for the moment. Try and get a full copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed above. Thank you for the review! Where can I obtain a copyedit? Sandman888 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the lead a copy edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Elgar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because having recently participated in a peer review of the first rate article on Gustav Mahler (now FA), I am spurred to get the article on Mahler's great contemporary Elgar up to something like the same level of excellence, and I have added a good deal of information and referencing to that end. In particular, I should like guidance on the structure of the article. I am reasonably happy with the biography section, but would especially welcome comment on the music section (right balance? enough technical detail?). Another point of concern is that other editors, notably User:P0mbal, have also worked independently on the article, and I am anxious not to intrude on their contributions – in particular the list of notable works towards the end. There are two large sections currently commented out (one because full of unreferenced original research and the other a full list of Elgar’s works, now superseded by a very good subsidiary article and a précis in this one) which I think should be removed, but will welcome guidance on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Some initial thoughts:-

I have read through the article. In general I found it highly informative, a very comprehensive composer biography which could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. I have not had the time yet to carry out a detailed review, but here are a few initial points for consideration:-

  • There are a couple of dablinks. Check the toolbox on the top right of this page.
    • Done. The second one was very odd – took one round in circles to the top of the Elgar article.
  • Ref 90 is a puzzle. It consists of two apparently unrelated links, without publisher or access date information. The first link goes to a selection of You-tube clips, nothing to do with Elgar. The second ("The Master of the King's Musick") is a dead link.
    • Fixed. I blush to say that this was there before I got involved and I neglected to check it. (I take it we are allowed to link to You Tube clips? I don't know anything to the contrary.)
  • The Michael Kennedy Daily Telegraph piece in External links is also a dead link.
    • Ditto. Blitzed
  • I note that you have not included alt text. Although at present alt text is not a FA requirement, I am sure that it will come back eventually, and I am making a point of including it in all my articles, if only to save a large backlog of work when the requirement is reinstated.
    • Very good point. Have fixed. (In passing, my work colleague who runs my employer's website, tells me that the expert guidance he gets from accessibility specialists is that alt-text should be as concise as possible: the WP standard, by contrast, seems quite discursive. I have attempted a via media.)
  • As may be expected at this stage, the article's prose is a little unpolished in places, and could probably do with some light copyediting throughout. For example, early in the lead I noted "From a modest background, and, as a Roman Catholic in Protestant Britain, Elgar was seen, by himself and others, as an outsider." Apart from the rather tortured grammar and the over-punctuation (five commas!), I found myself thinking "Why would coming from a modest background make Elgar, and others, think he was an outsider?" Don't about 95% of people come from "modest backgrounds"? I would give some thought to how this sentence might be reworded.
    • Whatever infelicities I may have inherited here and there, I can't blame anyone else for this prose, which was entirely mine (you are familiar, I'm sure, with the lack of leads in many articles one takes a hand in). Have redrawn, and expanded. Truth to tell Elgar had a lifelong chip on his shoulder about the class thing (and to some extent about the academic thing too, which I have now added), but it is hard to phrase that in a decently encyclopaedic style. He was regarded in some circles (conspicuously his in-laws) as a counter-jumper, a parvenu, a social climber – a damning sin circa 1900, and he worried even in his glory years and his G.O.M. days that people still thought so. Even as an old man he would take it into his head to refuse invitations to dine in grand houses on the grounds that his hosts wouldn't want "a piano tuner's son" to disgrace their table.
  • I think the Early life section is a little too long - well over 20% of the entire biographical part of the article. Adoption of a stricter summary style would enable this section to be reduced by perhaps a third without loss of significant detail.
    • Point taken and have trimmed, though Elgar didn't make it to the big time till he was 42, so the early life section is bound to be longer than that of most eminent people's. (I have fallen back on the ancient ploy, "Try to smuggle a few hundred over-the-limit words past your examiner by slipping them into footnotes.")
  • I found a slight conflict between the statement that the success of the Enigma Variations established Elgar as the leading British composer of his generation, and the later assertion by Maine that only after Sullivan's death did Elgar reach this pinnacle.
    • I think the logic is that having been well-known since the 1870s Sullivan was (and is?) regarded as of a different generation from Elgar's, though he was in fact only 15 years the senior. The Enigma established Elgar as the leading British composer of his own generation, but after Sullivan's death he was seen as the leading (living) British composer full stop.
  • I am not sure I fully understand what is meant here: "The enigma is that, although there are fourteen variations on the "original theme", the "enigma" theme, which Elgar said "runs through and over the whole set" is never heard." Young, in his Elgar biography, says that the "first noteworthy melodic shape in the Enigma theme is in the interval of the minor third", which suggests something that is definitely heard. Indeed, how can something that is never heard, run "through and over" the work?
    • Good point. Not my drafting, but I think I can in conscience redraw it a bit, and have done so. There is a distinction between the opening theme (labelled in Jaeger's handwriting "Enigma") and the wider enigma of the whole piece, the bigger theme, which Elgar never identified. (It is not even certain that Elgar meant 'theme' to mean a melody or some vaguer philosophical concept.) I have put this in a footnote, for fear of overweighting the body of the para.
  • A small point but I think, in the caption and in the text, that Newman should be identified as "Cardinal".
    • I wondered about this, but as he wasn't a cardinal until fifteen years after he wrote the poem I thought it more accurate to omit the title. (If I wait a bit, it looks as though he'll be Saint J. H. Newman!) Happy to give him the title (the former, I mean) if you recommend it despite the time-lag.
  • I have to raise the question of the list of notable works, "works of acknowledged popularity and significance as well as major works." I can see the value of this, bearing in mind the very large number of works making up Elgar's total output. The obvious question, however, is whether there are any objective criteria for these selections? Otherwise, the list could be criticised for POV interpretations of "acknowledged popularity and significance".
    • I share your view, but the editor who compiled the list, (and the excellent complete list that sits behind it in a subsidiary article) does not, I have found, respond to enquiries, suggestions etc. As that editor has contributed even more edits to the article than I have (albeit mostly in the listing part), I feel particularly inhibited about presuming to interfere. It may be that this peer review will open the general question to wider comment and a consensus on whether the list of notable works should stay or go, or possibly have its criteria explained and referenced. However, if this issue cannot be resolved and remains an obstacle to progressing the article to GA/FAC, I fear that that's the way the cookie crumbles, and conscience doth make cowards of us all – or me at any rate. Depending on what comments this PR throws up, I may attempt to reopen the matter.
      • As it stands, the article extends to 109 kb, well above the maximum size recommended for single WP articles. Without the (in my view) dubious selected list of works, this reduces to a more reasonable, though still hefty, 86 kb. If the desire is to draw attention to Elgar's better-known works, the way to do that is some sort of highlighting in the main list of works, not to create a selective list here. If you have made reasonable efforts to resolve this issue with the editor who compiled the list and he/she has not responded, I think you are entitled to use your own judgement. In any event it looks to me that your edit count will soon be the largest on the article, so I wouldn't let that aspect bother you too much. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add further, more detailed comments over the next few days, and maybe others will join in, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of food for thought here - thank you very much. I'll go through carefully and return to the fray shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. I look forward to any further comments you are minded to make, and to any thoughts on the foregoing. – Tim riley (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton again: Some detailed prose comments:-

  • Lead
    • Could the first paragraph carry a liitle more zing? It seems very understated at present; a bald identifying statement followed by "He is known for..." I don't think this does Elgar justice. Could we add to the first sentence something like: "...many of whose works have achieved enduring popularity." And then "Among his best-known compositions are..." Just suggestions.
      • Good – done.
    • "He followed the variations..." Maybe this should be "the Variations..."
      • I dither over this. I incline to write "The First Symphony" but "the symphony", and the same applies to the Variations. I've changed to a capital V, but will review the whole article for consistency on this point when the review is concluded.
    • "repertory" and "repertoire" both appear in the lead. Best stick to one.
      • Done. Et passim.
    • "full-length" needs a hyphen
      • Done. (By some other kind contributor)
    • "Elgar was one of the first composers who recorded their works for the gramophone." Doesn't sound quite right. I would prefer "Elgar was one of the first composers to record their works for the gramophone."
      • I'm tempted to make this stronger. Robert Philip (a good critic, me judice) says in the article cited in the main text below, "Elgar was the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". What about recasting the para thus-ish:
Elgar has been described as "the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". In the early days of recording, he made a series of discs of his works between 1914 and 1925. After the microphone was invented, making realistic recording possible, he conducted recordings of most of his major orchestral works, and excerpts from The Dream of Gerontius. These recordings were reissued on LP record in the 1970s and on CD in the 1990s.
  • Early years
    • "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." This sentence looks to need quotes, or at least a specific attribution.
      • The DNB cite was already there, but I have backed it up with one from Moore's Elgar: A Creative Life.
    • "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House, near Worcester, but he had no formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers and, in 1877–78, more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer during brief visits to London." Another multi-fact sentence that is hard to absorb in a single bite. Suggestion: "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House school, near Worcester. However, his only formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers was more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer, during brief visits to London in 1877-78."
      • Good. Done
    • "Around this time, he made his first public appearances as a violinist and organist." Needs a citation.
      • Done
    • In general, two "ands" in a sentence should be avoided. Thus the fourth paragraph could begin: "After a few months, Elgar left the solicitor to embark on a musical career, giving piano and violin lessons and working occasionally in his father's shop."
      • Better. Done
    • Fifth paragraph; this would read better if it opened with the last sentence: "Although somewhat solitary and introspective by nature, Elgar thrived in Worcester's musical circles.[2] He played in the violins at the Worcester and Birmingham Festivals..." etc
      • Done. What a difference another pair of eyes makes!

Will continue to offer suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to them! - Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More prose suggestions

  • Marriage
    • "At twenty-nine, through his teaching, he met Caroline Alice Roberts,..." As this is the first sentence of the sec tion, "he" must be "Elgar". Rather than the vague "through his teaching" I would mention that Alice was one of his pupils.
      • Yes. Done.
    • "...a wide range of composers from Berlioz to Wagner." Er, I would not call that a wide range, except alphabetically...Perhaps the range could be better defined?
      • This was loose drafting on my part, conflating two different things: first that he did indeed hear a wide range of music for the first time; secondly that the masters of orchestration such as Berlioz and Wagner influenced him greatly. I have redrawn to make this clear.
    • "Some tantalising opportunities seemed to be within reach but vanished unexpectedly." For continuity, the next sentence should begin: "For example..."
      • Better. Done.
  • Growing reputation
    • "...both inspired by Longfellow..." would be better as a parenthetical note
      • Agreed. Done.
    • Sentence needing attention: "Elgar himself was catching the eyes of the prominent critics, although their reviews were still lukewarm, and he was in demand as a festival composer, but he was just getting by financially and not feeling appreciated as he sought to be." Too many facts for a single sentence, some unnecessary verbiage, and awkwardness towards the end. How about: "Elgar was catching the attention of prominent critics, but their reviews were lukewarm. Although he was in demand as a festival composer, he was only just getting by financially, and felt unappreciated."
      • This is one of many sentences I have inherited from previous contributors and have let pass. Emboldened by your views I have amended it as suggested.
  • National and international fame
    • How, briefly, was Elgar's Catholicism expressed in Gerontius?
      • My woolly drafting this time, now amended. There is nothing in the music itself at which even the most evangelical Dean could take offence: it was Newman's poem that had them shaking their cassocks at Gerontius. The soul of Gerontius ends the piece (in Elgar's much pruned selection from Newman's original) staggering away from the Judgment Seat to spend vast amounts of time in Purgatory. No wonder the Dean of Gloucester boggled.
    • Just a thought: "Expurgations" is a very odd word to choose, unless it is quoted from somewhere.
      • "Expurgations" is indeed a quote from the Gramophone article cited, and I think it is the mot juste – some phrases in the poem judged to be intolerably papistical were censored and replaced with more anodyne words.
    • "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the five Pomp and Circumstance Marches, composed between 1901 and 1930." There is ambiguity here; the last phrase could be read as applying to the first of the marches, or to all five. Difficult to get round, but possibly: "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, five of which he composed between 1901 and 1930."
      • Good point. I have had a shot at a shorter version than you suggest, which, I think, removes the ambiguity, inserting "which were" before "composed between…" I think the plural makes the point. Do you agree?
    • "Elgar was knighted at Buckingham Palace..."etc. This is another "two ands" sentence. The last part needs rephrasing: "...where they lived until 1911."
      • Done.
    • "Between 1902 and 1914 he was,..." - needs to be "Elgar was..."
      • Done.
    • I would query the need for such an extensive verbatim quote as that beginning "Vulgarity..."
      • I'll prune this if you insist after you have nobly ploughed through the rest of the article ("he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" – Mark 13:13). I say this because the bit about vulgarity comes up again later, and I think the pre-echo here is helpful.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am conscious of, not to say conscience-stricken by, the sheer amount of help you have already given me in this article, and am so grateful for the time you are devoting to it. - Tim riley (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few more points
  • Last major works
    • The mention of Elgar's OM is a bit casual. Bearing in mind the exclusivity of the Order, it might be worth a few words to explain the significance of this honour
      • Yes indeed. Percy Young's Elgar book is titled simply Elgar, O.M. – which says much. Have edited.
    • "...three choral settings of a character "far removed from the romantic patriotism of his earlier years". Who was this character? And can a "character" be set to music? A character can certainly be represented musically, but "choral settings of a character"?
      • Hmm. Have changed to "of a nature".
    • Cello concerto: do we know who the premiere soloist was?
      • We do. It was Felix Salmond. Elgar though highly of him, and didn't blame him for the debacle. (If memory serves he was a Columbia artist so could not record the concerto with Elgar, but would otherwise have been invited to do so.) Have added details.
  • Last years
    • portamento should definitely be linked, but even then I'm not sure that the sentence will be clearly undertood. I wonder if this degree of technicality is really necessary, in a biographical article?
      • I wondered, too, as I was writing it. I was trying to make the passing point that there isn't any one "authentic" sound for Elgar, but perhaps it is too much here. Have blitzed.
    • Link "LP" and "compact disc"?
      • Yes. I thought I had. Anno Domini!
    • Is it worth mentioning that one of the children of the Duke of York was the present queen?
      • Done. It wouldn't fit easily into the text and I have added it as a footnote.
    • "Young" conductors: Boult ws well into his forties - does that qualify as "young"?
      • It does from my perspective, but point taken. Shall make it "younger musicians". Boult always treated Elgar as a revered senior figure: Elgar called him "Adrian"; he called Elgar, "Sir Edward".
    • Give date of Elgar's death, rather than "in 1934". (23 February - Handel's birthday, in fact)
      • Done.
  • Influences, antecedents and early works
    • "He regarded Henry Purcell as "our greatest" composer, and learned much of his own technique from studying Hubert Parry's writings" What is the connection between these two statements, that justifies the "and"?
      • Just that they were both English and admired by Elgar. Have expanded.
    • "Grove's Dictionary finds many embryonic Elgarian touches..." etc. Shouldn't this be attributed to the writer, rather than the dictionary? There are other, later attributions to "Grove".
      • At the first mention in the text of McVeagh's Grove article I mentioned her name, but have now repeated it in later mentions as you suggest.
  • Peak creative years
    • Enigma Variations previously italicised
      • Done.
    • "...his comprehensive mastery of orchestration was still in contrast to his tendency to write in short phrases with an over-reliance on rigid musical sequences." Not clear what is meant here; will the general reader understand?
      • I have had problems getting this and other technical matters across without resort to technical terms. Have redrawn. In fact EE never got out of the habit of writing in short phrases, but such was his skill that in his mature works a string of short phrases sewn together sounds to the listener's ear like one long-breathed melody – though see Daniel Gregory Mason's comments on the Violin Concerto when you come to them.
    • "Gustav Mahler's Seventh Symphony, composed at the same time, runs for about a hundred minutes." That would be unbelievably slow for the Seventh. The first performance, in 1907, was timed at 76 minutes, and its Prague premiere at 74 minutes. I have three recordings, at 77, 79 and 82 minutes respectively, the last (Tennstedt's) being noticeably leisurely. 100 minutes is simply not credible; I suggest you paraphrase, avoiding the specific "100 minutes", if possible.
      • Much obliged for this: it's my incompetent mental arithmetic rather than any eccentricity of tempo on Gielen's part. (I remember a Klemperer recording of the Seventh coming out when I was a lad - I wonder how long that took!) Now amended as suggested. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to finish commenting over the weekend. It is a pleasure to work on articles of real interest; I'm just sorry that my time is somewhat divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, warm thanks. There's no rush with this, so please don't let it distract you from other avocations. - Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last words (not literally I hope)

  • Peak creative years
    • Sentences such as "Elgar's Violin Concerto and Cello Concerto "rank not only among his finest works, but among the greatest of their kind" ought to be attributed, as well as cited.
      • Done
    • Personally, I wouldn't award Tovey his knighthood here - it's not particularly relevant.
      • Am not sure about this, but have de-knighted him.
    • We have two references to Elgar's "middle period", without any time boundaries to help define when this was. Does this cover the whole of the "peak creative years" suggested by the section title?
      • It does - clarified in text
  • Final years
    • We need an attribution for "thrilling ... unforgettably gaunt"
      • Redrawn accordingly.
  • Reputation
    • I wonder who the "unimpressed" English critic was. Newman? Scholes? It would be interesting to know.
      • It was the anonymous critic of The Observer - the only dissenting voice I have found in the 1908 press coverage of the premiere of the First Symphony.
    • I think this otherwise excellent section suffers from too many long/longish quotes which should be paraphrased. I would draw attention particularly to the the Howes quotation, at least 120 words, coming immediately after a long Record Guide blockquote. This is too much of a concentration of verbatim extracts.
      • First part of Howes quote paraphrased. Second part trimmed.
  • Honours, awards etc
    • Not sure about the relevance of Adam Smith (banknotes)
    • Nor I: blitzed.
    • "named after him" repeated in close proximity
      • Rewritten
    • I have never seen the Ken Russell Elgar film. In the Mahler article I deliberately avoided mentioning Russell's Mahler film because of its OTT trivialising. Perhaps he did Elgar better service (he did a Delius film in the late 1960s which I have seen, and was excellent).
      • IMO the 1962 Elgar film and the Delius were equally fine, and made their subjects a good many friends, I believe. Worth mentioning this one in the present context. (Nothing like the self-indulgent Strauss or Mahler films.)

That is really all. A very thorough job which I look forward to seeing at FAC. FYO my next composer biography is likely to be Pietro Mascagni, but this won't be until the autumn as I have several projects to complete before then. Good luck with this one! Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am greatly in your debt for this comprehensive review, and will be at your service to reciprocate when Mascagni comes up to the starting gate. Somehow I suspect I shall have less to offer you on Mascagni than you have given me on Elgar: I am enormously grateful for the time you have spent on this, and for your sound advice. Zu FAC! - Tim riley (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Barnabypage comments: Some general points on content...

  • The popular (mis-?)identification of Elgar as a "quintessentially English" composer probably deserves a mention in or close to the lead.
    • Yes – have added. It improves the structure, too.
  • What is it that enables us to instantly identify a short passage of music as "Elgarian"? I don't have the technical language to describe it but surely this very distinctive idiom is something that sets Elgar apart from many other composers. It would be great if we could find an appropriate, and widely intelligible, description of this from a critic or biographer.
    • I wrestled mightily with this for weeks, on and off, and have put what I hope is of general use in the music section. The problem is that with Elgar, more than most composers, what makes him instantly recognisable is almost wholly his orchestration (rather than, e.g. his harmony, counterpoint, melody, rhythm etc – which, though all part of his greatness, are not what make him instantly recognisable) and describing this without getting technical is beyond me. String-based, judicious and varied doubling, not letting any one instrument dominate, bringing instruments in on the off-beat for colour – tons more one could add (in rather more precise language than that) and cite, but is this suitable for a WP article?
  • On the Protestant/RC thing, it might be worth clarifying that this was not just about being a Catholic in a largely Protestant land - it was also the case that in Elgar's early years at least, so much of the English musical establishment was built around the Anglican cathedrals.
    • True, but I am stuck for a suitable place to add this. Any suggestion will be gratefully received.
  • Several paragraphs are very long and could benefit from being split.
  • There is a smattering of grammatical errors mostly caused by misused or absent commas (I'm happy to give the page a copy-edit when you've finished working on the content).
    • On both the above I should be most grateful if you would undertake a copy edit. One can never spot one's own blunders – we tend to see what we think we've written.

And some specific points on various bits of the article...

  • In Early Years, clarify that Elgar is (presumably) referring specifically to Worcester Cathedral.
    • Done.
  • "For fulfilment he turned not only to music but to literature" - literature in what sense? Reading? Writing?
    • Reading – have amended.
  • First paragraph of the Marriage section - it's not clear whether the references to Alice acting as business manager and to Elgar's honours apply to the period immediately following their marriage or to a later time.
    • From then till her death. She was a remarkable woman. Have added
  • When did they leave London?
    • 1891. Have added.
  • "The Dean of Worcester insisted on expurgations in 1902" - presumably this means he allowed the work to be performed in Worcester Cathedral on condition of expurgations? As it stands it could imply to the reader that the Dean had some sort of general power over published music.
    • Indeed. Have redrawn.
  • The architect is Richard Norman Shaw.
    • True, but always known as Norman Shaw (e.g. the old Scotland Yard building is known as the Norman Shaw Buildings.) The Times obit (19 Nov 1912 p. 11) is headed "Mr. Norman Shaw, R.A.")
  • He is "devastated by the loss of his wife" but a sentence or two later he is spending his time at football matches and horse races - I'm sure both statements are correct but they jar a bit; maybe the passage would benefit from some kind of formulation like "However, he soon threw himself into his hobbies".
    • There was a strong causal link – Elgar had always been prone to get diverted by inessentials, and without Alice to keep him on the straight and narrow this tendency became more marked. His sister wrote "W. H. E. [i.e Elgar's father] always found it impossible to settle down to work on hand but could cheerfully spend hours over some perfectly unnecessary and entirely unremunerative undertaking (a trait that was very noticeable in E[dward] especially in later life . . .)" Moore, Edward Elgar: A Creative Life, p. 17. I have tried to indicate this, but do please reword if you can improve it.
  • The Abbey Road Studios pic also jars for me - it would be great if we could find a picture of the building when it opened rather than today.
  • What became of Carice?
    • She married a man called Samuel Blake in 1922, and as Carice Elgar-Blake was keeper of the flame between Elgar's death and her own in 1970. She set up the Elgar Birthplace Museum at Broadheath in 1936, and bequeathed all her Elgar papers and scores to the trustees of the museum. Worth a mention in the legacy section, do you think?
  • Honours and awards are rather tedious IMHO - I would pretty much confine them to their own section and only give the briefest of mentions to knighthood in the narrative parts of the article.
    • I so agree! A previous editor was, it seems, positively devoted to such matters. I had trimmed these a bit in the text, and will, as you suggest, remove all but the knighthood (and, I think the OM) from the narrative. The bit about his shameless lobbying for a peerage is worth keeping, I think.
      • Certainly, because it says something about the man's character. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably mention the rather silly Ken Russell film. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I have put this in the Legacy section. (I was just a lad when the film came out, but was much struck by it.) I think it made new friends for Elgar at a time when he needed all the friends he could get. It may have contributed a bit to the Elgar revival of the late 1960s onwards.

This is excellent stuff - thank you. Shall go through point by point and deal and respond shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Greatly obliged for your points, and for any further comments, copy-edits etc. Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Lacrosse Hall of Fame members

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 to take it to Featured List and want to know what work it still needs.

Thanks, Yarnalgo talk to me 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The Members of the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, - The comma is not needed.
  • scale of 1-15 - I would prefer "1 to 15" for clarity.
  • The 8-step process needs periods since you are using
    complete sentences
    . Actually, this would apply to all your bulleted lists.
  • be the pool of individuals the Nomination Committees to chose from for induction - Grammar issue here.
  • save for a special situation - What situation?
  • chose five individuals - Choose? Same in step 8.
  • Looks like the text under A truly great Contributor is getting an unneeded line break.
  • What was the criteria used to decide whether an inductee received a wikilink or not? Same for the School/Affiliation.
  • Lead is a little short. Maybe add why there were no inductions in 1995 (there was a reason, right?).
  • I don't think the row Many with less than is needed; matter of fact, its a little confusing. Just specify somewhere that only schools with six or more are listed.
  • The three "only"s after "A truly great Player/Coach/Official" are lowercase but the "An" after "A truly great Contributor" is capitalized. Needs to be standardized, and I suggest capitalized.

Hope this helps.»NMajdan·talk 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of your suggestions. For the wikilinking in the table, inductees are only linked if an article exists for them — I could link them but that would be a lot of red — and schools/affiliations are now all linked.--Yarnalgo talk to me 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the lead is a little short and too broken out. You have four very short paragraphs. Can you combine some of them? Also, can you explain why 1995 didn't have any inductees? You could also mention the four induction categories in the lead. Regarding the wikilinks, the consensus that has formed at
notability criteria, then they should be linked, regardless of whether an article exists or not. If they person does not meet the requirements, then they should remain unlinked. One more item, you're using a different date format in your last reference. Change it to match the others.»NMajdan·talk 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well then per
WP:ANYBIO they are all notable because they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". I will work on linking them all shortly. I'll also work on expanding the lead but there really isn't that much more to say. I can't find anything at all about 1995 so I'm not sure what to do about that. --Yarnalgo talk to me 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your help. I've tried to beef up the intro as much as possible and have completed linking all of the inductees. --Yarnalgo talk to me 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook

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'd like to submit it to FAC.

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time? I'll review it in a few hours. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a solid article. My biggest question is, why are the sections of models backwards? I think chronological order overrides recentism. Many of the data points are stated both in prose (sometimes twice) and tables. Some of the subsection headers could be removed. Make sure to indicate that the battery life is as claimed by Apple, and if you can find other sources, indicate both Apple's move towards internal, non-removable batteries, and the criticism this has garnered, including third-party battery tests (try macworld.com). Other than that, finding reliable sources for tech specs is a challenge we're trying to work out, without much success, at the Macintosh FAR. To gain featured status would be extremely difficult given the topic; it would have to look something like PowerBook 100. Good status, though, is entirely doable. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have no idea why the sections are backwards. I'll try to find some more references for the battery life. For the specs, aren't the links to Apple's site enough? And since you brought up the PowerBook 100 article, would it be better to group the criticism for all the models into one section that encompasses the entire article or just let it be? Horserice (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion about using Apple as a reference here, which might explain what HtH is trying to say. I'll help where I can here, too. Airplaneman ✈ 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by —fetch·comms
  • "Polycarbonate unibody model" is unsourced.
  • "Aluminum unibody model" could use some more sources (under that subsection design and the very first paragraph of the first subsection)
  • Third paragraph under "Quality problems" is unsourced. Also, find more prose for that--it's really sparse.
  • "iBook G3 (Clamshell)." link under first design subsection could use a piped link
  • lede could be expanded a bit

—fetch·comms 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Airplaneman ✈

I'll add to this over the coming days and weeks:

  • Ideally, there should be a reception section for each model.
    • Also, once that's done, how about adding some mention of reception in the lead?
  • Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3 raises many of the issues in need of attention here, including Apple Inc. vs third party references.
  • I think a bit more prose/model detail overall would be nice - this could be accomplished through reception sections, etc.
Reply by Horserice

Sorry for the late reply, been busy for the last couple days. I've added a reception section for the unibody model and more battery references. I'll try and add more prose and references soon. Also, I think there definitely needs to be a picture of the unibody model in the article. All the current pictures are of outdated models. Horserice (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Paragraphs by definition have at least three sentences; there are lots of one or two-sentence groupings throughout the article. These should be merged together, cut entirely, or expanded into true paragraphs.
  • I'm concerned about the use of certain sources... I would think it would be best to use sources like
    MacWorld
    and PC/Mac magazines over things like MacRumors, Faqintosh, etc. Some sources are simply unreliable (www.macbookrandomshutdown.com) and should be cut. If you can't find mention from a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article.
  • Why is there no reception information for the original MacBook? Why is the best-selling sales information only in the lead and never discussed in the article? (Sales could be a section on its own.)
  • In terms of layout, it would make more sense as a unified article to discuss each revision, then reception, and put technical specs at the end of the article (as the major points should be hit in the body anyhow.) Right now it feels more like a glorified list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
About this time last year, the article was submitted for peer review and then nominated as a good article, which failed dismally. Since then, myself and User:Unionhawk have tried to improve the article for a future Good Article nomination. Since Unionhawk is now semi-retired and I have no major experience in article-building, I need another external review.

(A request to have the article copy-edited was submitted in September 2009. I'm not sure if that came to anything, though.)

Thanks,

1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at

WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." It is accessible at any time via the toolbox as "automated tips". Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oops, didn't see that. My bad.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by 1ForTheMoney Despite my dislike for semi-automated review, I shall respond to some the unstruck points.

  • Subpages have never taken off in the past because they never managed to demonstrate notability outside of RuneScape. However, as the number of secondary sources increases, as well as the article's already large size, we may have to review that option.
  • I saw no problems with footnote numbers and punctuation. That point has been struck.
  • Terms of size are often used because there's no way to know the exact number of something. I'm not saying they're a good thing, but they may have valid uses
  • There is one {{fact}} in the article, but that's proving difficult to source, since Jagex would rather deny recognition, and reliable sources never seem to pick up on it). If we simply remove the unsourced point, it won't really be player reception any more. At worst, that section may have to be recombined with the "Reception" section.
  • The point about copyediting is valid, but one I have already noted - see the opening statement. I hope to expose the more obvious flaws in this peer review.
    1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
All right, summary style is out, and the {{
fact}} and copyediting issues have been established already. I'm going to go ahead and collapse that.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ruhrfisch comments: I see the bot archived this without much input, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think this needs better references - there is one citation needed tag, and more importantly I think the article needs more independent third-party sources used as refs - as it currently stands, most of the refs come directly from Jagex or its publications.
  • The article has five
    WP:NFCC
    ?
  • I would print the article out and read through it out loud slowly - the article contradicts itself in places, for example History and development ends with RUnescape's launch in India, then the Servers section and map clearly indicate it is available in India, then in the Other languages section there is the quote And where's India in all this? I think RuneScape is a game that would be adopted in the English-speaking Indian world and the local-speaking Indian world. We're looking at all those markets individually".[40] SInce we have already been told in the preceding two sections that is already in India, this quote from 2008 at least needs to be put into context (2008 quote)
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The MOS says that abbreviations should be spelled out on first use, so "
    WP:JARGON
    issue
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Reception sections do not seem to be in the lead, for example
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but at least FunOrb is only in the lead

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Replies to comments by 1ForTheMoney I'm aware this has been archived, but it seems prudent to respond to comments. Note that the Guild of Copy-Editors recently worked on this article, and I intend to link back to this at Talk:RuneScape for more visibility.

Comments by David Fuchs
  • The lead really should have some critical reception mentioned (which is the main thing lacking in the article.) Also, the gameplay seems a tad too detailed. I'll try and post expanded comments later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf 359

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a relatively small article about a red dwarf that is one of the nearest stars to the Solar System. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to determine what needs to be done to bring it up to a Class A article.

Thank you, RJH (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

  • Comprehensiveness: Are you sure that the article is comprehensive, that is to say, fully covers the topic, with all significant information included? I don't have specific knowledge, but I note that the article runs to around 800 words, which seems somewhat brief.
    • A big part of the problem there is that the star is very faint so the amount of information available is somewhat limited. Even the composition of the star is not well known. But I can add in some more details about flare studies.
  • Structure: The structure of the article is a lead followed by a single section headed "Properties". This does not make for the most attractive presentation, particularly since the section is packed with a forbidding amount of technical detail. It seems to me, even with my limited knowledge, that some subdivision could be made on the basis of different types of "properties".
  • Style: In all honesty, off-putting. That's a shame, because general readers like articles about stars, but in this case would probably be deterred by the tone which is suggestive of a specialist publication rather than a general encyclopedia. Is it possible to cover the ground in a more "friendly" fashion, to cater for a wider readership?
  • Prose: I have checked out the lead prose, and have the following suggestions.
    • Second paragraph: paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. A possible rewording: "One of the faintest and lowest mass stars known, Wolf359 is a flare star..." Then begin the next sentence "Its surface magnetic tension..." and drop the last hree words.
    • "low enough that absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide have been observed." Not grammatical. I suggest revise to "low enough for absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide to have been observed."
    • Last two sentences: again, grammar problems, and "This" is a weak sentence beginning. I suggest redraft thus: "Wolf359 is a relatively young star, with an age of less then a billion years. No companions or debris have been detected in orbit around it."

The rest of the prose is beyond me, but as I said earlier, some rewriting is advised to make it more approachable. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address your concerns. Hopefully it reads somewhat better now.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from mav

You should ask

WikiProject Astronomy to do an A-class review, since they will be better able to judge comprehensiveness. I recall reading that young red dwarfs tend to be flare stars. Is there a RS theorizing on when or if Wolf 359 will settle down? Any info on the star's metallicity or number of Jupiter radii wide it is? Other than that, a nice little article. --mav (reviews needed) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. Unfortunately WPAstronomy has been relatively inactive of late. The two metallicities I could locate are contradictory, but I'll see if I can dig up more. I didn't see an predictions specific to Wolf 359 with regards to its future activity trend; just the more general one for red dwarfs. I'll add something about the star size in Jupiter radii. Thanks again.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Kingsolver

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 the first biography I've worked on. It was quick-failed for GA (Changes per recommendations made) and has been greatly improved from it's start-class beginnings a few weeks ago. A thorough peer review would be much appreciated, as I'd like to take another stab at GA soon. I've never written a biography article before, so any and all help would be appreciated.

Thank you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ginger (mummy)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was updated as part of the uk:Chapter:Backstage Pass workshop with the British Museum. The article was reviewed at the time with Liam McNamara, a curator in the BM Egyptology dept and has been further sourced and formatted since that discussion.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at

Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Informal_review_checklist
that should be used to support peer review (as this review is a bit of a test for how other BM-related articles could be reviewed).

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just peer reviewed

Good Article
. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article needs an improved lead section that is an actaul summary of the article - see
    WP:LEAD
    - and more article sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • As it currently reads, the lead is about the mummy itself, while the Exhibition history section is decent. I would make the current lead into a section on Discovery or something similar.
  • Article has better references than the other article I reviewed, but I would still add a ref for The body, which was nicknamed "Ginger" because of its red hair, was excavated from a shallow sand grave in the Egyptian desert at the end of the nineteenth century, and found to be exceptionally well-preserved.
  • Make sure refs are complete - for example the Hi Mummy I'm home article lists the author and so should the ref. {{
    WP:V
  • The article could be expanded - who discovered the mummy (looks like Wallis Budge, but say so more clearly). When did Ginger get put back on display after bing removed in 1987? WHat kind of work was done in the 1987 restoration? What is known about the culture that produced Ginger? What objects and other mummies were found with him? Do we know what kjind of person he was in life? That sort of thing.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a
    WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • File:Ginger (mummy) 1920.png: You could really crop this down to the actual photographic plate. This means that more detail is viewable at a smaller resolution; plate info, numbers can be put in the description template.
  • Ruhr is right on the money with most comments, but really the lead should be rewritten after any more content is added. Google Books suggests some places for starters (if you sort through the Jim Crow books), but I think going to a good library and using their resources will be the best bet to find good scholarly sources.
  • Hyphens in the article should be replaced by em-dashes (see
    WP:DASH). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Elizabeth II

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 we want to get it up to standard to get it featured.

Thanks, Hadseys 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First paragraph is cluttered. Is the first thing a reader wants to know is the membership of the Commonwealth? Or this 'separately and equally' stuff?
  • 'It was widely assumed that the Prince of Wales would marry and have children of his own' - why? was he very young?
  • 'Heiress presumptive' omits her early education. (Did she go to grammar school? Was she tutored exclusively? Was she studying with Marten because she was enrolled in Eton?)
  • In general, ages should be mentioned more often. Was her father being sensible in not taking a 3 year old to Canada, or being perhaps overprotective of a robust 13 year old (or whatever her actual age was)?
  • Why did she marry Philip? It's presented as a fait accompli - one moment we're celebrating the end of WWII and the next discussing the paperwork Philip had to do. (Re-reading, I see that Philip was mentioned way back in 'Heiress presumptive'. Maybe some more on Philip could be weaved in appropriately so the reader doesn't wonder who the heck this Philip guy is.)
  • Elizabeth's use of technology (email) is interesting. Is there any story behind that - a lifelong interest in science & tech, or something?
  • More on the corgis might be interesting. At least, besides problems with Princess Diana, that's one of the few things I knew about her. --Gwern (contribs) 20:06 30 May 2010 (GMT)
Belovedfreak comments

Lead

  • I know Gwern mentioned the 1st paragraph being cluttered. I would say that in particular, it's very cluttered with blue links. Are all of them necessary or is there some
    overlinking
    ? Country names often don't need to be linked, but you could argue that some of those countries will be unfamiliar to readers, so that may require some thought.
  • Per
    WP:LEAD
    , the lead needs to summarise the whole article, not just act as an introduction. At the moment, it's not doing that.

Early life

  • "Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth." It would be nice to mention Elizabeth (her mother)'s maiden name here, since she was from a notable family.
  • "She had a close relationship with her grandfather, George V, and was credited with aiding in his recovery from illness..." - a little bit more detail would be good here as I'm immediately left wondering how she helped him to recover.

Heiress presumptive

  • "there was no reason to believe then that she would ever become queen" - perhaps could be there was no reason to believe then that she was likely to become queen or something, as it stands it seems like it was a near impossibility that she would be queen. Obviously it was a possibility that Edward could have died childless, even if he hadn't abdicated.
  • "Elizabeth was homeschooled by her parents.." I see this has been inserted in response to the comment above, perhaps it could be dealt with in one section though? It's also mentioned in the section above. Also, "homeschooled" sounds very modern and, to be honest, American.
  • "Elizabeth – though only 13 years old – fell in love with Philip," - per
    MOS:EMDASH
    , don't space em dashes
  • The paragraphs are a bit short towards the end of this section. Try either expanding or combining them.

Second World War

  • "The suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated ..." - it would be interested to know who suggested this
  • It would be good to have a little background about the Welsh nationalism issue. Obviously, this article needs to be kept focused, so you don't want to go into too much detail, but statements like "the idea was rejected by Morrison, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales" are lost on the uninformed, and I (sadly) doubt many readers will be clicking through to that article.
  • "The idea was rejected by the King, who refused to subject his young daughter to the pressures of official tours and because two leading members of Urdd Gobaith Cymru were conscientious objectors." - this doesn't seem quite right, grammatically
  • Is there a relevant article for "Ovate"? Or could you explain it?

Marriage

  • "Elizabeth's aunt, Princess Mary, Princess Royal, allegedly refused to attend ..." - allegedly? According to whom? It's better to say who said what rather than leave "allegedly" dangling there
  • "her brother, the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated in 1936), was not invited due to his marital situation;" - this isn't mentioned earlier on, it just states that he abdicated, so could you specify here what his "marital situation" is?
  • Could you specify where Windlesham Moor & [{Clarence House]] are?

Succession

  • "asked her what she intended to be called as monarch" - I see the point of this but it's quite an awkward wikilink. I don't know if you can think of a better alternative
  • "Despite the death of the Queen's grandmother Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the Queen's coronation went ahead..." - awkward repetition of "queen" there. Perhaps Despite the death of the Elizabeth's grandmother Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead? (I presume you don't need to specify that it's her coronation)
  • With the mention of the amount of people watching the coronation, I wonder if you could find anything in a reliable source about people buying televisions for the occasion? I know (anecdotally) that many households bought their first ever TVs to watch the coronation, and on some streets people all gathered in the one home that had a TV to watch the coronation. I don't know if there's anything about that, might be interesting.

Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth

  • "Two years later, on behalf of Canada, she revisited North America." - it might just be me, but I don't really understand that sentence. Does it mean she visited Canada?
  • "Elizabeth's pregnancies with Princes Andrew and Edward, in 1959 and 1963, marked the only times she did not perform the State Opening of the British Parliament during her reign" - this could do with a citation
  • "Australian republicanism" can be linked to Republicanism in Australia. Perhaps there could be a little expansion here?

1980s

  • Don't think "Bermese" needs quotation marks
  • "During Margaret Thatcher's tenure ... it was rumoured that Elizabeth was worried ... and was reportedly alarmed...the Queen was even said ...It was claimed that ..." - bit vague here. Where was it rumoured? Who reported?

1990s

  • "The year saw her daughter divorced, one son separated and another whose marriage was rocky" - this could perhaps go into a bit more detail, without getting gossipy, of course, but I notice that Sarah Ferguson isn't even mentioned here. It was quite a big deal at the time with them all getting divorced. It's kind of part of the difficult relationship between the royal family & the press
  • "In their grief, Diana's two sons wanted to attend church, and so their grandparents took them that morning" - is this really necessary? Doesn't seem anything particularly unusual or notable
  • "Pressured by her family, friends, the new British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and public reaction, the Queen agreed..." - I'm not familiar with Brandreth's biography, but has any of this come from her own admission? Or is it his perception of the situation. Do we know 100% that is was specifically because of pressure from these four areas that she eventually spoke?
  • "The public mood was transformed by the broadcast from hostility to respect." - it might be worth looking for other sources to either back this up even more or give a different spin. I'm not sure it gives the whole story, as plenty of people were still hostile. that's purely from my own memory though, there may be nothing in
    WP:RS
    to say that.

Golden Jubilee and beyond

  • "In May 2007, the Queen was reported to be "exasperated and frustrated"...Elizabeth was rumoured" - again, a little vague
  • "their marriage is the longest of any British monarch." - could do with a citation

References

  • Some sources (eg. newspapers) could do with publishers

Overall, it's looking pretty good. I'm not sure how comprehensive it is, but it looks good to me. The prose looks fine for GA, but would definitely recommend a thorough copyedit to polish it prior to an FAC. Are there any available sound recordings of her? That would be a nice addition to the article. Hope these suggestions help.--BelovedFreak 19:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron

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 have improved it and I wonder if it can be moved to a Class-B article. If not, please say what additional improvements can be made.

Thanks, Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just finished a hardcopy revision and am itching to get this to FA at last. This article just needs some fresh eyes to copyedit it. It's rather long, but also rather polished after three years of nominations and revision, so it shouldn't be too bad. My only future plan is to add a public domain image of one of the writers pending his permission. I will copyedit any one article for each of the first FIVE volunteers to review this one. And I'll really give the old college try, too. I realize this is asking for a lot of work, but I've got a lot of free time and have to absolutely assure Real Adventures is FA-quality while I've got the time to go through the nomination process. So give it a look, and I'll give your article a serious look, too! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • I think off the bat the article assumes a little too much familiarity with the series. Ex: "...revival of the 1960s Jonny Quest franchise, it featured Jonny and Hadji as teenage protagonists and a new character, Race Bannon's daughter, Jessie.[1] The creators staged the show around Dr. Quest's investigations of strange phenomena, legends, and mysteries in exotic locales." Who is Race Bannon? Who is Dr. Quest? I think a sentence starting off describing the basic premise of the show before the characters might help.
  • "One team finished the previous team's work, and the other wrote new episodes with reworked character designs akin to classic Quest's. Each team produced half of fifty-two episodes.[6] The first team crafted stories of real-world mystery and exploration; later writers used science fiction and paranormal plots.[6]" Way too many instances of "team" here, and it's also a bit confusing because the first creative team is fired, new producers are brought in, and then we're suddenly back to discussing teams.
  • While you might be able to write a more compelling rationale for the first cast image, I don't see much need for File:Trajq-withoutatrace.png.
  • Some content in the lead is not found in the article (VHS and laserdisc releases, for example.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; good calls. I'll implement these tomorrow and try to improve clarity. Do you think I could get away with one picture merged from the original two for the character section? I've seen some other FICT articles do that, but I know nothing about whether it's accepted, etc. If there's any article I can help out with for you (even as a favor to someone else), I'd be more than willing. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 08:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing right now that needs attention, but I'm sure I'll call in that marker at some point :P As to the image, if you merged them together, it's still two pieces of non-free content (now in one image), so it doesn't really help it pass
WP:NFCC any more than what's currently there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Little Thetford

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the significant editor of what was a stub two weeks ago. I am new to wikipedia editing. I have stumbled my way around the process. This article has recently been through Request For Feedback - see [RFF of Little Thetford]. I have referenced as best I can (as a new editor) wikipedia editing resources such as MOS, How to write about settlements; and also by reading more complete similar articles to this one such as Chatteris, Navenby,Wormshill but not Stretham, Wilburton, Haddenham as they are still stubs. I do not hope to get anywhere near the quality of places such as Chatteris on my own, hence this request. I realise everyone is busy so I hesitate to ask for a whole article review. However, in this case, as I said, the article was recently a stub. Therefore, a whole review is needed. Thank you in advance to anyone who stumbles by; even if you do not directly contribute.

Thanks, Senra (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have done really well in expanding this article. It is still marked as a stub on the talk page & it certainly isn't that. I know little of Cambridgeshire but have been a significant contributor to articles about similar sized villages (see Chew Stoke).

  • In the infobox you have a link to ECDS which isn't specifically about the village - is this appropriate?
The hidden-text <!-- Council website for place (specifically) --> in Template:Infobox_UK_place for the | website= parameter seems clear unless I have misinterpreted it. In the meantime, stet --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed link to http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/node/80 from http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/  Done --Senra (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the specifically means to this specific place - ie is there a web site for the parish council, rather than the much wider district council?— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure then. I do not want to use LittleThetford.org village information for example, as it is too ephemeral. The council site, http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/, is at least a parent council and is likely to be a stable site. The village produces a newsletter every two months via LittleThetford.org village information. Currently linked to county council website page of Little Thetford councillors. I need more help here I think. stet for now --Senra (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Issue was council site hiding true url. Fixed by sending link to myself.  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the
    POV
    .
Pugh, A.B. in VHE vol 4, 1953, p. 152 describes "It presents a picturesque appearance from the railway, ..." Not yet cited. Will cite. stet and cite. --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • England isn't generally wikilinked  Done --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might review the link to River Great Ouse - the capitalisation of river Great Ouse is a little strange. I would capitalise the R or just make the text show Great Ouse - is it the ford or the river which "leads" into the village ? flow. Also the link to the river shouldn't occur twice in quick succession.
Sentence now reads: "...there was once a ford, across the Great Ouse, leading into the village..."  Done --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the river or the road which is leading? The same format "river Great Ouse" appears in history (& possibly other sections).— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The varied capitalisation still occurs in the boundary section of Geography & transport & is different in Community facilities.— Rod talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Chosen to make it consitent as "river Great Ouse" throughout.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ely is also wikilinked twice in the lead
 Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is, erm, was in order to qualify the sentence. Removed "as the crow flies" plus preceeding prose.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be expanded a bit to fully summarise the content of the article
Agreed. Will come back to this. --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
added bit about enclosure so done for now - feel free to suggest anything else you feel might fit into lead as I am too close to the article now. In the meantime,  Done --Senra (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • You have 3 references at the end of the first paragraph - do they all relate to all the content within it? if not you could move them to the bits they support - particularly if any relate to the toponomy of the name (which really needs sourcing).
Interesting. When I first wrote the article I place all references tyhroughout at the end of the sentence they were qualifying. I have sinced move them too the end of the paragraphs as I felt they disturbed the flow. Perhaps because there are a lot of references. Anyway, I will adress this by putting all references throughout back to the end of the sentence they are qualifying. --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing debate, but I feel it needs to be clear which reference supports which fact.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The re-work will now reveal that more (or less) references are needed. But for now anway,  Done --Senra (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phrases such as "It seems reasonable to believe" are best avoided it smacks of personal opinion. If one of the sources has made this claim then add the reference.
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anything happen between the Domesday Book and 1833? eg anything related to the English Civil War
Not in Little Thetford. I can guess Cromwell had a beer in one of the many ale-houses but I cannot find citeable evidence of this. I take your point. Will research further.--Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find out which of the Inclosure Acts applied? Interesting story - but again needs sourcing -"Summarised from St. George's Church, Little Thetford, History" doesn't really enable anyone to check or find out more information.
I know. This one worries me too. Meeting local historian who wrote the piece next week. I hope to obtain references then. In the meantime stet?--Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incl. Acts cites as notes. Detail was from VCH.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Stretham and Little Thetford was recorded" be Stretham and Little Thetford were recorded - but I'm not a grammar expert
Erm, niether I am to :)  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The direct quote from M Petty, 2010 needs to be referenced
The source of my summary of the event is referenced: Ely Standard (Ely Library). January 1941.
Might need the title of the story & page it appeared on in the paper
Not sure what you mean. Mike said it. It is not written down anywhere. stet (for now) --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not written down anywhere no-one else can check/access it. Personal communication is just one persons opinion - not verifiable. If M Petty is an established expert it might be useful, otherwise I'd try to find an alternative source - something like the
London Gazette often has details of where the king & queen were on particular days for official visits.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Sourced quote as from Petty, M.J. MBE, MA, ALA  Done --Senra (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After speaking to local a dignitary today I have seen the source photocopies BUT there are no dates or even publication references on them. This means an incredibly boring visit to local library to examine rolls of microfiche. This will happen before end of next week but likely much earlier. Seeing Mike Petty on Tuesday for some local (hopefully copyright free) photos to so I will ask him. By the way it is M.J. MBE, MA, ALA so I do not know if this is notable enough? Anyway, for now stet --Senra (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

  • Personally I wouldn't say the "see also" link was particularly relevant to this village & anyone looking for information on Politics of the United Kingdom
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the "the ward of Stretham" is part of ECDC but this isn't clear
It needs rewording then. That is also why I wikilinked. A ward is a civil administrative unit which usually consists of at least one but usually more parishes. It is part of the, erm, politic of the UK that I just removed. Anyway, stet for now whilst I think about this --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded but needs to be read by a politics expert  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also be careful about linking to parish it could be church or local government - I think civil parish is meant here.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To be fixed by me or someone who knows about politics! --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better but someone reading this article probably doesn't need to know how many constituencies there are - just which one is relevant here. A form of words I have used elsewhere is "The parish is represented in the
MEPs using the d'Hondt method of party-list proportional representation.— Rod talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
erm, used your words!  Done --Senra (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "is responsible to" the right term in ECDC is responsible to Cambridgeshire County Council? also noticed ref 10 (ECDC) is a link to a wikipedia page - wp pages can't be used as a reference source for information included on other wp pages.
East Cambridgeshire District Council is one of 4 (or 5?) councils that Cambridgeshire County Council manage. So ...is responsible to... I think is correct. However, I accept that there may be better grammar to describe the relationship. So for now, stet --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at rewording this section  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would speculate that the council is responsible to the electorate, but perhaps managed by the county?— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly you are incorrect. The reference 10 (ECDC) is a reference to a pamphlet. The link in that reference is a Cite-->authorlink parameter which I believe is intended to reference wikipedia? In this case, there is no URL to the pamphlet. If I am wrong, I am sure you will correct me, but for now stet --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the authorlink is intended to be used where the author (person rather than organisation) has a wikipedia article
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • similarly I wouldn't have see also links to Geology of Great Britain, Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom) or Climate of the United Kingdom - but I would to The Fens
Agreed but slightly unsure. So commented out for now.  Done
  • Boundaries - the railway line passing through isn't really a boundary
Agreed. Railway removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English in "almost certainly Soham Lode for example" doesn't seem quite right - but I'm not sure why
Agreed. Reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drainage and the Fens - Who says they are "probably the most famous"?
Me? Erm, we all know about him in the Fens. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drainage seems to be pretty significant & could be expanded - possibly with mention in the history section
Not agreed. A couple of reasons.
  1. Drainage is fully covered in {{main|The Fens}}
  2. True it is history but it is also geography and the history section is big enough. Was trying to balance the article as a whole
stet --Senra (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't require the reader to click through for significant information - if it is relevant to several articles then it should be in several articles - perhaps reworded to give a more local relevance.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Agreed. Added a little but more to add. --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate - "warm in summer and cold and frosty in winter" seems a bit non specific - is it warn to someone reading this in equatorial Africa or cold to an Eskimo - can you get average temperatures or something?
Cambridge uses {{climate chart}}. My figures would be the same as theirs as the MET OFFICE nearest (main) weather station is in Cambridge. I did not want to repeat the same figures hence the general summary. stet for now but will mull on your comments --Senra (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a reader want to know "Regional UK climate forecasts and historical summaries are available from the UK Met Office" - could you give a flavour in the article? Template:Cambridge weatherbox may be useful
Will consider this but again needs thought as covered in good detail in cambridge anyway --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added (modified) {{Cambridge weatherbox}} so  Done? --Senra (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

  • similar comment re See also link
Similar response. Have commented it out but personally, I think it is useful. Still  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any data on the make up of the population eg age/gender profile, racial, ethnic or religious
Yes. Will add more prose. --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added some data.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

  • similar comment re See also link
Similar response. Have commented it out but personally, I think it is useful. Actually mulling it over as I type. perhaps more useful to reader as a regional rather than uk linl. Still for the moment,  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community facilties

  • By this point Stretham and the Ouse have been linked many times
Yes but
Wikipedia:MOS says do not wikilink more than once per section? I corrected the duplicate links you mentioned above when they were within a section. What happens if a reader uses contents to jump into a section? May I leave this for other reviewers and if there is a concensus I will address it? stet for now? (with your permission) --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I need help here. I accept that wikilinks to the same wiki-page should not occur more than once per section. If they do in this article, it is accidental. Should words such as river great ouse be wikilinked more than once per article? For now stet --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "well used" bench might by POV
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable buildings

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need to know the Dovecote "was never a windmill"? - try to avoid "See for example" & work the link into the text
agreed. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to local legend" really needs a reference
Agreed. stet for now but working on it --Senra (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having picture galleries in mid article is not common practice - could you work the pictures into the rest of the article?
Not sure how to answer this. They were inline then moved to gallery. See Talk:Little_Thetford. Will re-consider back in-line now there is more prose. --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back in-line  Done--Senra (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

  • Similar comment re See also link
commented out  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Look out for this distinctive" sounds like a travel guide
Removed "Look out for this distinctive twin-engined bi-plane. " but I am crying inside. That is a beautiful machine. Pulls sad face. Anyway,  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several paragraphs in this section are unreferenced
Will work on this --Senra (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added refs to bus section. The road section, specifically cul-de-sac, is through local knowledge. Is that allowed to be un-referenced? In the meantime,  Done --Senra (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes

  • Several of the references could do with a tweak to their formatting eg
  • 3 doesn't need the URL of the publisher
agreed will look at it --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(It is ref 5 now!) any,  Done --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Ely public library is the place of publication for Oxford University Press which doesn't seem right - this may have been where you consulted it but I think it would have been published in Oxford
OK, will check them all. --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Global replace of all occurrences.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 doesn't take me to anything about a tornado - just to general maps
copyright issues here. The image is there if you click on the map but anyway, still looking for a copyright free image of one of at least 2 tornados known to have been in the area. stet for now but working on it --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I click the link it takes me to maps of my local area - as that's what I have in my google maps settings.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fixed but url is now http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14220121 which is copyright. Need advice here. For now though,  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
panoramio link broken for me.— Rod talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth separating the notes eg 23 & 24 from the refs
Had considered that - even looked up how to do it. Need help though. What I wanted is a notes section for light notes and a references section for citations. I considered using {{reflist1|}} and {{reflist2|}}. I will re-examine this. stet for now --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with sorting notes & formatting references if you'd like me to?— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the offer. Let me give it a go myself for now as I am not sure how wikipedia handles simultaneous editors and I have a lot of work to do on this over the next couple of days. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note and references now separate. It has revealed gaps in references but that is fine. Thus more work to do but no under this psecific heading so  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful & let me know if you want me to take another look.— Rod talk 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better & IMHO not that far off GA standard - I would certainly assess it as a C or B now.— Rod talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

OK, will look into this. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43 (charity commission) doesn't really say anything about the school, but the John Townsend charity might be worth more of a mention somewhere. You could use the Ofsted link on
    Little Thetford School
    as a reference (at least for the number of pupils). Where is the nearest secondary school?
Email went to the charity yesterday before your review. I hope to get historical information about who he was with permission to use it. Charity commission (reg. 202685) does not say much except to confirm the charity still exists, what its present day aims are, and who the trustees are. The only extra I know at this moment is that

The John Townsend Charity was set up in 1845 and originally known as the Townsends Feoffees. Its name changed to Townsend's Charity Trustees in 1880 and to its current name in 1936.

— Trustees, John Townsend Charity
work-in-progress --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I looked at the maps (online) and found it hard to tell. Will research this. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears it might be part of Soham which includes some detail (end of 1st history paragraph "archeology") about the trackway & Barway - also needs to be wikilinked to Little Thetford.
Agreed. To be done. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Soham wikilinking Barway and Little Thetford so  Done --Senra (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On maps I note a camp site just north of the village - is tourism significant?— Rod talk 09:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To be done. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
tourism is not really significant but added note about the site. Very hard to write non travel guide prose for such an entry but had a go so  Done --Senra (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the causeway from Barway towards the village is Bronze Age it is significant enough to get at least a mention. The Bronze age fleshhooks, axes and sword support it & Saxon gold finds also point to a long history - which would be worth mentioning
I have a problem here. I do not have permission to quote more than I have. Wikipedia has a significantly more market reach than LittleThetford.org and the local dignitaries have asked me to hold publication for now. Rest assured I intend to put this in when I have permission. stet --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke to them today. Put a few words in. Difficulty appears to be an archaeological paper being presented January 2011 and people here want to wait before putting new stuff to masses. So for the moment (as I have put a few words in) done.  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to reading it.— Rod talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feoffees Almshouse might be worth a mention.— Rod talk 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Work-in-progress --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He he he he. User:Jeni rolled-back my original Thetford (disambiguation) hat about 3/6/2010. I actually agree with you. I will take your advice. The following may help (spelled out in case other editors join the debate)
Agreed. Please suggest which method is best in this instance. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would use {{About|the village in Cambridgeshire|for the town in Norfolk|Thetford|other uses]]}} which produces
This page is about the village in Cambridgeshire. For for the town in Norfolk, see Thetford. For other uses]], see Peer review/June 2010 (disambiguation).
— Rod talk 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may not work a better one may be {{About|the village in Cambridgeshire, England|the town in Norfolk|Thetford|all other uses|Thetford (disambiguation)}} which gives
This page is about the village in Cambridgeshire, England. For the town in Norfolk, see Thetford. For all other uses, see Thetford (disambiguation).
.— Rod talk 18:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The use of Thetford-in-the-Isle needs a ref.
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit in climate directing people how to navigate another web site seems out of place.
Agreed. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In economy "residents probably commute" seems like speculation?
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In transport "is shown running" - is shown where? perhaps just "runs"
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plane is back (with much better detail) but still needs a ref or counts as
    original research
Agreed but do not call the beautiful 1945 de Havilland DH-89 Dragon Rapide simply a plane!  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water & Sewage + Energy sections of Public services - similar comments to previous about the see also templates.
Agreed but commented out in-case I have to put them back.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Energy - "As far as is known" doesn't sound very encyclopedic
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
natural gas in the last sentence should probably have a capital N.— Rod talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - web search reveals many forms of capitalisation of this term (erm, logically max 4 but anyway). Went with "Natural gas" so  Done --Senra (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health - giving the full address, postcode and grid ref for the doctors surgery in another village seems excessive
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 7 the same as ref 38? they are cited very differently
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now ref 2 - you could still add the URL for the online version to help readers access it
agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 needs an accessdate
Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not being too picky with some of these comments which may not be a problem at GA - but definitely would be at FA & you have said this is your long term aim. You are doing great work on the article up to now & I'm impressed with the speed you are making edits - I thought I was fast at responding. tell me to stop if these comments are too much.— Rod talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged--Senra (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC) but need to rest. Will address certainly over next few days.[reply]
You are not being picky. FA is a long way away. You are indeed correct. I set FA as a long term aim. I am so very happy the article is no longer STUB status. Short-term aim complete. There is still work to do which is detailed above. Some of it needs thought (adding a climate box for example) and some of it needs research. In turn, I am impressed with the thoroughness of the review. It makes me reconsider my own personal view of Wikipedia following the
Seigenthaler incident
. Anyway, I am on this case. Would you check completeness of the following as I think they are done
  • In the infobox you have a link to ECDS which isn't specifically about the village - is this appropriate?
  • The direct quote from M Petty, 2010 needs to be referenced
Also, I need help with wording the parish, ward, district-council, and county-council stuff as I am somehow missing your point entirely here.
--Senra (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for the additional work. I've struck lots of comments, including the one about ECDC in infobox, but I still think the Petty quote needs a reference (despite the letters after his name). Would you like me to ask a friendly copy editor who is much better at grammar than I am to take a look? Either way I think you will soon be set to nominate this for GA.— Rod talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Input from a copy editor would be superb! I have tried to stick to the MoS and tried to use correct grammar but I suspect I have failed both miserably. So yes please. --Senra (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for the continued improvements.— Rod talk 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this review has run its course. There are still a small number of items left to fix. I have taken an off-line copy of all of the above so I do not lose them— I guess there is an established procedure for archive. Anyway, I will copy the un-resolved items to the article
peer-review procedures correctly. --Senra (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There does not appear to be any way I can privately talk to other Wikipedians. May I therefore take this public opportunity to thank
Fatuorum and all others who have quietly or otherwise supported me here. --Senra (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Chetco River

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 just passed its GAN, and I would like to see it become a featured article. Xtzou, the GA reviewer, gave me a few good tips already. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very nice to me, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks, though I think this needs more on Geology to pass FAC.

  • In the lead, since Oregon is linked, shouldn't California be too?
    Yes, done.
  • I noticed that the Chetco people link is to the Tolowa, but the Tolowa article does not mention the word Chetco, and this article does not mention Tolowa (that I could see). I do not thinks the Tolowa need to be mentioned in the lead, but they probably should be in the History section. I would also mention the name Chetco in the Tolowa article.
    Changed link to Chetco, maybe I'll expand it some day.
  • Per
    WP:DECADE
    I think that ...after gold and other precious metals were discovered in the 1840s and 50s. should be ...after gold and other precious metals were discovered in the 1840s and 1850s.
    Fixed.
  • Towns are usually founded or sometimes laid out, not created The town of Brookings was created in the early 1900s, and incorporated in 1951.
    Fixed.
  • Be consistent on capitalizing redwood / Redwood. The lead makes it sound like it is the northernmost grove in the world, the Course section says in the US. I assume there are none in Canada or elsewhere?? Ecology later says world's northernmost...
    Capitalized all 'Redwood's, changed United States to world.
  • Unclear which place the bomb was dropped on It flows between Bosley Butte to the north and Mount Emily to the south, the [latter is the] site of one of only four bombs dropped in the continental United States by an enemy aircraft.
    Fixed.
  • Are river miles available for any of the tributaries? If so I would add them, but realize the data may not be avaialble
    I've only found river mile information from the mouth to the stream gage site, 10.7 miles upstream. Added one.
  • Was the maximum flow a known storm? In Pennsylvania the max flows are often the dates of hurricanes (or their remnants) hitting the state
    There's not a specific page (except for maybe Pineapple Express), but it was the floods of 1964. (No specific name, either...)
  • I might include that 97% of the land is forested in the lead
    Added.
  • I think this needs a Geology section to pass FAC - comprehensiveness is a
    FA criterion - see the Rogue River (Oregon)
    for an example Geology section
    Will work on it.
    Added.
  • I know it is linked, but I would add a phrase describing Kalmiopsis, "a flowering evergreen shrub and the namesake..."
    Added.
  • I love redwoods and think they are really amazing, but I also think the "northernmost grove" part may be overdone in both course and ecology - could Course just say it flows past the redwoods (Lead has already told the reader these are the northenmost ones) and then Ecology could go into the details?
    Sounds good, fixed.
  • The redwoods are also about 8 miles north of the Cailfornia according to Ecology, but the lead says the mouth is 6 miles north of California. Since these are coastal redwoods, I assume they are near the mouth? If they are inland, I would say that (and specify how far inland, if known) to avoid confusion
    They are a bit inland, added approximate river mile.
  • Over 200 species of animals inhabit the river alone.[8] would this be clearer as "inhabit the river and its watershed" - as is it sounds like there are Bear, deer, and foxes living permanently in the river.
    Yep, fixed.
  • Since most of the river is in a national forest, I would add the date of its establishment to the history, as well as any other details on it (expansion, etymologyt, hsitory, etc.)
    Added.
  • Since the river is all in one county, I would also mention the year of its establishment in the History section
    Added.
  • I think I would include the populations of the two towns at the mouth in the History section (2000 census? More recent US Census estimates?).
    Added.
  • Can an image or two be added to History?
    Added one.
  • The "Other" refs all look like Websites - what makes them different from the ones listed under "Websites"?
    They're mostly either maps or PDFs, but I could merge them into the books and websites sections, if you want.
  • This looks quite good and seems like it would need little work to get ready for FAC. Nice job and I sure hope they block the mining plans.

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
On this, the eve of the

WP:FAC
. Possibly the only criterion it might conceivably fail is criterion 4, but I believe that I have given appropriate levels of coverage to all aspects of the subject without needing to resort to sub-articles.

Thanks, –

Jay 23:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • I'm not convinced that the image meets the requirements for fair use.
  • "It was the first Champions League final where neither of the finalists exited the group stage as group winners." <- is not that an interesting fact.
  • try adding some social or political perspectives. It's very stats-heavy as it is.
  • I think Darren Cann and Mike Mullarkey should be linked
  • broadcasting section is very short. There must be more to add here, about how many people saw it, how many countries broadcast it etc.
  • you might consider putting a link to UEFA Champions League in lede.


Avatar (2009 film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this is a very interesting article, deserving no less than to ne an FA. I have only made a couple edits to it, but it is a very interesting article (which I have already noted), and I will be willing to make as many contributions to the article as I can.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Avatar (2009 film)/archive1.

List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches

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 need it to meet the requirements for a Featured Topic. The lead is a little short, but I don't know what further details from the list to provide in the lead without including info in the lead that is not in the list. This list is naturally unstable due to the constant turnover in the college football profession.

Thanks.»NMajdan·talk 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • If it's a head coaches list, why is is organized by conference and secondarily by school. Shouldn't it be listed by coach since that's what the list is? If it were to stay in the current format, the list should be moved to List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches by conference (similar to
    List of Florida universities by admission rates
    ). It should then be divided by adding sections by conference. If not, the list should be reorganized with the first column listing coaches, then conference, school, etc.
    • A couple reasons. First, the list began as a series of tables for each conference. I combined them into one and added sort functionality. So, the conference sorting is left over from that. Second, there is such a high turnover of coaches every year, constantly resorting it would be an unnecessary burden. I actually prefer it this way for those reasons.»NMajdan·talk
  • Some of the teams with multiple coordinators have forward slashes. I remember in one of my FLCs that slashes shouldn't be used. Maybe "and" instead?
  • Since there are only three independent schools, why not list them. Everything after "...however, the head coach will sometimes assume one of these roles as well." is redundant already so why not pad the lead with some more names and facts.
    • I do not want to treat the independent schools any differently than the other conferences. I don't see how listing the conferences in the lead is redundant.»NMajdan·talk
  • Maybe add some color the conference entries?

Just some quick thoughts.

talk) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Finetooth comments: The lead needs copyediting, and it would be a good idea to have someone proofread all the other parts. I've noted a few proofing errors below. The article title has one too many words.

Lead

  • "The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (I FBS) is compromised of 120 teams." - Not "compromised". Maybe "consists of" or "includes"?
    • I think it was supposed to be "comprised of", not "compromised of", nevertheless that, too, is incorrect. Fixed.»NMajdan·talk
  • "All schools except three are a member... " - "All schools ... are members... ".
  • "22 coaches will have their first season... " - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. "Twenty-two coaches... " would be correct.
  • "Joe Paterno, currently the longest tenured head coach at the NCAA Division I FBS level." - Three problems. I would replace "currently" here with "as of 2010". I'd add a hyphen to "longest-tenured"; otherwise the meaning might be that Paterno is the longest coach, parallel to "longest fish" or "longest car". The terminal period should be deleted since the caption is not a complete sentence.

Other

  • Would it make the list more useful to add won-lost records for the coaches?
    • That introduces a lot of complexity into the list for not much gain. That would require updating it for 120 coaches every year not to mention those that would try to edit it during the season. I can definitely foresee some being updated every week during the season, but not others, causing a definitely problem. The coaches records are simply one click away.»NMajdan·talk
  • The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
    WP:ALT
    has details.
    • Not a requirement for FL/FA anymore, but doing one image isn't hard. Done.»NMajdan·talk
  • The dab-finder tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Poconos

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'd like to know what should and can be done to expand and improve the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. Thanks, ScouterSites (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The Pocono Mountains are beautiful and interesting, and they deserve a good article. That said, peer review is meant for articles without major cleanup tags, and this one isn't far enough along for a complete peer review. The first thing that leaps out are the cleanup tags noting that the article does not meet

WP:V
because it lacks citations to reliable sources to support its claims. That's the first thing that needs fixing. Here are some other suggestions for improvement.

  • A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned. Claims for which no source can be found should be deleted. In addition, every paragraph except for the lead should be supported by at least one source.
  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead each of the main text sections. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will have a good idea of how to write it.
    WP:LEAD
    has details.
  • Geology and history are two significant areas that are missing from the existing article.
  • Straight prose is usually preferable to lists. See
    WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists
    .
  • Images should be made to fit inside one section and not overlap sections. They should not displace heads or edit buttons.
  • All of the entries in the Reference section are incomplete. For Internet sources, you should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. The "cite" family of templates can be helpful in arranging the citations.
    WP:CIT
    has details and samples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the prose quality of my works is always awful and I need opinions of what is wrong. Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve the article to GA status, and I don't know if it has grammatical errors, thank you. TbhotchTalk C. 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article.

Lead

  • I usually discourage editors from having one sentence paragraphs, could the sentence about the awards be expanded or combined with the previous paragraph. You could add information on critical reception and chart performance to expand it into a full paragraph. This information is missing from the lead and it should be in there.
Merged. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should include the writing controversy and similarity with Kelly Clarkson's song in the lead, this is addressed in the article but not in the lead. See
    WP:LEAD
    for thoughts on what should be included in the lead.
Expanded. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson controversy

  • This statement is a bit off grammatically, "Clarkson tried to avoid that her label, RCA, release the song...." I would recommend changing to, "Clarkson tried to discourage her label, RCA, from releasing the song...."
Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box quote that starts in Writing and inspiration and spills into the Kelly Clarkson controversy section is quite long. Could this be a trimmed a bit? Not a big deal and more a personal opinion than anything else.
Shortened. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

  • This quote is confusing, "...while making rounds promoting the movie Obsessed, where plays Sharon Charles." Do you mean, "where she play Sharon Charles"? I would say this tidbit or even that she was promoting a movie on the David Letterman show is ancillary and unnessary invition.
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 23:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence should be improved, " Also, it featured on the compilation album Now That's What I Call Music! Vol. 73." First off add an is between "it" and "featured". Also you should specify that the album is a UK Now That's what I call music. There is a US version of Now... and In the US I think they're up to volume 33 so it was surprised to see vol. 73.
Re-worded. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the information about the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson is best suited for the Promotion section of the article. It seems a bit crass to say that the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson was a promotional vehicle for the song. It might be best used in the critical reception section. Not sure if there is a better spot. I think the informaiton is important it just doesn't work very well in the Promotion section.
Moved to covers (for now). TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video

  • What happened to the Alternate video? Why was it shot, what was it used for? How did it go public? These questions should be addressed.

References

  • Ref 12 should have a publisher and accessdate.
Done. TbhotchTalk C. 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the references look good.

Overall

  • Overall the coverage of the topic is fairly comprehensive and the sources are credible and well-formatted. You have images and the article is stable. I think your self-assessment regarding the writing is true. You have some grammatical issues. I tried to fix some of the more glaring ones. A full copy-edit would be great and shouldn't take too long. I would say that you should nominate it at
    WP:GAC
    and see what the reviewer thinks. I feel like it's very close to GA quality. Well done.
  • This concludes my review, if you questions comments or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't normally watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the review and the copy-edits, I'll start to work. TbhotchTalk C. 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acra (fortress)

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… The editors would like a fresh pair of eyes to look over this article, taking into consideration that we want to move this along to nominate as a FA candidate. Thanks, • Astynax talk 10:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Esuzu Hello! I will try to help with this peer review but since I am very inexperienced more reviewers would be needed. But I will start with some things I have seen after a quick look.
  • Make sure every number of measurement is according to
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
    . For example, there has to be a non breaking space (&nbsp;) between a number and the measurement.
  • Headings normally don't include the article name. For example "Construction of the Acra" should only be "Construction".
  • Personally I like not to see references in the lead.
  • As I understand many of your references (e.g. [30]) is taken from the bible. For me, that is a primary source which should be avoided (
    Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
    ). The information must be based on reliable second hand sources.

I will return with more comments later. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented some of your suggestions immediately. There seems to be a division between editors who want statements within the lead referenced, and those who do not. I've had experienced editors insist that they don't belong, and then have had equally or more experienced editors insist that they be put back after I have removed them. I think those can stay for now, though I have no problem removing them during the FAC process itself. Maccabees and Josephus are both historical works, even though ancient ones. For referencing what each source says, they should be OK. But I agree that it is usually best to avoid using them alone to support anything which would otherwise be deemed WP:OR. I'll be going over the article to see where backup citations can be provided if there are any such instances. Thank you for your comments! • Astynax talk 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References in the lead are normally avoided. That is, if you have mentioned the thing in the body text already. (Which is what the lead are supposed to do.)
As you say, those sources can be used to support but they can not stand alone. For example, second paragraph under "Background" almost only contains Maccabees refs.
  • Ref 29 is from Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be good to replace it.
  • The books you are referencing to should be in a "Bibliography" section. Take a look at Gustav Mahler#Sources for an example of how to cite your sources.
  • There are a lot of sources in Hebrew. Sources in other languages is usually not preferred. Is there no English sources you could replace them with?
  • One dab link to Gymnasium.
  • Make sure it has gone through a thorough copyediting. Sentences like "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris, home to the Egyptian garrison of Jerusalem, and was rewarded with a charter affirming Jewish religious autonomy, including the barring of foreigners and impure animals from the Temple in Jerusalem, and allocating official funds for religious practices in the Temple." are way too long, for example.
  • "Antiochus III's victory over Ptolemaic Egypt in the Battle of Panium brought Judea under Seleucid control." Who is Antiochus III? Readers should not have to click on the wikilinks all the time to understand the text.(Look through the text and make sure of this)
  • The beginning of "Background" section need a bit more context. Where are we? When are we?
Still does not say "when".
I've added backup sources for material taken from Maccabees where the article isn't just providing quotations. Poliocretes provided an alternative citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. There is now a bibliography section linked to the citation footnotes. Backup citations in English are provided for most of the non-English references. The non-English refs are left intact to make it easier for editors in non-EN Wikipedias to adapt the article and for those who prefer to look at the original researchers' work. I've inserted a bit of text at the start of the Background section to try to introduce the context that this was a region contested between the Seleucid Empire and Egypt. • Astynax talk 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way. I would appreciate if you could respond under each problem I find. That way it will be easier for me to see what you have done etc. :) And I can easily strike what has been done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens City, VirginiaPrevious 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 the article in question has received Good Article status and I am intent on taking it to

WP:FAC. I spoke with a FAC delegate and she said another Peer Review was necessary (it previously went through one a couple months prior to the GA review). The page received GA status today, May 31, 2010, so the page at present is GA quality and no changes have been made since GA status was given. I am open to any and all requests and hope to hear from a reviewer soon. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Review by
MuZemike
Just some comments to start off:

Lead
  • The paragraphing in the lead is a bit choppy. I'd recommend organizing the lead into two or three fuller paragraphs, though personally I think two should suffice.
  • You might get opposed on FAC for that one inline citation in the lead. I would make sure whatever that citation covers is mentioned in the article, and then remove the citation in the lead.
Layout
  • Some of the images do squeeze the text a little and make the article's layout messy. Personally, I think
    WP:CAPTION
    ("Wording" subsection), if the caption is not a complete sentence, then no end-punctuation is used. There are a few that do not follow that. Please double-check and correct if necessary.  Done
Prose/MoS
References
  • Some of the sources given should be italicized, which includes newspapers (anything that is originally available in print) such as The Sherando Times, the Northern Virginia Daily, and Sports Illustrated to name a few.  Done
  • For your book sources, try and find and locate appropriate ISBNs and OCLC numbers (if available). Since people can click on these links with how the {{citation}} templates are set up, it makes verifying these sources easier, not to mention make them easier to locate.
  • Some of your book sources say "pages xx-yy", while others say "pp. xx-yy". For consistency, stick to one way (either written or abbreviated, though the latter is commonly used and preferred).  Done
  • Quite a few of the sources from the city itself, apart from the statistics. You might draw opposes at FAC for the lack of secondary sources, to give you a warning. I say "might" because many of the sources meet the "well-researched (1c)" criterion of being an FA, as most government sources are considered high-quality.
Conclusions

That's what I have for right now. I'll take a closer look at the prose and sources when I get a chance. –MuZemike 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/QuestionsOn "Images" above, I removed most of the punctuation on the images, except for the images of Samuel Hull's Store, the Historic Marker, and the Government office. Those seemed to be full sentences to me. Could you take a look?

On "Layout" above, I can remove the File:StephensCity WelcomeSign.JPG image, but in the "Culture" section, both of those images are talked about in that section, so I am unsure how to move those or if one should be removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On "Prose/MoS" above, I think combining the two "Religion" section paragraphs would make things confusing. The first paragraph talks exclusively about the Glenmary study, while the second talks about about churches location in or very near Stephens City. I think combining these would throw the reader off. I did, however, outright remove the line about the railroad in "Transportation" as another editor had previously told me that since the CSX line doesn't make any stops in Stephens City, it wasn't particularly notable. Still working. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On "References" above, I was wondering where one would find the ISDN numbers on some of the books. Also, I can secondary link to the "Northern Virginia Daily" article where it states the new Mayor and Town Council along with the Town of Stephens City's link, if that would be an acceptable secondary reference. At present, the Town Council is one person shy, they should announce the new person before July 1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the headers and saw the ISBN and OCLC question - one good place to find those is at WorldCat. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, when I get these ISBN/OCLC links, do I put them in the URL field or is there is field in the {{cite web}} template that allows you to put ISBN/OCLC links. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure you want ISBN (for books, not "ISDN") and OCLC data. I would use {{cite book}} which has a field for ISBNs and I think for OCLC too. See the Works cited section of Ganoga Lake for examples of both used. Generally use ISBN if available, but some older books or those from smaller publishers may not have ISBNs but do have OCLCs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I caught that after I went to search for it and changed it, probably making the edit conflict you experienced (sorry about that). Does the WorldCat website have ISBN and OCLC numbers or just OCLC? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should have both ISBN and OCLC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I will work on that here in a couple minutes. Talking to a friend online at the moment. Thanks for your help. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Washington & Jefferson College • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on a few questions before sending this to FLC…

  1. Does the format make sense? I constructed the "Founding and early leadership" section in prose, because there isn't a lot of information about these men to fill in the list. Also, the job wasn't very strongly defined then, so there really aren't a lot of hard dates. I felt that the prose section could give a sense of the ad hoc nature of the early leadership.
  2. What to do about the Birth/Death column? Should we keep it or not? I'm not convinced either way...
  3. In addition to indicating which presidents were alumni of W&J, I'd like to show which ones were clergymen. Is that a good idea, and what other symbols could be used? Certainly the "†" would be appropriate for clergymen, but then how would alumni be designated?
  4. What should be the lead image? Ideally, I would have wanted to use a picture of the President's House, but we don't have one. So, what is the next best choice?
  • The building that houses the Office of the President and is named after a founder?
    The building that houses the Office of the President and is named after a founder?
  • A building named after a former president?
    A building named after a former president?

Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite
  • Can you explain somewhere what the College President does or what his role is, and / or find an appropriate wikilink? Different educational systems and establishments have different terminologies; sometimes for example the "top dog" is a purely ceremonial role (e.g. in the UK, a University's Chancellor is senior to the Vice-Chancellor, but the Chancellor will generally be a figurehead while the VC is the most senior executive officer).
  • President pro tempore seems to have nothing to do with the subject: a "constitutionally recognized officer of a legislative body who presides over the chamber in the absence of the normal presiding officer" (!)
    • Yeah, that's a biggie. Piped the link in Pro tempore, which is a broader description of temporary positions.-GrapedApe
  • Any particular reason, on this theme, why John McMillan doesn't qualify as a pro tem?
    • I wondered that myself, and I concluded that being named "president pro tempore" was an action by the board, while McMillan apparently just filled in on an ad hoc basis. The other ones were officially named "president pro tempore."-GrapedApe
  • Alden and Riddle are both #8 --fixed
  • Who was in charge of W&J, if anyone, from charter date in 1865 until Edwards started his term of office?
  • Matthew Brown's end date is after Breckinridge's start date. Ditto for Hinitt and Slemmens, and Slemmens and Black, and Case and Patterson, and Burnett and Mitchell, and Mitchell and Rembert. Did they actually overlap, with there being two Presidents / a President and a pro tem? That sounds odd to me, so if these dates are right some explanations if possible would be good.
    • Yeah, that's because the start date is the date of election to the presidency by the Board, while the end date is the date of resignation. All of the sources on the presidents have dates of election, while I was able to locate dates of inauguration for about half of the presidents. So, that's why I went with the date of election, rather than date of inauguration. I suspect that a number of these presidents (especially the early ones) didn't have formal inaugurations, and the transfer of authority occurred in a non-official way. Does that at least make sense? If so, I'll add some kind of explanation in there.--GrapedApe
  • Rather a lot of links to
    U. Grant Miller Library Digital Archives
    in the refs; perhaps just the first one?
    • I know that's standard for text, but is that applied to references as well?--GrapedApe
  • Surely this could be added to a couple of non-W&J categories e.g. Category:Lists of people by university in the United States, Category:Lists of educators

And to try and answer your questions:

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a lot of new content that could use a second opinion as it winds its way up the quality queue towards GAC and FAC.

Thanks,

WP:FOUR) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Finetooth comments: This looks comprehensive to me, well-illustrated, well-sourced, neutral, and stable. I have two kinds of qualms: (1) further proofing is needed to eliminate the last of the typos and small errors; (2) it would be good to explain or link technical jargon like "double double" to try to reach as wide an audience as possible.

Lead

High school

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be ready for FL but want to get some feedback, mainly on the prose.

Thanks, 03md 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me. The prose isn't bad, but I have a few suggestions for making it better. Three of the links in the citations died recently and will need fixing or replacing. The tables look good, and so do the images.

Lead

  • "The UK Singles Chart is a music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company that calculates the best-selling singles of the week in the United Kingdom." - To avoid repeating "chart" three times, I'd suggest a variant: "The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company, calculates the best-selling record singles of the week in the United Kingdom."
  • Done.
  • "The record charts were officially recorded by the music publication New Music Express (NME) in the United Kingdom for the first time in 1952." - To avoid repeating "record" and "music" twice each, I'd suggest something like "New Music Express (NME) magazine published the United Kingdom record charts for the first time in 1952."
  • Done.
  • "The date is when the song entered the top 12 for the first time." - The phrase "the date" seems to refer to October 1954, but I don't think that's the intended meaning. I think you could simply delete this sentence since the table heading "Top 12 Entry Date" is quite clear.
  • Done.

1953 peaks

  • "Cowpuncher's Cantanta" - Spelling? Cantata?
  • Yes, its a typo. Changed.

References

  • Is the Dave McAleer site reliable per
    WP:RS?
  • I don't think it is and probably isn't really needed. I have removed it. 03md 23:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply