Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2008

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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.

Geoff Horsfield

edit
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 User:Struway2 and I have significantly expanded this article in recent weeks. Comments from other editors would be welcomed in order to improve the article further. Once the review has closed we intend to nominate the article for Good Article status.

Thanks, Jameboy (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • Don't mix up place of birth with date of birth at the start per WP:DATE.
    • done – I added his birthplace to the Early career section but never went back to remove it from the dob brackets :-)
  • "A second spell at Halifax saw him help the club to achieve promotion. He also achieved promotions with Fulham and Birmingham City." I would suggest re-wording the second use of "achieve promotion".
    • that bit of the lead needs a bit of expansion, will reword
  • Wikilink first use of Premier League (in lead)?
    • done
  • Perhaps wikilink coal miners and brick-laying.
    • done coal miners, first mention of bricklaying already is linked
  • "On leaving school, after an unsuccessful trial with home-town club Barnsley F.C. Horsfield took a college course in bricklaying." i would suggest adding a comma after "Barnsley F.C." or reword the sentence. Because of the full stops and capital for Horsfield, it looks like a new sentence on first glance.
    • added comma for now, might reword
  • "He then moved on to Witton Albion," Then is redundant.
    • done
  • "The remainder of his 1998–99 season produced 15 goals from 26 starts and 2 substitute appearances" I would prefer two substitute appearances, though I realise WP:MOSNUM is a little vague on this.
    • personally, I also would prefer "two", but it seems to fit under "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.", starts and sub apps being comparable quantities as both being sorts of appearance. I suspect however I'm being desperately pedantic in so saying, and having made the point it wouldn't bother me overly if it were changed to "two". Or changed to 28 appearances to circumvent the problem :-) which is what I might do.

Everything else looks good and in my opinion, would pretty easily pass as a Good Article. Peanut4 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to review, and for your kind words, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another thought - though it might be one for the future. I wondered if it would be a good idea to include a "style of play" section? There's already quite a bit in there to start one off, as would be balanced, since you have the Tigana quote. Peanut4 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk)
  • Is it just my terrible monitor in an Indian cybercafe, or is that infobox rather wide?
  • I think it is your terrible monitor I'm afraid! What resolution do you have? The infobox looks big in comparison to the small photo, but it doesn't eat up much of the page width, however if anyone else mentions it I will look at it again. Hope you're enjoying the tour. --Jameboy (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite wide, at my 1024-width screen res, but there's no excess spacing in there; the only way to narrow it would be to abbreviate club names, which I'd be reluctant to do. Though the small photo does make it look wosre
  • Is it worth emphasising in the lead that he was a "professional" footballer?
  • Not terribly keen on "Post-football" as a section title - perhaps "After football"?
    • done
  • Not all seasons link to "X in English football" - is there a reason for this?
    • different editors, I imagine; will make them consistent
  • "£1m" vs "£2.25 million" - consistency..
    • per MoS, first use should be spelled out and then may abbreviate thereafter
  • Championship could be linked.
    • done

Otherwise, very good. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking the trouble to review this, particularly in your current circumstances; hope you're not missing us too much :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Tina (1992)

edit
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 sur what this needs…

Thanks, Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 00:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already comments on the talk page. This PR is unneeded. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lombo Pocket Watch

edit
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…his career is over and is now able to be easily improved.

Thanks, LPWRHR (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be 2 or 3 paragraphs (as mentioned in the previous PR too). 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. Please see WP:LEAD
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article needs many fewer sections / headers too. See WP:HEAD
  • Biggest problem as I see it is that the article needs more references, for example the first seven sections in his 2 year old career have no refs. 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. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like In preparation for the 2008 Courage Under Fire Chariots of Fire, Lombo Pocket Watch won two country free-for-all's at Menangle and Newcastle, the latter in 1:55.5, complete with a 26.0 second final quarter[19].
  • Any chance for an image or two?
  • Article needs a serious copyedit to clean up grammar. There is a lot of jargon to explain or avoid too - see WP:JARGON

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mosley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article made it as far as FAC before the whole Nazi sex orgy thing blew up (I'm not making this up). We've tidied up the article again since then, and I'd like a peer review to identify necessary improvements before going for FA again.

Cheers, 4u1e (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008

  • The year sub-headings shouldn't have hyphens. For example, 1993-1997 should either have an en dash or be phrased 1993 to 1997. Also chech the page ranges in the references. The more tedious formatting you do now, the less headaches you'll have at FAC.
  • I understand that the "incident" destroyed the FAC chances of this article before, and you most likely want to de-emphazise it to avoid a repeat. However, the current text begs one question from me: how did this guy not get fired? What is the level of power he has that made it possible for him to survive the backlash? Maybe this is a cultural thing in Britain/Europe that I don't get; anybody that did this in the US would be sacked immediately. I don't want to see the page become unbalanced with scandal info, but a sentence or two more on the above topic probably wouldn't hurt. You could combine any additions with the one-sentence paragraph in the section. Stubby paragraphs are usually detected by FAC reviewers, including myself.
  • It's very hard to know how to judge the amount of emphasis to put on this. I find it completely remarkable that he has kept his job, it's as unusual here as it would be in the States, yet not only is he still there but it's looking more and more likely that he will stay on after October 2009. (It's due not just to the degree of power he wields, but also a personality that is able to withstand the situation: I suspect it has something to do with his unique upbringing, but that's WP:OR). On the other hand, he's won a court case that this was an invasion of privacy, and other reviewers have complained that there is too much emphasis on it. I will consider whether we can better explain how he did it (although of course it was all behind closed doors) without actually using more text. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Mosley have anything interesting to say about the proposed new F1 rules designed to level the playing field? It mentions budget capping already, but if an update is to be made, this is the time.
  • He announced them! I'm not sure press reports that they're Bernie's ideas are accurate. The Max and Bernie show seems to be back on the road. I'll consider what to add. Trouble is, this is a regular tactic of his: announce dramatic changes as a fait accompli so that when the teams eventually compromise on some less radical changes that they don't want, they feel it's a victory. If I described every time he'd done this over the last 10 years or so, we'd have a very long article. I shouldn't hold your breath for them to happen. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: AtlasF1 and GPUpdate are the only two that are a bit shaky. GPUpdate is the shakier of the two, in my view. Only newspaper or magazine articles/sites should be italicized.
  • AtlasF1 is a very longstanding and well-considered site, and more importantly a few years ago its content was bought, and is now hosted ('published'), by Autosport, so I'm completely happy it's a suitable source. GPUpdate is a legit news site, so I'm not sure why there should be any problem with that either. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose a free picture of him is avaliable?
  • A couple of prose comments before I go: "Mosley is" begins the last two paragraphs of the lead. Try to change one of them to mix up the writing. Also, the second one is repeated in the first paragraph of the body.
  • Links for countries like France, Germany and Britain have fallen out of favor at FAC recently. There has recently been a push to avoid having low-value and duplicate links. The Union Movement links in the first two sections are an example of the latter. In those cases, only the first use should be linked. It would be a good idea to check for this throughout. Other examples of low-value links early in the text include hunting and yacht. Again, check for other common words.
  • Done. It would actually be useful to have a specific link for the type of hunting involved (on horse and with hounds), but the hunting articles are in a bit of disarray, to my eyes, anyway. 4u1e (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for passive voice, like what is seen in "The motor racing journalist Alan Henry describes the younger Mosley as...". In this case, it should be "described", especially since the book is from 1992. It's better to avoid present tense in that situation.

That will be enough for you to make some good improvements before another FAC. If you want more prose (or other) comments, please ask here or on my talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC) All of that and I barely got into the writing.[reply]

Glad to hear comments on the writing as well, that's why we're here. Thanks for the time and effort. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back for a close prose review. I have limited time due to real life interference, so I'll keep it relatively brief.
  • Is the period always included in the phrase "Free speech for fascists.", from the early life section?
  • March Engineering: "According to Bernie Ecclestone's biographer, Terry Lovell, the money came from Mosley's half- brother, Jonathan Guinness." Extra space after hyphen.
  • Formula One Constructors Association: "The GPCA was the forerunner of Formula One Constructors Association..." Should it be "the Formula One Constructors Association..."?
  • "the independent teams which were primarily UK based" Try the less wordy "the primarily UK based independent teams".
  • There's an empty sub-sub-header on F1 commercial rights.
Also double-check that all the prose comments at the last FAC are resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hartman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having recently got this article to GA status, I would like to garner some comments to improve it further, with a view to getting it to FA at some point in the future. Anything you think is important which isn't mentioned, any grammatical issues and anything else at all are most welcomed. Additonally, any copy-edits would be great, and most importantly, if anyone has or can find a free-use of Hartman from anywhere, that would be brilliant. If anyone is good at securing permissions from Flickr users, could you perhaps try and get permission for either of these images [1], [2]? Thanks very much, Gran2 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you turn this on

edit
  • Try not to repeat stuff in the lead. For example, you give his date of birth in the lead, and repeat it later; same with where he was born. Lead is supposed to be a summary, not a copy of the prose below.
  • Second sentence of the second paragraph of the Early life section is pretty long. The last sentence is oddly constructed as well.
  • "Working alone as a designer" A designer of what? I thought he was an actor.

I'll add some more later, have to go now. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll address each bullet point below:
  • I don't understand what you mean. The lead is supposed to be a summary of everything else to come, so naturally will repeat things.
Well I don't see why, I think it's fine including it in the article. Gran2 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll split it.
  • His work as a designer is clearly mentioned in the previous section, I'll specify that he was a graphic designer for people who don't read whole articles.
Oh I see, I'll change it to graphic artist. Gran2 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gran2 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break

edit
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 has been reviewed the last time more than a year ago and it has come a long way. I need someone to tell me what's not very good about the article because I'm thinking of posting it to be an FA candidate.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing I could possibly suggest for this page or a possible new Page, is a more in-depth guide to the episodes. it also could have a little bit more Information on the Spin-Off Section. Apart from that it is a very up to date, well detailed, well written Piece

by Cricket_boy27 (talk)

David Fuchs

I'm basing many of my comments on comparison with Lost (TV series), a FA TV series article.

  • You have the synopsis before production; on one hand, I kind of like starting chronologically with the history of the show's conception like in Lost, but if such a method sacrifices clarity it's best to keep it the way it is.

  Done

  • Convert the season synopses lead-ins to grammatical prose, please, e.g. "Season 1 begins..." instead of "Season 1: wasd..." et al

  Done

  • You should think about cutting down the character list to the essentials
  • The ratings and release tables could be turning into right-floating tables to reduce the breakup of text.
  • Merge, expand, or remove one-line sentences. Some of these just include rather unnecessary and unsourced trivia, e.g. "The last five episodes are the only ones shown on Hulu."
  • 'Other Media' could be turned into 'Adaptations' and include the rather stubby spinoff section.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been rewritten from scratch to remove COI issues.

Thanks, McWomble (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, not sure what the COI was before. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs a copyedit - just from the lead Initial line-up included the trio Craig Bloxom on bass guitar/lead vocals, Cliff Grigg on drums/percussion and Mike Weiley on lead guitar/vocals.[1][2] could be something like The initial line-up was a trio which included Craig Bloxom on bass guitar/lead vocals, Cliff Grigg on drums/percussion and Mike Weiley on lead guitar/vocals.[1][2]
  • Any chance for some images? Perhaps a publicity shot or album cover as fair use?
  • Article needs more references, for example the last paragraph in the Regroupings: 1991–current section has no refs. The popularity in Brazil material is also unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would split out the discography as a separate article. See WP:Summary Style
  • There are several places where dates / years could be added to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Power Station

edit
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 passed the GAR a couple of months ago and I've done more work on it since then. I'd just like to get another party's account on how it's doing and what needs improving. I'd also like to know what kind of improvements would be required to get the article up to featured standard.

Thanks, Fintan264 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. These are made with an eye to getting ready for FAC.

  • The caption on the lead image is not a full sentence, so it should not end with a full stop (period) per the MOS
  • Avoid words like "now" and "currently", for example the first sentence of the lead could be something like Stella Power Station were a pair of coal-fired power stations, built from 1951 to 1954, decommissioned in 1991, and demolished from 1992 to 1997. Located in the North East of England, the station stood as a landmark in the Tyne valley for over 40 years. OR The two sites are currently undergoing redevelopment... could be something like As of 2008, the two sites are undergoing redevelopment...
  • There is a fair amount of needless repetition in the article, for example just from the lead: Stella South Power Station, the larger of the two stations, stood on the south side of the river, near Blaydon in Gateshead.[, while the smaller] Stella North Power Station, the smaller of the two stations, stood on the north side of the river, near Lemington in Newcastle upon Tyne.
  • Convert the bullet point list in the History section to text please
  • Article needs more references in some places, for example The stations were operated at first by the Central Electricity Authority, which became the Central Electricity Generating Board two years later in 1957.needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs need more complete information in spome places - newspaper refs need date of original publication and author, but current ref 50 (as one example) does not - just 500 new riverside homes on the site of old power station". The Journal. Retrieved on 2008-06-09. {{cite web}} may help. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I know image galleries are now allowed in FAs, but it seems to me the article has too many images in places - the interested reader can look at the gallery / category on Commons.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts, looks better, these popped out on a second look,

  • I added fact tags where it seemed to me they were needed
  • There are several short (one ortwo sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded, if possible to improve the flow of the article
  • The Central Electricity Authority justified the use of such a large lighting arrangement by claiming: "It is economical, safe and much more efficient than lighting the stations at street level."[19] does not follow WP:MOSQUOTE (do not use block quote if less than four lines of text, do not italicize quotes)
  • Article still seems to me to need tightening on the prose - hardest FA requirement for most articles is 1A (professional English).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the films could be referenced as themselves - see {{cite video}}. Would a map or atlas work as a ref for the visibility over a long stretch of the river statement? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slowskys

edit
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 peronally believe this little article could be a lot better if more people knew of its existence. I've contributed to it many a time, and I would like to have other editors and opinions on the rather abandoned page. If anyone is talented with the Internet Archive, this would also be excellent.

Sincerely,
TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Ads can be clever. It would be possible to expand this stub about a clever ad series into something more complete and interesting. Here are a few suggestions:

  • Possibilities for expansion include tracking down published articles or on-line reviews of the ads and seeing what the critics have to say. It's possible that the ads have been rated by somebody. I'd suggest hunting around for something like that.
  • The idea of a Slowski fad also offers possibilities for expansion. You could tell us who ran the Slowsky blog and who ran the Slowsky web site. You might quote an interesting comment from the blog. Possibly some statistics or facts are available about the fan base.
  • You might tell us how "The Snailskis" resembles and differs from "The Slowskis".
  • Some background information about animatronic production might be interesting.
  • I'd recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit, which should catch and fix small errors. For example, the first sentence of the existing lead starts with a singular subject, "The Slowskys", and a plural verb "are". The sentence should begin "The Slowskys" is a national advertising campaign... ". The second sentence of the lead says, "The ads feature an animatronic turtle couple (Bill and Karolyn) with a server Slowsky." I think you mean "who connect to the Internet via a server named Slowsky" or "whose Internet service provider is called Slowsky".
  • Your references need to cite reliable sources and should identify the author, title, publisher, date of publication if known, url, and access date. Your references don't seem to be true references. They are more like external links. Please see WP:V. You can find helpful citation templates at WP:CIT.
  • DSL and other abbreviations should be spelled out on first use, and the abbreviation should appear in parentheses after the spelled-out version, like this: digital subscriber line (DSL). On subsequent uses, the abbreviation is fine because you've explained what it stands for.
  • Jargon like "puppeteered" should be avoided or explained.
  • In the phrase, "and replaced by a peaceful, permanent flash widget that included their commercials", it's not clear who "their" refers to.

I hope you find these brief suggestions helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Tower

edit
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 have overhauled it again and again, but for some reason people still do not think it is up to GA standards. The last GA review I received was rather... unhelpful. I'm hoping to get one more PR and get this finally promoted to GA.

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakob.scholbach I think this article is close to GA level. A couple of comments/remarks:

  •   Done Lead: "exactly 332.6" meters? Why do you highlight exactly?
  •   Done "In recent years, the tower has been instrumental..." -- unless I missed it, you don't talk about analog/digital in the body of the article. Also, it is not clear why/how it was instrumental in the transition.
  •   Done Your style is at times a bit too colloquial, at least for me: "the government feared"
  •   Done "Construction section": when reading "taking the title from the Eiffel Tower", I was looking for a comparison of the height of Tokyo tower vs. Eiffel tower. You give it a little later. Perhaps move the 13 meters difference up.
  •   Done The excursion on the golf parcours seems a bit off-topic. If it is only related to the tower because of the common owner, I'd trim that section down to one sentence.
  •   Done How much is (or better: was) Yen 2.8 billion? (In USD or so)
  • "Current Tokyo aviation restrictions limit Tokyo Tower's height" -- to what maximum height?
  • Appearance: "Ishii believed", "she saw white as a cool color" -- this wording is quite colloquial.
  • When talking about lighting, you use "commemorate" pretty often. Reword here and there (to highlight would be a good choice :))
  •   Done Foot Town section: most of the information is, too me, not of encyclopedic interest, e.g. mentioning McDonalds, Baskin Robins' ice cream etc. Trim that down.
  •   Done "The third floor is home to more traditional tourist attractions" -- are the other ones untraditional?
  •   Done The structure of the whole article: I'd put the facilities, i.e. the architectural structure before the lighting. When I came across the mentioning of Main Observatory in the lighting section, I was a bit surprised "Oh there is an observatory".
  •   Done "Broadcasting" section: is the list exhaustive? (Yes --TorsodogTalk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  •   Done The language in the "Observation decks" section is too advertising, IMO: "This design allows visitors to have the best possible views of the city" sounds like a catalogue of the tower. Also "not only provides visitors with a view of Tokyo" is pretty much obvious.
  •   Done "In pop. culture": two times "locate a scene in". Reword.
  •   Done One information I didn't find, and would think is crucial: how many tourists go up there? How did this evolve over time? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

User:Dendodge/AfDlinks

I've listed this article for peer review because it is possibly one of the most important articles we have. It is the core article for a WikiProject, has been selected for the CD release, and it one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia. This hasn't been to FAC for 4 years, so I think it's time we gave it another chance. How can I improve it?

Thanks, Dendodge TalkContribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Split off the History section to its own article, like History of The Beatles, and then summarize that back into this article.
  • Rename "Influence on popular culture" to "Legacy" and expand that section with more on how they affected future music.
  • Move the prose from "Discography" to The Beatles discography and just keep the studio album list.

Gary King (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the García Girls Lost Their Accents

edit
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 obtain Good and hopefully Featured Article status upon completion.

Thanks, Kyalkin (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Since I have read neither the primary nor the secondary works mentioned in the article, I can't assess whether the article is comprehensive. Even so, I will try to help by giving some general suggestions for improvement.

  • The writing is generally clean and clear and well-organized. However, I see many small errors that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix. For example, in the "Part III" section, the citation 18 superscript should appear after the comma; "voodoo practicing" needs a hyphen; "although much her her family was not so lucky" has an accidental echo word; "An Accidental Surprise" should appear in quotation marks rather than italics, and the citation 21 sentence has an extra period. Small errors like this appear here and there throughout the article and need to be fixed.
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article. Your existing lead reads well, but I would suggest adding at least a mention of the critical reception.
  • The first sentence of "Background and historical context" makes no sense. It says, "The 1960's were adjective in the Dominican Republic as the Trujillo revolution and dictatorship was taking place, meaning total control over the military, the economy and the people." You might try "In the 1960s, the Trujillo revolution in the Dominican Republic led to dictatorship and its total control of the military, the economy, and the people."
  • It would be helpful to group absolutely identical citations into a single reference note with alphabetic superscripts by using the <"ref = "name"> device. For example, I inserted <ref name= "Luis 840"> into the inline citation for citation 36. I then added <ref name = "Luis 840"/> to the other instances of this same citation. Now five citations appear as one. I'd suggest doing this with the other citations that can be grouped in this way. (Don't neglect to add the end ref frontslash in the second and subsequent uses of ref name.)
  • In the "Style and structure" section, inline citations such as (Sirias 2001, 19) begin to appear. I'd suggest changing these to the harvnb format you've used elsewhere.
  • In the first sentence of "Plot summary", instead of "The novel, written episodically and in reverse-chronological order, is fifteen chapters... ", I might suggest "consists of fifteen chapters".
  • Dates such as 1989-1972 can be collapsed to 1989–72, and the hyphen in these constructions should be changed to an en dash per the Manual of Style. Please see WP:ENDASH. Page ranges also need en dashes rather than hyphens. Thus, "Barak 1998, pp. 174-175" should be "Barak 1998, pp. 174–75". You can insert a code for an en dash. It is a string consisting of an ampersand followed by ndash followed by a semicolon. Look at this review in edit mode to see how the code looks.
  • I don't think you need the links between the notes and the references. For one thing, it turns the notes into a sea of blue. For another, it may be seen as confusing or even patronizing since the links go only a few inches away to where a reader would normally look for this information.

I hope these brief remarks are helpful. If you find them so, please considering reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phagocyte

edit
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 others to assess my progress. This is an AP Biology project (we must get and article relating to biology up to GA or FA status)

Thanks, Eulemur2008 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Several small issues that jumped out at me:

  • "Antigen Presentation" and other headings - no need to overcapitalise unless you're talking about proper nouns.
"Fc Receptors" and related names/titles - capitalize everywhere or nowhere.
  • What is in "antigen?" I was not encouraged to seek it's meaning when it should be linked from the article
Along the same lines, what are "leukocytes" or "neutrophils?" You include neutrophils under "Types" but I still lack a fundamental sense of what they are. In short, you need to use more layman's terms because I, an AP Biology student, can barely understand what you are talking about let alone the average human.
  • Reference for "Resistance by pathogen"(?)

By a quick glance it appears decent, so far as a quick glance can go. However, I suggest you: take a look at WP:STYLE for some of your section headings; research for a greater field of resources (I see you cited one source some eight times... which is fine as long as it is reliable); wikilink and "dumb it down" for us simpletons. Take all of this with a grain of salt, though, as you know I am only a fellow student. FoodPuma 01:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All That Glitters (TV series)

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that my recent expansion has brought it up to or near GA quality and I would like another set of eyes on it before I make the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. I think what you've already got here is well-written and well-referenced, the only concern would be that the article is a bit short. Here are my suggestions to expand the article :

  • Could you provide some context for those of us who are neither American nor into soap opera ? How were "normal" soaps at the time ? How was the social context in which the series was produced ? (How did men and women relate to each other at the time, etc) Just a paragraph would be fine.
  • I realize the show is 30 years old, but would it be possible to dig up some information on the production history ? You say the show sparked controversy. If so, how did Lear manage to have it produced in the first place ? How did he get the idea ? How did they chose their actors ? Again, I know it's a 1977 show so maybe this info has been lost, but it would be interesting.
  • Could you provide an episode list (Title, director, writer, first aired date if possible) ?
  • Is there a DVD release ?
  • Could you provide a plot summary ? Also, could you describe the characters, what they do and how they relate to each other ? (And what is the name of the character Greg Evigan is playing ?)
  • Television/radio Age. 1976. Television Editorial Corp. : Format this reference like the others. If this is a book, I think you could find the ISBN somewhere.

I hope you find this useful. You might also want to take a look at Cheers and Doctor Who which are both FAs. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other thoughts :

  • Remove the red links
  • Television/radio age is a periodical, so you must mention which issue you used (number X, year Z) so that someone wanting to read the entire article you used doesn't have to skim through the entire series. Rosenknospe (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 US Open (tennis)

edit
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 that I have done all I can for it, and need some independent advice. It's length, in my opinion, makes it unsuitable for one person to review (so I don't want to put it through the GA process). Although it's long, it's of a non-technical nature, and shouldn't present too many problems in comprehension.

Thanks, Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial

In the lead:

  • "It was the 127th edition of the US Open, and the fourth and last Grand Slam event of the year." Consider changing to "fourth and final Grand Slam event of the year."
  • "The men's defending champion, Roger Federer, won the US Open for a fifth consecutive time, while Justine Henin, the women's defending champion, did not return to defend her title due to her retirement from tennis, for personal reasons, earlier in the year." This is long and clumsy. Consider breaking into two sentences, or at the very least remove the word "while" and insert a semi-colon.
  • "Federer and Williams's opponents, Andy Murray and Jelena Jankovic, were making their débuts in Grand Slam finals." Repetetive and clumsy. Consider changing to "Both runners-up, Andy Murray and Jelena Jankovic, were making their débuts in Grand Slam finals."
  • "World No. 1s Rafael Nadal and Ana Ivanovic went out in the semifinal and second round respectively." Three things: no real reason why 'number' should be abbreviated, numbers less than 10 are spelt out in words per WP:MOSNUM, respectively should be broken from the sentence using a comma.
Writing it as 'World No. 1' is a convention in tennis articles, but I've changed it. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was Nadal's best ever result at the US Open; for Ivanovic, it was her second early exit at a Grand Slam since her win at the 2008 French Open." Stings of OR. Notability issue here, why should I care about either player? What makes the SF important for Nadal, and who says second round is early? For Ivanovic it may be, but the issue is whether you want to list every player who went out in the second round.
I don't really understand what you mean here. If the tournament goes to seeding, these players are supposed to win, and there's some detail about what happened to them in the lead, in the same way there is about the finals. The Ivanovic loss being 'early' is confirmed by the sources later on and the fact that she did not perform to her seeding. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. I forgot that they are the World number ones. I'm still used to Federer. That's fine.
  • "The home nation had a number of successes, with Williams returning the first singles title since Andy Roddick in 2003." "Returning" here is a little clumsy. Same with "a number". In this circumstance it is fairly redundant, either they had success or they didn't. I would suggest rewriting the sentence as "The home nation had success; Serena Williams was the first American to win a singles title at the US Open since Andy Roddick in 2003."
  • As you can probably tell, I have a lot of problems with the lead, and I have not listed them all. I would highly recommend you look through WP:LEAD very carefully, as I would say this one needs a full rewrite. The lead really shouldn't mention anything you are not going the mention in the main body or the infobox. If Henin's retirement is notable then it should be mentioned in the text; clarifications about Liezel Huber's citizenship, if important, should be in the text. Don't try and please the detail-philic mind in the lead, while it should concise it should not be exhaustive. Finally, there is a little confusion with the men's and women's draws; as they are not the same event you cannot as readily equate men's and women's singles. I'll add some more comments on the rest of the article shortly. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 13:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

  • Again, a "number of ways." How many ways? Sounds vague and non-encyclopedic.
  • "In celebration of the 40th anniversary since the US National Championships went "open", a special opening ceremony was held, showcasing all the singles champions of the previous 40 years, with around a dozen of them in attendance. " Two things: it would be best to explain here what "open" means here. Few people will follow the link and even most committed fans are a little hazy on it. "around a dozen". How many? If you don't know then don't say it.
  • This whole bit is fairly clumsy. "Fans" is a terrible word and should be avoided. Try "spectators" or "audiences" if you have to. Ideally, you need to re-write the sentences so that you don't have to mention who at all. "...... could be accessed by doing such and such" seems a much better structure to me. It also reads like an advert for the US Open, whether the additions were successful is never mentioned.
  • "The annual Arthur Ashe Kids Day was also held, on August 23, with Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Novak Djokovic, Ana Ivanovic, Serena Williams, and Anna Kournikova (retired) leading the player participation." With will get you shot down at FA if you decide to take it there. Change to a semi-colon and adjust the tense. Don't take article names on face-value, the Arthur Ashe Kids Day article has terrible grammar in the title, though is correct in the lead. "Also" is redundant, the date should be at the start, so "On August 23 the annual Arthur Ashe Kids' Day was held; Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Novak Djokovic, Ana Ivanovic and Serena Williams led the player participation."
  • If Anna Kournikova is retired (and she is) she cannot be leading player involvement. She is no longer a player. At any rate, the "(retired)" bit looks like it was added as an afterthought.
  • Again, "Several musical acts" How many? If you don't know don't say.

I'm going to stop reviewing at this point, but here are some other impressions I have:

  • It is clear that the page needs a thorough copyedit. From what I have read so far the prose is clunky and inconsistent. Go to somewhere like the Guild of Copy Editors, look down their membership list and see who is still active and contact them on their talk pages. In addition, my recommendation is that you read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Even if you are not going for an FA, it is invaluable advice and is arguably the most underrated page outside of the mainspace.
  • Looking down the day by day coverage, is it really necessary to list so many scores? It breaks up the text, makes it hard to read and even a player will tell you it's not all that important. Set scores are what matters. It's occasionally good to have full scores, but decide whether it is really necessary, not for variation.
  • I would love to see a Post-Event section. As I said before, you talk about the preparations but don't mention how successful they were. Reactions: Who else praised Federer? Who praised Murray? It's a big deal, first GS final, were the UK public happy?
  • I would seriously consider splitting this article up into different articles for different events. Keep this as the parent article, but allow yourself to be more concise by establishing a context; this is easily done with different articles. Besides which, the short Summaries of other events just reinforces the longwindedness of the day by day bit. Why are singles so much more important than doubles that they get more than 8000 words while doubles only gets 500? To be honest, 8000 is too much; 500 too little.
  • Have a look at the suggestions the bot came up with (the link is at the top of the page). With regards to the infobox bit, while this is something that the Tennis Wikiproject should deal with, an event like this (and all the other Grand Slams) needs a more comprehensive infobox. I can get little out of that one. Where was it? What was the weather like? Crowd numbers?

I understand that there are no FA Grand Slam articles (or GA for that matter) that you may make a template of. But at this stage, the article is too messy, too broad, too inconcise to be anything better than C-Classed. I don't want to sound like a bastard (I seem to be in danger of that ;)) but this article would not even be read at GAN. I would be very surprised if the reviewer would not ask you to withdraw the article, or simply give it a quick fail. But you said you didn't want to go to GAN, and fair enough. There has clearly been a lot of work going into this, but you need to consider format more. Is the day the match took place on the most important thing? Or is the round it was in, who was playing, who won, who lost, more important?

I really hope what I have said helps, but there really is a HUGE amount of work that needs to still go into the article. Cheers, Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 14:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed some of these issues. I wasn't against it going to GAN, I just questioned its appropriateness; I see that it isn't appropriate, just not for the reasons that I thought. I don't like the idea of splitting the article up, because the Men's Singles, Women's Singles pages etc. are de facto draw pages and I think it's a good idea to separate the qualitative from the quantitative. I'll just take this to the Guild of Copyeditors instead. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda

edit
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 that I am on my way to improving this artice. I am in hopes of improving it to Good Artice Status. Please feel free to express your comments to help me improve the article as much as possible, regardless of is success.

Thanks, Dorkstar17 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakob.scholbach

edit

I have to say first that I'm not a biologist or anything, just a layman. I think the article has potential, here are some points that have to be covered before a Good Article nomination seems reasonable.

  • The lead is too short. As a rule of thumb, every section should be summarized by one or two sentences in the lead section, to give a good impression of the article content. For example, an immediate question is: you say there are three species. Please name them. etc...
  • I'm not a native speaker, but is "venomous" standard English vocabulary? I had to look this up. Perhaps change to poisonous or so.
  • In many places, wording is pretty lax. Examples: "the most common prey selection for this hungry reptile", "it is especially interested in other snakes"
  • The "Physical description" section contains only information about the length of the beasts. What about girth, skin patterns, etc?
  • Same section: opening up with "There are some debates" is awkward. I'd prefer some clean information in the first place.
  • Still same section: "should be regarded with caution" -- is this your opinion?
  • "Common names": you nicely give translations of some of the words. What about sucuri and yakuama? Also, all these things have to be backed up by a reference.
  • "Another suggestion is that it represents Tamil". What does this mean?
  • "Feeding habits" section: I don't understand the meaning of "one who has well understanding..." in relation to what's said before.
  • "Yellow Anacondas" - capitalization.
  • In one place you say that killings of humans are not reported, later on you say "there have been many reports and documentaries on anacondas consuming humans". This is a contradiction.
  • "to reach incredibly high speeds" -- lax wording, please make it more specific and thereby more scientific. Likewise: "unaware of what had just happened". Also: "their body temperatures to a reasonable level".
  • "then the snake could possibly form" -- what does this mean?
  • "due to these conditions and emotions" sounds inappropriate to me
  • How do they regulate their body temperature? Just moving to the shadow when it is hot? Would be interesting.
  • Typos: "recieve", "using there spurs", "heath"
  • How long do they live? Have there been any issues with respect to decreasing population?
  • As a general matter, the article absolutely needs more references. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have one. This may seem picky at first, but makes the article much more credible, and also forces you as the author to make it more neat. Good luck with the article! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just seeing that you seem to do this as a high-school project and are relatively new to WP. So, I hope I wasn't too harsh. Just keep going, perhaps have a look at Good or Featured Articles with similar topics. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jakob.scholbach

edit
  • "Venomous" is definitely English. To say that a snake is "poisonous" is old-fashioned and dated. The difference is that a venom can only hurt you if it enters your bloodstream, while a poisons can also do damage if they are ingested, inhaled or even simply touched. In contrast, you can eat a rattlesnake, for example, and even drink its venom (providing you have no sores or open wounds in your mouth, throat or stomach), but that won't hurt you.
  • Personally, I stopped watching this article after it was renamed from Eunectes to Anaconda, and I see now that a lot of weasel words and nonsense have been added ("Feeding habits" through "Reproduction"). The references are poor or non-existent. I wanted to keep the title Eunectes because that's what it should be about: a monograph describing the general characteristics of the genus. IMO, the article should not attempt to explain things like constriction that are not unique to this genus, and not go into too much detail regarding the various species. I would have liked to add more info on the general physical description (not to mention the rest of the article), but most of the literature available to me is on viperid snakes as opposed to boids.
  • References? Of course! If a paragraph or section has no references, feel free to replace it.
  • Common names should always be in lower case, although there are the usual exceptions (Egyptian saw-scaled viper, Everglades rat snake, etc).

As for the rest of the article, you've pointed out many problems with it. I agree: there is a lot wrong with it. It looks like more than a few people have added info to it and did not do a very thorough job. That's too bad, because that kind of work usually does not have a very long shelf-life around here. In other words, if you do your research properly, find some really good sources and use those to cover all the important sections in this article, you'll find that over the years the article will not have changed by much. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. As for references and other stuff: I have no clue about these things. Amending the reviewers suggestions is actually the author's job ;) -- But it sounds you are the right one to get this article up to GA? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought the article title should be Eunectes instead, with a redirect from Anaconda. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References: start by looking in your local library for books that describe these snakes. If the books you find don't include enough specific information, check their bibliographies (literature cited) for the references that the authors of those books used (every good book has a bibliography), and then look for those books. If you find that your local library is limited, and you don't have the funds to simply order the right books via the Internet, then visit a university library -- that's where the real information is stored. University libraries are typical subscribers to the expensive scientific journals that us normal folks cannot afford -- IMO a highly regrettable situation in this age of the Internet -- but it's in those journals that so many of the articles you will want are published. Bibliographies almost invariably include cryptic references to the journal publications you will be looking for, but as soon as you discover that, for example, "Pac. Sci. 61:1" actually means "Pacific Science - Volume 61, Number 1", then you're off.
If you're really serious about researching a description of the genus Eunectes, then the natural place to start would be Johann Georg Wagler's original 1830 publication on the subject, entitled "Natürliches system der amphibien, mit vorangehender classification der säugethiere und vögel" (or preferably an English translation thereof). Apparently, that work still contains the definitive description of the genus.
Could I get this article up to GA status? Sure, but I'm not going to be the person to do it. I've already burned away two years of my life on Wikipedia and need to get my career back on track now. Besides, describing all 2,700 species of snakes would take one person about 50 years if they spent only a week researching and writing every article (not including subspecies). Obviously then, this should be a group effort, which is why it's important that people like yourself become involved. --Jwinius (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GrahamColm

I agree with all the valuable comments above and so there is no need to repeat them here. My current concerns are problems with the prose. I have made some example copy-edits, ([3]). My advice is to try to keep the prose simple; you have a tendency over-explain. Try to avoid expressions like "meaning that" and "in terms of" and constantly ask yourself is every word and phrase absolutely necessary. On a more general note, this is Wikipedia and praise is generally very thin on the ground. Most reviewers, including those at GA and FAC, will not say what is good about an article, because this does not make articles better. Don't take any criticism personally, if people didn't like you or respect what you are doing, this page would be blank. The fact that it is not, is a credit to you—well done and keep up the good work. Graham Colm Talk 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made in America (The Sopranos)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, I've listed this article for the final The Sopranos episode for a peer review before nominating it for FA. I think the main point is copyediting but any and all comments are appreciated.

Thanks! –FunkyVoltron talk 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to consider:
Lead
The second sentence is somewhat confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the show just because it throws a lot of numbers at the reader at once. Could this be reworded or broken down into several shorter sentences?
In the lead Chase is introduced as exec producer. Again for the casual reader, what is an executive producer? This could simply be a link to the Executive producer article rather than anything more.
In the lead the Emmy cat is in quotations. Do Emmy award categories go in quotations? I'm genuinely unsure if the MOS has any guidance on this.
The lead states that the episode was the subject of "much discussion" and that there are "many parodies" I think the adjectives could be dropped here and some citations should be moved up from later in the article to back up these assertions.
I think the first mention of an actor in brackets would benefit from a "played by" i.e. "Tony Soprano (played by James Gandolfini)" to clarify that the people in brackets are the cast members portraying the characters for someone unfamiliar with film and television articles
I don't really know how to re-write the second sentence so I'll keep it like that. Linked exec-producer-television. I've always thought that Emmy categories are in quotes but this seems to not be the case, removed the quotes. I don't think a "played by" is necessary.–FunkyVoltron talk 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary
Plot summary clocks in at 608 words - congratulations on getting the summary to an appropriate length, The Sopranos is a complex show so I'm sure that was no easy task.
There are a few redlinks in the plot summary that could be easily turned into stub articles. Matt Servitto is certainly notable. A quick look at Antonacci's IMDb entry suggests that he is more accomplished as a writer/director than he is as an actor. Both of these actors are also redlinked in the infobox
I'm not sure the safe house link to the earlier article on The Blue Comet at the top of the plot section is particularly useful to a casual reader - a reference to the earlier episode might be more appropriate or leave the text plain.
Same sentence "core surviving members" is an awkward phrase, why not just "surviving" or alternatively "remaining".
"Tony meets with FBI Agent Dwight Harris (Matt Servitto) and exchanges information" - perhaps "to exchange information" would be better as the sentence currently implies that only the first party is involved.
"allowing Tony and his crew to attend" - do this intimates that the FBI have actively allowed their attendance. I would suggest "which Tony and his crew attend."
"Tony visits his widowed sister, Janice (Aida Turturro), who quickly annoys him with her delusional statements." A delusion is a fixed, false, unshakeable belief. Janice was paranoid but not necessarily delusional as I recall. I think the clause about how she annoys Tony could be stripped altogether as it adds no more clarity to the summary than simply saying that she annoys Tony i.e. "Tony visits his widowed sister, Janice (Aida Turturro), who quickly annoys him."
The second and third paragraphs are only two sentences long. These should be merged.
"Light envelopes" is a little confusing to someone who has not seen how the crew makes payment. How about "but the takings are dissapointing, because the war is affecting everyone's business."
Spelling: "A sit-down between the waring crime families is arranged" should be "warring"
"failure in killing Tony" suggests that Butch has killed Tony and somehow failed Phil in doing so. Should be "failure to kill Tony."
Grammar: "Tony and Paulie Gualtieri (Tony Sirico) meets" should be "meet" as there are two of them.
"who agrees to stop pursuing the war." would be clearer as "and they negotiate a truce."
Are the two quotes in the fourth paragraph adding much? I think the Butch one could stay as it is difficult to describe his meaning when his statement is deliberately ambiguous. However the Agent Harris one could be cut and replaced with "Agent Harris calls Tony and hints that Phil has been using pay phones in Oyster Bay, Long Island.
"Tony's crew sets out to look for" is awkward - how about "Tony's crew surveils"
"Tony and his crew come out of hiding" seems redundant with the subsequent list of where they return to. How about "With the truce agreed Tony returns to his North Caldwell home along with his family while his crew returns to their usual haunts: the Bada Bing and Satriale's Pork Store." At the least "returns" should be "return" with the sentence as it is currently structured in the article and in the phrase "returns to the their usual hangout spots" the "the" is a redundant word.
Whose wedding is Meadow planning? Re-wording the sentence to "Meadow and Patrick Parisi (Daniel Sauli) plan their wedding." makes this clear.
That is all I have time for today. I'll come back and continue tomorrow.--Opark 77 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed most of these concerns.–FunkyVoltron talk 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cure discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded the article substantially and I'm looking to take it to FLC.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

  • Other album appearances → Other appearances
  • The section should also be moved to the end of the article + should be linked in the infobox
  • No need to wikilink "Fiction", "CD", "MC", "LP", etc. multiple times. Once is sufficient.
  • Can directors be found for the music videos released in 2008?
No, I've checked high and low in all the reliable (and unreliable) sources I've got access to. --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title in singles section → Song
This wouldn't work if the singles was an instrumental, so "Title" works better. --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details in extended plays section → Album details

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done apart from the two I've added to above. Thanks for your input, --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain ischemia

edit
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 know how I could improve this article even more so that it can eventually be removed from the stub class.

Thanks, Saunc2011 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial

Hi. My knowledge of Biology is extremely limited, so I'm going to review this from an outsider's viewpoint. A week is along time to wait at PR and I want to give some sort of feedback.

  • To start off with, this article is already beyond stub class. It gives more than a "than a dictionary definition" and does provide meaningful content. This probably a start-class article.

Lead

  • Try "Brain ischemia, also known as cerebral ischemia,..."
  • "Brain ischemia (or cerebral ischemia) is the localized reduction of blood flow to the brain or parts of the brain due to arterial obstruction or systematic hyperfusion." I can guess what arterial obstruction is but I don't have a clue what systematic hyperfusion is. Are there are any other pages you can link these terms to in order to provide a better explanation? Failing that, you may have to provide a short explanation. The same goes for brain hypoxia and brain infarction. The lead should draw in readers, overly complex terms in the first few sentences will just switch them off.
  • I'm not a huge fan of quotes in the lead. Is there any way you can rewrite that section in your own words? See WP:QUOTE for more on this.
  • The lead is a little short. It is not, at this point, hugely important, but I would consider adding another paragraph dealing with symptoms or treatment.

Background information

  • Consider renaming to "Background".
  • I'm no expert, but are you sure brain ischemia is a disease?
  • "Therefore, protecting the human brain from brain ischemia is very important." A few things: just the human brain?; Is it important because beacuse it causes brain damage? Or is it important because interruption of the blood flow to the brain can cause it?
  • I would consider merging this section with What happens (I'll get to that title).

Symptoms

  • The second sentence basically makes the first redundant. You need to say something like "The symptoms of brain ischemia can vary in duration" and explain why.
  • "Arteries that branch from the Internal Carotid Artery may experience symptoms such as blindness in one eye, weakness in one arm or leg, or weakness in one entire side of the body." This to me reads that "arteries may experience symptoms such as blindness in one eye," etc. Correct this so the subject is clearer. Same with the next sentence.

What happens

  • "What happens" is a terribile title. Consider changing to "Causes" or "Effects".
  • "The brain is not able to switch to anaerobic metabolism and does not have any long term energy stored, so the levels of ATP drop rapidly." I know what ATP is because I was half listening one day in high school science, but other readers may not be so lucky.
  • "...the cells begin to lose the ability they have to maintain..." they have is redundant.
  • "These losses then lead to several untoward developments during brain ischemia. Those developments are:" Change to ""These losses then lead to..." and then list the developments.
  • "Also, in Brain ischemia, the removal of metabolic wastes is slowed." Two things: this article is about brain ischemia, you don't need to reintroduce it. Could this sentence be merged into the previous one? As is it looks like an afterthought.

Types

  • "Basically, focal brain ischemia is a stroke". The "basically" is redundant; it either is a stroke or it isn't. If it isn't, does it present similar symptoms?
  • It's worth remembering that not everyone who is affected by brain ischemia is a patient at the time.

Causes

  • "Many different diseases or abnormalities may cause ischemia, whether it be ischemia of the brain, lungs, or heart. A few of these causes are sickle cell anemia, the compression of blood vessels, Ventricular Tachycardia, plaque build up in the arteries, blood clots, extremely low blood pressure as a result of heart attack, and congenital heart defects." These two sentences should be combined into one sentence: "Many different diseases or abnormalities, such as sickle cell anemia, compression of blood vessels, Ventricular Tachycardia, plaque build up in the arteries, blood clots, extremely low blood pressure as a result of heart attack, or congenital heart defects, may cause ischemia." That's still fairly long, so I would think of ways to reduce the list of diseases or abnormalities so they only apply to brain ischemia.
  • Avoid the word "also". In most cases it really isn't necessary and can be cut out with minimal damage.
  • I just skimmed through the paragraph and found "Therefore, brain ischemia can result from events other than heart attacks." We already know that from earlier in the article, so this isn't such a revelation.

Presentation

  • Avoid one sentence paragraphs.
  • On a side note, I find it interesting that death is linked but some of the more complex words in the article are not.

Related conditions

  • "This condition is most commonly seen in elderly depressed patients." Depressed how? Are the patients depressed or is their vascular system.
  • "You need to explain how this is related to justify why it gets a place in this article.

Other effects

  • Should be merged with What happens.

General

  • There's a bit of inconsistency between "brain ischemia" and "Brain ischemia". My preference is the former, but you should pick one.
  • The same goes for the rest of the article; capital letters tend to pop-up at random and then disappear at the next mention.
  • In the references you do not have to say "in English". As this is the English Wikipedia, there is a general assumption that sources are in English. If it's in any other language, you would then have to say so.
  • The article is in sore need of more wikilinking. The grey text shown is a bit of a turnoff, and it would be very useful to be able to jump to appropriate pages when reading. A lot of the words mentioned in there I have no idea what they mean, and unless I want to re-type them into the search bar I will stay ignorant.
  • Add a See also section. This should list related medical problems. You can get an idea of this by looking at the templates down the bottom of the article. See also (so to speak) WP:SEEALSO.
  • I haven't had time to look at the references, but make sure they are solid. See WP:SOURCE.
  • Look at what the semi-automated probe suggested (the link is at the top of this review). There is nothing there that I disagree with, and combating those problems will get you well on the way to a better article.

Overall, a decent article. It certainly needs some work, and the grammar is fairly clumsy. As I opened, it isn't a stub, but it certainly isn't C-Class either. I can see on your userpage that you want to get this to GA or further. Contact some people at WikiProject Medicine and the Neurology task force. I am willing to continue helping you, but I can provide little assistence on the technical stuff, beyond what I have seen on Scrubs. Good luck, and happy editing! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graybar Electric Company

edit
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 because I have recently developed this article considerably, and would like positive and creative feedback on how I can improve it as much as possible, and to possibly move it from Stub Class to GA-Class.

Thanks, Wdfadude (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Biggest problem I see with this article is a lack of references - without them it will not make GA, let alone FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. As one example of many, the whole "Early History" section has no refs.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix Graybar's revenues had increased to $4.1 billion[11] in 2004, $4.3 billion in 2005[12], and a then-all-time high of $5 billion in 2006. for example.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are several one and two sentence paragraphs that need to be combined with others, or perhaps expanded - as it is they break up the flow of the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours,

History of Mexico City

edit
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… its pretty darn comprehensive and Id like to get it at least to GOOD status!

Thanks, Thelmadatter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few points (I'm not very experienced at peer review):

  • The introduction to any section probably shouldn't begin with a conjunction. I'd rephrase the first sentence just to give a basic overview (i.e. ancient Aztecs to Spanish occupation to today) and then begin the condensed history.
  • "great city" sounds weasely
  • "again was" should become "was again" or "again became"
  • Consider rephrasing "Over all of its post-Aztec history"
  • The two "however"s in the final paragraph of the lead don't seem right - rephrase one or both of these sentences. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be longer than four paragraphs and there should be an image in the top right corner. The first sentence of the lead should also try to contain the phrase the History of Mexico City in bold.
  • Per WP:HEAD, the section titles should not contain articles unless absolutley needed (so "The Aztec city" could just be "Aztec city") nor should they repeat the article title (so "Mexico City nobility" could just be "Nobility"). Most places where it says "city" in a section head could probably also be avoided
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The pbs.org refs are OK, but if you want to get this to FA it needs to have more relaible sources - go to a library and get books out.
  • Language needs to be cleaned up in places. Just the first sentence The Valley of Mexico has been inhabited for about ten thousand of years. has an extra "of", for example. Try reading it out loud.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King's X

edit
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 an extensive amount of editing and adding of information to this page and would like a serious critique of how I've done overall. Thanks, Now2blue (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Biggest problem I see with this article is a lack of references - without them it will not make GA, let alone FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. As one example of many, the whole [edit] Move to Houston (1985 - 1987) section has no refs.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix ... most removed their albums from sale after Pinnick's announcement in 1998 of his homosexuality.[6][7] [6] for example.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs that need to be combined with others, or perhaps expanded - as it is they break up the flow of the article.
  • Any chance for more images - fair use of the band performing or an album cover?
  • There is no mention of the name being a CHristian name (even in the Band's name section) until this Whether the band's name was intended as a Christian reference or not, the band members themselves have resisted being identified as a Christian metal or Christian rock band.[5] Provide context for the reader and explain this - why is there no discussion of it in the Band name section??

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

edit
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 assistance in cleaning up/improving this article. Any help at all would be appreciated.

Thanks, Strombollii (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • I believe there is a better link for your "calcified bone" - namely "ossification"
  • What does "peritrabecular" in the intro mean?
  • What does "hypercalcemia" mean (in "Treatment")?
  • Typo in wikilinking "bone re-absorption" in "Diagnosis"
  • You might want to wikilink your use of "parathyroid carcinoma" in "Treatment" - It was linked earlier on (in the intro), but as your article gets longer it is acceptable to wikilink a technical term twice or more as long as it isn't one right after another (in other words: wikilink in sections at the beginning and end if need be)
  • Literal quotes = bad.

"The only opportunity for cure is surgery with meticulous resection of the tumor intact because disruption of the capsule will seed tumor cells. This diagnosis should be considered in patients with hyperparathyroidism who have severe hypercalcemia, extremely high parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, or a palpable neck mass."

— Kearns
  • I suggest moving links from "See also" to the beginning of sections in which they pertain. I can do this for you if my wording is confusing :-P
  • Try to expand the links in your disease_box : You can always get to the database websites by going to an article (like OCD) and clicking on the blue-linked text in the disease_box. From there, just search "Osteitis Fibrosa Cystica" and post the link #'s in the disease_box template. I can help if this is confusing.
  • Elaborate on "detected in its early stages." (From intro): Suffering my ignorance, is hyperthyroidism genetic at all? If so, how early is the onset of OFC after birth? Can it be detected prior to birth? If it isn't genetic, then how early can it be detected? Will the patient suffer any ill effects before it is detected? Is it ever confused with osteoporosis (as you described the bones turning "soft")?
  • This is a rate of incidence, not a cause... thus it would be appropriate under "Etiology". You might desire to keep the information about tumors, however the & rate is strictly a statistic. Also, I see no reference!:

"The vast majority of cases of hyperparathyroidism are the result of random tumors which invade the parathyroid glands. These instances comprise approximately 80–85% of all documented cases of hyperparathyroidism."

  • Also, in referring to the "soft" quality of bones and some of your descriptions in "Signs and symptoms:" these would be more appropriate placed in a section entitled "Pathophysiology." Some of these describe the effects of OFC on a patient, AKA how it damages their skeletal structure:

{quote|"Osteitis fibrosa cystica is, in essence, the replacement of outer layers of calcified bone with fluid-filled cysts. In some cases, the marrow of the bone is then replaced with vascularized fibrous tissue and osteoclasts. If left unchecked, the bones will turn soft."|Rubin}}

Overall, not too bad! Quite a few of my comments are merely personal and not part of any formal requirement. Thus, feel free to address these as you see fit. Good work so far, keep it up. Cheers! FoodPuma 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The editors are hoping to get this up to FA-status, so any pushes in the right direction would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ink Runner (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

Images

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thanks muchly for your review. I have expanded the lead so it (hopefully) summarizes the article; I have also merged a single-sentence paragraph. I'll work on clearing up the jargon and adding more game reviews later. Thanks again. Ink Runner (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a quick comment, your caption for the infobox images says "North American versions". Arent they European due to the PEGI rating? Salavat (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Replaced covers with North American ones. Ink Runner (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass

edit
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 bring it to FAC soon. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beefed up the cover art FUR. So, should I just remove the multiplayer image? The sailing also helps to give an idea of how the top-bottom screens view looks like. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks pretty good, but some of the references need to be looked at to make sure they are reliable; Gamedaily, Hyper, GamerNode, Game Freak, Straight Gamer, and The Hylia. They are unknown to me in terms of reliability, and it would be great to find out if they are reliable or not, otherwise they'll have to be replaced. Other than that, copyedit it and it should be good to go. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already marked a few of those as unreliable; I've marked a few more now. I mark them now and then get to them when I find a suitable reference to replace them with. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo people

edit
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 wanted to improve it for Good Article Nomination as it has failed previously.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am prepared to review this, but I am waiting for confirmation from the nominator that the peer review is still required (article is at GAN) Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has informed me that he/she does not want this review to proceed, so I am archiving it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Edge (1999)

edit
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 it to reach FA status, and I want to know what needs to be done to nominate it for FA. Note that there is no reception section like other PPV articles because this event is older than the other ones and plus that this event was never released on VHS and WWE releases no records of it.

Thanks, SRX 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During the main event, The Undertaker defeated Steve Austin in a single match (with Shane McMahon as the guest referee) to win the WWF Championship"
"During"?? D.M.N. (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm yea, what's wrong with that?--SRX 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording sounds like this happened "during the main event" as in, aside from the main event, or while the main event was occurring - like this wasn't the main event, but it happened when the main event was taking place. Confusing, sorry. iMatthew 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed it to "In the main event."--SRX 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 - Apparently, I've become the go-to guy for wrestling peer reviews. This review interests me because of the Owen Hart tragedy. I always like to see new things in articles, and the accident gives this a uniqueness that could prove beneficial at FAC. Here are some specific comments.

  • Background: "which Austin declined to do so." Drop so.
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when The Undertaker threw Austin off the Raw is War stage entrance, in reality..." Change the comma to a semi-colon.
Done--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After taking another look at the sentence, I still don't like it even after the change. I recommend this structure: "when The Undertaker threw Austin off the Raw is War stage entrance after a match between Austin and The Rock; in reality he was thrown from the stage onto a soft surface." Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Triple H's real name from the match summary to the third paragraph.
Done--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a limited amount of time, so let's get to the good part: "Before the event, the entrance was tested on the November 15, 1998 episode of Sunday Night Heat, which Hart successfully performed." The word which leads to some awkwardness; that's not uncommon but still can be fixed without much difficulty. Try "and Hart successfully landed".
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to prevent footage of the incident being shown to the viewers." Probably should be "to prevent footage of the incident from being shown to the viewers."
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fans in attendance weren't told any information..." Please change the contraction.
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: "because the event was never being released on VHS or DVD due to Hart's death."
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the court case extended one year and one half..." An easier way to say it would be "# of months..."
Done.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism: Badd Blood: In Your House is misspelled, according to the WWE Bad Blood page. It's possible that one is wrong, but obviously there's a typo somewhere.
Not done. In 1999, the event was spelled by the WWF as "Badd" Blood. When WWE used the event in 2003 again, they dropped the second d.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the other page needs work. Not only is the Bad Blood page wrong, it's contradicting itself. Not vital for the purposes of this article, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has great potential due to the unique nature of this PPV. It's not just another recap, due to the controversy. I did see some little issues, which add up at FAC. Still, I urge you to push forward with it, because I think it has a pretty good chance of passing with some more cleanup work. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to get a copyedit before FAC, if you have time, more comments would be appreciated.--SRX 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. dollar link can be removed from the lead. As a U.S. topic, the use of the American dollar is assumed. Also put non-breaking spaces in the middle of $18 million both times that it appears, like I've done here.
  • Aftermath: "At King of the Ring, lost a ladder match". (Steve) Austin has accidentally been omitted from this sentence.
  • Background: "Austin retaliated on these actions..." More typical usage would be, "Austin retaliated for these actions..."
  • Third paragraph of Background: Space needed after Triple H's real name in parentheses.
  • "The Rock was portrayed as having an injured arm requiring a cast to be worn," Try "requiring that a cast be worn", and change the comma after this to a semi-colon.
  • Parentheses mark missing after Mick Foley.
  • "a singles match that featured Faarooq and Shamrock ended in "No Contest"" This is inconsistent with the usage earlier in the section, and the link is a duplicate.
  • Event: Remove the caps from HEAT in Sunday Night Heat.
  • Something is funny in reference 23 (Sunday Night Heat episode). Looks like the episode number isn't included.
  • Criticism: I'd like to see the text explain who a couple of these people are. For example, say that Vince Russo was a script writer. Also, it should probably state that Hulk Hogan was a wrestler. This is to provide context for those who don't know them. Admittedly, this will be more useful for Russo than Hogan. Don't think this is essential for Bret Hart, since he was speaking as an angered brother of Owen. That's more than enough context to understand his rage. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GaryColemanFan -

  • Although the "WWF cancels shows" article (reference 24) says three shows were cancelled, references 24 and 27 state that shows were cancelled in Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Montreal. That seems to be four shows.
  • In addition, the next sentence says that "Traces of Over the Edge by WWE" are rare. "Traces" seems like a strange word choice, but that might just be me.
  • The line about the lawsuit in the "Criticism" section could probably be removed, as it repeats information from the "Aftermath" section.
  • "At SummerSlam 1999, Mankind, who was eventually scripted into the match, defeated Triple H and Steve Austin, who had defeated The Undertaker before this event to win the title, in a triple threat match to win the WWF Championship." - this is a long, complicated sentence.
  • I wrote the "Criticism" section mainly with print sources that I had sitting around, which I only collected for a week or so after Hart's death. This leaves the article with a bit of an abrupt ending, as the WWF's statement says that they ahd no information. What do you think about adding the follow-up statement that they posted on their website? It's found here: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the entire Hart family. We have to be strong for Owen; he was an extraordinary human being and consummate performer and knows that the highest tribute that we can pay is to go on entertaining the fans he loved so much." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikki:

  • Is it Raw Is War or Raw is War? I thought it was the latter, but I could be wrong.
  • "The rivalry continued to develop the following Monday on Raw Is War, as Triple H threw Austin off the stage entrance onto a soft surface, which was portrayed as a concrete floor." - the end of this sentence sounds sloppy. A rewording is in order.
  • In various places in the article, both "No Contest" and no contest appear. Be consistent.

Nikki311 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Raw is War, I reworded the sentence, and I used consistency for No Contest.--SRX 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • "In storyline, The" – "In the storyline, The"
Fixed.--TRUCO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "abduction resulted in Vince allowing The Undertaker to have controlling interest over the WWF." – "abduction caused Vince to allow The Undertaker have controlling interest over the WWF."
Fixed.--TRUCO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chrishomingtang
  • Is {{see also|Professional wrestling}} necessary for the background section? Seems random to me. Also is redundant since the lead already has it wikilinked.
Well it was decided to do that after previous wrestling FACs.--TRUCO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the criticism section, "It was disgusting....For kids to see that, for this to be so-called family entertainment, for them to just carry on as if nothing had happened, is just sad." I thought it should be three dots, though I could be wrong.
It's a quote, but I don't think changing that effects it: changed.--TRUCO 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original source that I took the quote from had the full statement. To capture the main points succinctly, I removed some words. Because there was a sentence break within the missing words, a fourth period is needed. It's not a big deal, but I re-added it because it is grammatically correct. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a well written and interesting article —Chris! ct 01:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jappalang

edit

Based on this version.
Lead

  • Not too thrilled that it opens with a single sentence.
  • "is most memorable"
I doubt this should be phrased as such. "Memorable" means "worth remembering". Substitute that into the sentence and read it. Does it seem appropriate?
  • Launching straight into the Owen Heart incident casts the article as "Death of Owen Hart". Give a short sentence that "The event was well known in the wrestling industry for the accidental death of wrestler Owen Heart." or such, then cover the wrestling events. The last paragraph of the lead should then cover the brief details of Hart's death.
    • Reply: Okay, I removed the whole sentence about the "memorable" part, because I added the short sentence you mentioned after the intro sentence. Then I added the wrestling events prose right after that to make 1 paragraph, and then I left the Owen Hart accident prose as the second paragraph. Is it better in that way?--TruCo 15:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "'The event featured ten professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or fan favorites as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."
How about building up to this instead of defining and explaining the pre-events...
"Over the Edge was the culmination of various scripted plots and storylines. For three months before the event, several rounds of WWF wrestling matches and background stories were played out to create feuds between various wrestlers, casting them as villians and fan favorites."
The next paragraph continues the line of thought by going into the history. The number of matches in the event can be mentioned later as we get to talking about it proper. On a side note, is there no better term than "fan favorites"?
  • "In storyline"
Huh??? I have the feeling that this phrase is not common and is not also used as it should be... If it was established at the start that a storyline was built to culminate at Over the Edge, the narration can continue without constantly trying to assert out-of-universe perpective.
Suggestion: "The narrative for Over the Edge continues the events that unfolded at Backlash, WWF's previous pay-per-view event held on April 25, 1999. There, the Undertaker (Mark Calaway) abducted Stephanie MacMahon, the daughter of the WWF Chairman Vince McMahon. Undertaker's price for Stephanie's return was the control of the wrestling organization. However, his plans were thwarted by the then WWF Champion Steve Austin, who rescued Stephanie and denied the Undertaker his ransom. This plot development set up a feud between the two wrestlers, which would be settled in a match for the Championship at Over the Edge. WWF further built up the rivalry between Undertaker and Austin by having them attack each other in other wrestling programmes before their showdown. On May 3, Undertaker threw Austin off the stage, and two weeks later, the WWF Champion handcuffed his title challenger to a crucifix, which was raised above the ring."
  • The whole delivery comes across as heavily proseline ("On xx yyy, 19zz"), and over detailed. I think it is needless to point out every twist and turn in the story, or on what episode this or that happened. Just deliver the backstory as a direct as possible. The de-emphasis on an out-of-universe is overly heavy. It could be established without "as Triple H threw Austin off the stage entrance onto a soft surface, which was portrayed on television as a harder surface." and such. See the above example on how these details can be reduced. I sincerely believe if done so, this section can be cut down to two substanceful paragraphs, excluding the introductory paragraph.
    • Reply: I replaced/reworded the intro paragraph, with a tweak or two. I also used you example to cut down the first background, with a couple of tweaks that I deemed necessary due to other sections. I will continue to work on the other feuds to cut down.--TruCo 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event

  • I am not sure what relevance the pre-event Sunday Night Heat has for Over the Edge. None of its matches had an impact on the developments in the subject. It feels like having to describe the television programme that broadcasted before the Simpsons or Heroes... Taking it out does not hurt comprehensiveness, but instead keeps the article compact and focused on the subject.
    • Reply: SNH is treated like a half-time show, which it is literally not, but because it takes place in the same arena and place as the PPV, so it take place in the Over the Edge stage set, ring set, etc. except the program is billed Sunday Night Heat, so its necessary because feuds or announcements could take place during this time and it is literally part of the "event."--TruCo 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary matches

  • "Kane lifted Henry by the throat and slammed him down to perform a chokeslam."
I think it is better worded as "Kane performed a chokeslam on Henry, lifting him by the throat and slamming him down."
  • "Next was a hardcore match – a match allowing no disqualification or countouts."
  • "but were scripted to proceed into a brawl in the arena stands."
Suggestion: "but were scripted to move their brawl into the arena stands."
  • "They traveled through the stands, ..."
They "traveled"??!! Aside from this, this clause seems repetitive with the previous sentence.
  • "There, Holly drove Snow's head into a folding chair. Snow, however, retaliated by lifting Holly onto his shoulders and throwing him through a wooden table. Snow then covered and pinned Holly to win the WWF Hardcore Title."
Is it important to know Al Snow's head was smashed into a folding chair?
Suggestion: "The fight was decided when Snow lifted Holly onto his shoulders and threw him through a wooden table. Successfully covering and pinning Holly, Snow won the WWF Hardcore Title."
  • "The next scheduled match was WWF Intercontinental Champion The Godfather versus Owen Hart in a standard match."
Since Owen Hart performed as the Blue Blazer (even though it is a blatant obvious gimmick), then should it not be "The Godfather versus the Blue Blazer (Owen Hart)", then later sentences would refer to Hart by name instead of his gimmick? After all, the match was carded as "The Godfather versus the Blue Blazer", right?
  • "Hart, however, fell to his death during his ring entrance. (For further information, see below)."
I am not in favor of this approach. Do not disrupt the flow. Either give a brief overview of Hart's accident here, or move the "Owen Hart accident" here as a sub-section.
Replace the two sentences with "As Hart descended into the ring on a harness, the equipment gave way, and he fell. Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) rushed him to the hospital but he died. The show was halted for 15 minutes before continuing with the next match." or something.
Reply: Done all, is it good now?--TruCo 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "In storyline after this event, The Rock [...] At SummerSlam, Mankind defeated Austin and Triple H to win the WWF Championship."
I am not certain with the Wrestling projects guidelines but what do all this have to do with Over the Edge? Aside from the Rock's scripted feud with the Undertaker over the Championship, there is nothing relating these subsequent stories to the events and outcomes of Over the Edge.
  • Where is the reception of this program (viewship, earnings, criticisms, praises)?
    • Reply: Some feuds culminated as a result of OTE, I reworded some of it to make it seem as such. Also, like it is mentioned in the article, the event was never released on VHS or DVD and encores of the PPV were canceled, so PPV buys were unable to be calculated. Also, because the WWF was ordered to change their name to WWE, all WWF references have been erased and we can't find news article stating the ticket sales, even with the wayback machine. In addition, there is a criticism section, as stated above in the peer review intro. --TruCo 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • In the reflist, slam.canoe.ca sites are paired with "SLAM! Sports", "Canoe: SLAM! Sports-Wrestling", and "Canadian Online Explorer". Consistency, please.
  • Per "All videos are property of their respected owners." at Wrestling Gone Wrong.[4] What makes the reference acceptable to be linked to? The video is linked to and hosted by http://nomercyvideo.com/, who states "We are a group of individuals trained in Pro Wrestling, Martial Arts, and Stunts. We create Viral Content for TV shows and the Internet. We also do stuntwork for various projects." This is made by splicing together recordings of television programs (the "TV 14 OLV" logo is there). Selected sections come from WWE and Biography.com (evident from the watermarks), and they hold the copyrights over their works. As such, these spliced videos are copyviolations (unauthorized broadcasts), and Wikipedia policy is clear that we do not link to them (WP:COPYRIGHT). I have removed it from the article. You can use the Template:cite video template if you wish to reference the episodes in question, but no links to them unless the host is specifically the copyright holder. The cite fields would need the title of the Biography.com and WE episodes at the minimum.
  • How is Hoffco, Inc a reliable source?
    • Reply: It's marginally reliable because its not verifying controversial information, just the referees, announcers, etc. Which they get from videos of the event that are on the internet.--TruCo 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, getting a copyeditor to smooth the sentence flow would be wise. Jappalang (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recent changes pretty much addressed most of what I have stated above (if I have any further issue with them, I will come back to them later). The following are further concerns.
    • I would rephrase the "Criticism" subsection as "Reactions" or such. WWF did get support for its actions from certain quarters.
    • Get rid of the "See also" section. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, and such a section weakens that criteria. It is pointless to link Hart here as he is already linked in the main body.
    • This "when the court order the defendants, the WWF, to give the Hart family, the prosecutors, US$18 million" is inaccurate. The judge did not order WWF to cough up $18mil after a hearing. There was no trial. The Harts and WWF reached an agreement, in which WWF paid $18mil so that the Harts would not proceed with the case ever.
    • There are quite a lot of "noun plus -ing" constructs. Normally, many people would fail to pick this up, but we have certain reviewers who readily pick up this grammatical foible.

Piece of advice: User:Tony1#Featured article candidates and good prose is a good starting point for FAC prose study. Jappalang (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first 3 points, but how do I fix the "noun +ing"?--TruCo 23:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1 has given tips on how to rectify "noun +ing" in his guides. Some copyeditors would also find ways to reduce or eliminate its usage. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonestown Covered Bridge

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. It is based on the models of Cogan House Covered Bridge, Forksville Covered Bridge, and Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, which are all FAs. The article includes every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. There are plans to write articles for the two red links. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead
unincorporated should be unincorporated area
not sure village is needed, but it doesn't hurt either
  • Overview
Philadelphia is a redirect to Philadelphia
Pittsburgh is a redirect to Pittsburgh
What's a barrel stave? It just links to barrel.
I love the link to clothespin. Wiki is great!
  • Background
repeated links to load bearing, arch and king posts. These don't bother me, but apparently they bother others.
third repeat of load bearing, arch and king posts.
  • Construction and description
repeated link to Muncy Creek and fantastic Forksville

All in all, it's a good article. Should make FA fairly easily. Enjoy the turkey. I can't wait! Dincher (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much - I fixed the links to unincorporated area, to Philadelphia, and to Pittsburgh. I got rid of an extra link to Philadelphia, and discovered there was a duplicate partial paragraph responsible for the third repeats of load bearing, etc. I will sometimes repeat a link in the lead and then the first time in the article. The FOrksville links are different - one is to the borough, one is to the covered bridge. The staves are the wooden sections used to make a barrel, so I changed it to "The village was then home to a plant that manufactured the staves for making barrels". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey. Dincher (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Nicely done. With a few minor tweaks, I think this should sail through. Here are my brief suggestions:

Geobox: Probably the full date after "Added to NRHP" should be unlinked.

Lead:

  • Pennsylvania had "the most such bridges in both the 19th and 21st centuries". What about the 20th century?
    • It sure seems likely, but I will have to go the library and check the Evans 1st edition (published 1994) to see what they said about the 20th c. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I finally made it to the library and both of Zacher's books and the Evans first edition from the 1990s said Pennsylvania had the most covered bridges in the US, so I changed it to Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States and the most such bridges in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence slowed me down each time I read it: "They were a transition between stone and metal bridges, with the roof and sides protecting the wooden structure from weather." Perhaps something like this would be better: "Historically, they were popular after the era of stone bridges and before the era of metal bridges. Made chiefly of wood, they included a roof and sides for protection from the weather." I'm not sure my rendering is accurate. I suspect a lot of overlap occurred between eras.
    • I reread the ref [5] and it says "The covered bridge was the transition from the stone to the cast-iron in most places." (in Pennsylvania), so I changed the lead to In most places in the state they were a transition between stone and metal bridges, with the roof and sides protecting the wooden structure from weather. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygonal is a bit vague. Would "three-sided polygonal" be better? I'm looking at your interior photo of the bridge to do my counting, which might or might not be accurate.

Construction and description:

  • The last sentence says the state "has to approve any renovation work". It might be more accurate to say, "The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission requires its approval for renovation work on NRHP bridges in the state and forbids the destruction of these bridges."
  • The verb tense shift in this sentence is a little odd: "The work, which would be on private property and require permission from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, was done in the summer of 2006." Maybe "The work, on private property and requiring permission from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, was done in the summer of 2006."
  • I think I'd change the verb tense in this sentence to past: "As of 2008, it is still used and is the only remaining covered bridge over Muncy Creek... " I'm looking ahead to 2009 and thereafter, when "was still used and was the only remaining... " will make more sense.

Bridge dimensions:

  • Maybe just "Dimensions" to avoid repeating the "Bridge" in the article title.
  • I had to work out the meaning of this sentence: "The NBI measures bridge length between the "backwalls of abutments" or pavement grooves and the roadway width as 'the most restrictive minimum distance between curbs or rails'." Maybe splitting the sentence in the following way would help: "The NBI measures bridge length between the "backwalls of abutments" or the pavement grooves at the opposite ends of the bridge. It defines the roadway width as "the most restrictive minimum distance between curbs or rails."
  • Citation 5 lists only one Evans, Benjamin. That make this sentence puzzling in a minor way: "The Evans visited every covered bridge in Pennsylvania in 2001 and measured each bridge's length (portal to portal) and width (at the portal) for their book." Should June Evans be added to citation 5?

Citations:

  • I've pretty much abandoned my attempts to render all of the dates in my favorite articles in a single format. The new MOSNUM guidelines require only that the main text dates be rendered in a consistent format and that the citation dates be rendered in a consistent format. However, the main text format and the citation format are allowed to differ from one another. Your main text dates look consistent to me, but I see variation in the date formatting in the citations. For example, citation 18 has "Retrieved on 2008-09-08", but citation 20 has "September 13, 1970". I'm not sure all the fussing we do about date formats is very productive in the large scheme of things, but going with the 2008-09-08 format in the citations may head off trouble about the dates at FAC. I'm not sure of this, so you might just wing it and see what happens. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much - I am a bit under the weather and will work more on this tomorrow - I appreciate the copyedits and the review and suggestions very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Thompson

edit
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 interested in taking this to WP:FAC, but I'm interested in some pointers before the FAC, and some input wrt WP:WIAFA cr. 1b.

Thanks, Maxim(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I've got a few thoughts, but I'll go through it more later:
The pre- and post-NHL career and legacy sections seem rather short. I would specifically work on post-NHL career. After all, Thompson was alive for another 40 years, there must have been something that can be said for that.
It's been really difficult to source it; hockey players who retired in the 40s weren't really covered that much later in the media.--Maxim(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source for Thompson having the second most shutouts, and as a single sentence paragraph, looks bad. Perhaps add it into legacy or something along the lines of that?
Removed.--Maxim(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A heavy reliance on so few of references. It won't pass FA with references consisting mainly of two pages of a book, heavy reference to the HHOF statistics page, and extensive use of hockey-reference.com. There is more out there about Thompson, and I imagine most of what is sourced here can be found there.
I'll try to expand the sourcing, although I've been pretty busy recently, so it's not there yet.--Maxim(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that he was paid in US$ by the Red Wings? The early NHL tended to use C$, though this may be hard to prove, and porbably not to relevent.
Fixed.--Maxim(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and go through again in more detail in the next while. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Red Ware

edit
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...

This is my first wikipedia article and before adding additional pages on other ceramic types I would like to make sure that I put this article together appropriately for wikipedia.

Thanks, Mdevitt (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial

I'm going to assume your main questions would be about format and style, rather than a grammar breakdown (which I can do, it usually just takes longer). I'm no expert in ceramics, so I can really only focus on style.

  • I can honestly say that this is the first time I have diagreed with the semi-automated review (the link is at the top of the page). The lead is not "too long". I would say that it is a little on the short side, you should ideally add another short paragraph dealing with research into the topic, such as the use of the ceramics as status symbols. See WP:LEAD.
  • "Roosevelt Red Ware is divided by archaeologists into a a series of types, which cover shorter spans of time, based on configurations of the painted designs and rim profiles of bowls." I would try to avoid one sentence paragraphs; in this case the sentence could be easily integrated into the next section; there is no real need to provide linking sentences on Wikipedia.
  • "(Example: Gila interior with a Tonto exterior would be labeled as Gila Polychrome: Tonto Variant)." This is a little clumsy and looks out of place. Consider saying "For example, a Gila interior with a Tonto exterior would be labeled as 'Gila Polychrome: Tonto Variant'. Try to maintain flow.
  • A few of the sections under Ceramic Typology need expanding. The short ones (such as Pinto Black-on-red) are really just basic discriptions which follow on the previous entries, meaning that the previous one must be read in order to understand the short one (and I've just written a very long sentence; don't do that). My suggestion would be that instead of having lots of level three headings, do something like (and I'll break off my review formatting here, and make it small):

  • Gila Black-on-red: Similar in dates, designs and geographic distribution to Gila Polychrome but without the white slip underlaying black paint.
  • Tonto Polychrome:' is found in higher frequencies on jars. The black on white designs are generally narrower bands than on Gila jars, or panels of decoration, and are surrounded by red slip. This type has a later starting date than Gila Polychrome, A.D. 1340 and an end date of 1450.
  • Cliff Polychrome: is identified by stylistic and morphological characteristics that distinguish it from Gila Polychrome. Dates given for this type range from A.D. 1300-1450.

...and so on. This is more useful when the article is this size it is now. If you choose to expand those short sections you can probably keep it as is.

  • "In their exhaustive study of Casas Grandes..." Exhaustive is a little redundant here, and it is very easy for you to be wrong (they would have to have missed something, however trivial).
  • "Escondida Polychrome is produced with locally available clay". A little problem with tense here.
  • I think parenthetical referencing is largely on the way out on Wikipedia. While the list at the end of the article is largely fine, it does make it quite hard to see where you have used the sources in the article. As the semi-automated review pointed out, footnotes are much better and can be better included in-text than the author-and-year system you've used. See WP:CITE#HOW and WP:REFB for more information on footnotes. However, this is just my own point of view. You may find editors who agree or disagree with me, but footnotes are certainly the norm on Wikipedia.
  • I want to congratulate you for getting involved enough to contact an expert. However, it is putting you into the danger zone with regards to one of Wikipedia's most important policies: original research. As the source you use there is not published it makes verification by others harder. Is there any other way you can get that opinion?
  • The article needs wikilinking (the blue links which go to other pages on Wikipedia) to appropriate pages. Help:Contents/Links (there's a link) has a comprehensive guide to wikilinking on Wikipedia. It just makes it easier for the reader to find out, say, where Alamogordo, New Mexico actually is.

Overall, this is a very nice article. For a first article this is beyond fantastic; it is informative, well researched and a good read. My advice to you would be to familiarize yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia. They should tell you all you need to know about Wikipedia and help you navigate and understand your way. You can respond to my comments here, or on my talk page. I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Good luck and happy editing! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postmature birth

edit
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 be edited for its general quality.

Thanks, HannahSharpe (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ErikvDijk (talk)

  • I've done a quick copy edit and added some wikilinks (links of words to other articles put [[]] around the word you want to link), but there are more therms that need links for further information. Only link once per therm per article though.
  • In general the article is well sourced. However in a number of places the tone of the writing should be more in line with an encyclopedia and not support page for women for instance: sections "How It's Done" and "What it feels like" and "risks" are not really encyclopedic. Try to write them in a more formal tone.
  • How is Post mature diagnosed? Just by noting time after supposed gestation? This not clearly mentioned?
  • Is there really nothing know about the causes?
  • I guess that apart from not knowing last menstruation also an irregular cycle can result in uncertain determination of gestation, correct?
  • In the section "Symptoms", it might be good to indicate that these symptoms can only be seen after birth.
  • How is a "Biophysical Profile" performed?

I hope that these comments help. ErikvDijk (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Vase winners

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A companion piece of List of FA Trophy winners, which is currently at FLC, and the general format is a straight crib, but I thought I'd best check if there were any egregious errors in the prose which might need ironing out.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk)
  • Are those image captions fragments?
  • "The record for the most wins is held by Billericay Town, with three wins." - not keen on too many "wins" here. Especially as you have "won" in the next sentence, could be made to sound more elegant?
  • "...currently held by AFC Fylde, then known as Kirkham & Wesham, ..." no context for "then..." at this point, so reads a little odd to the non-expert... maybe?
  • Does the final have extra time if required? If so (and the key says yes) then "...always been decided on the day, with a penalty shootout as required..." should probably have "... with extra time and a penalty shootout as required..." (worded a bit better than that...).
  • I'm a little unclear as to when prize is money is awarded - you say "that accumulated for winning earlier rounds" - is money awarded even at round one? (Just for my interest really)
  • Don't see a real need to wikilink the key as each subject is wikilinked just in the section above.

Hope that helps! I'm off to Singapore now... good luck! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time out from your globetrotting to look over the article. I've actioned your changes, although I'm still not 100% convinced that the bit about most wins reads too elegantly. As for prize money, it is indeed awarded by round all the way from the first qualifying round, where the winners currently get £800. I don't feel, though, that putting any further details about the workings of prize fund all the way through the competition really belongs in an article which is solely about the winners of the Vase - it should be in the main FA Vase article, and I will add it at some point, but I don't think it belongs here. If you feel it's too confusing as it stands, I could always just remove the "in addition to......" clause.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, the scores that have an * or † can be in line with the other scores if you add  † before the score. Have a look here to see what I mean as I can't get it to show up here. NapHit (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banker Horse

edit
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…this article is in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008. It needs a good review on about everything. I will take all the help I can get. :D

Thanks, Yohmom (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Reviewers: WIkiproject Equine has been watching and commenting on Yohmom's work here, and it has been outstanding. This article went from a stub to a very nice piece. We are fully supportive of Yohmom's efforts. Montanabw(talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for ther note - since there are over 20 of the AP Biology articles flooding peer review, would someone from WikiProject Equine care to actually do the peer review (pretty please ;-) ) Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch, I think most of the real active wikiproject Equine editors helped Yohmom, at least a little bit, so we are conflicted out, but I will ask around, should find a few people who haven't weighte in here. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DanaBoomer

Well, the good thing about PR is that it doesn't matter how much of a COI you have, you can still comment. That's one of the (many) nice things about it, as it allows all editors to comment and discuss the article, without there being a final yes/no decision like there is at GA/FA nominations.

Anyway, I've taken a look over the article, and have a few comments. I'm assuming that you want to take this article on to GA, so that's what I'm keeping in mind as I review the article.

  • The lead should be longer. Two paragraphs (not long ones, but not two sentences either) should be good. Make sure that the lead summarizes all sections of the article, but doesn't include any new information.
  • A couple more images would be nice, if you can find them. This isn't a GA requirement (and you already have a nice one in the lead), but try checking around to see if you can find any other good fair-use shots.
  • Make sure that there aren't spaces between punctuation and references in the body. The superscript number should come directly after whatever it's following, with no space in between.  Done
  • Make sure that the first time a ref appears in the body is when the full information is given. For example, ref 12 (Vorwald Dohner) is used four times, but the full information isn't given until the last use, and named refs are used for the first three times. Instead, have the full information in the first use, and use named refs for the last three times.  Done
  • Try not to be too abrupt with your prose. For example, in the Characteristics section, you say "Face shape is broad". Instead, try saying "The shape of the face is broad." Make sense?  Done
  • In the Breed history section, you say that there are "several theories", but then only give two. My dictionary defines several as "more than two, but not many", so please make this consistent.
  • There are a few hidden comments (probably left there by Montana, but I'm not totally sure) in places where more information/explanation should be given.

I've made a few tweaks to the article, just minor c/e stuff. I've watchlisted the article and this PR, so feel free to respond here with any questions you may have. Good luck with the article, it looks like you're doing a great job on this. This is especially true on the referencing - very nice work on the diversity and quality of the sources you've gathered. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bogbumper (Katie)

As Dana boomer has already said, this article is already looking great. The language is easy to understand, it seems pretty comprehensive and there's a good range of references. So just a few minor points for possible improvement from me.

  • Could/should the infobox have a little bit more detail?
  • Maybe a landscape photo of the islands would give some more context?
  • A bit more information on what Q-ac is? or maybe the sentence is self-explanatory
  • I don't know what a barrier island is, so a link or explanation there would be handy
  • Link to Francis Walsingham  Done
  • Check that numbers are rendered in numerals or spelled out as appropriate

Hope that helps. Bogbumper (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking in the Philippines

edit
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 bringing this subject to WP:GA status. I also would like to know how would I, and other editors as well, be able to improve the article. Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sky Harbor

This is my first PR, so I'm kinda nervous (I ran into it when I launched the third PR for Iloilo International Airport), but based on what I saw, here are a few suggestions:

  • The lead is too short and does not comprehensively cover the article's content.
  • The history can use some expansion. From where it currently stands, it's what I call "Friendster-centric". Maybe you can add information on the boom of Multiply, for example, or Facebook. Carmen Leilani de Jesus herself cited in one of the citations why Friendster became so popular (like how it was the first social networking site to launch in the Philippines), and a link in that citation notes how the Philippine boom was devastating business-wise, so try adding those as well.
  • Refs are missing in some places, particularly in the Statistics and Applications sections.

So far, those are what I can think of. If I find any more comments and/or suggestions, I'll be sure to add them in. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Atlantic hurricane season

edit
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 know what it needs before FAC. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks just from the lead. Seems to need a copyedit to meet Criteria 1A for FAC, content and refs and images seem fine.

  • Needs a comma:The first tropical cyclone, Tropical Storm Alberto[,] developed on June 30, while the last storm, Hurricane Gordon, dissipated on November 21.
  • Missing a verb / phrase here: During the year, a total of seven named storms, and 3 hurricanes [developed?]; the season was rather unusual in that it developed no major hurricanes, a hurricane of Category 3 status or higher.
  • Could the first sentence be expanded a bit and the third sentence be shortened to avoid redundancy? So The 1994 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average Atlantic hurricane season that produced seven named tropical cyclones, only three of which were hurricanes. ... The season was rather unusual in that it developed no major hurricanes, defined as Category 3 status or higher. (I think numbers below ten are to be spelled out)
  • Link Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale in the lead (first occurence)
  • I think Tropical Storm Debby killed nine people throughout its path in September. would be clearer as In September, Tropical Storm Debby killed nine people throughout its path.
  • The sentence Extreme flooding and mudslides caused approximately 1,122 fatalities in Haiti. needs to be linked to Gordon better.
  • The December nor'easter is only in the lead and not in the article at all. 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
  • With a some polish I think this will make a fine FA, but I do not think the language is there yet. Read it out loud slowly. Get a copyedit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything. Thanks for the helpful comments, and sorry I didn't respond sooner—I forgot to add this to my watchlist. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1950s Topps

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is my desire to improve the quality of the article 1950s Topps and related articles in this project (1960s Topps, 1970s Topps, etc.) Despite their lower importance I believe they can achieve a higher place on the quality scale. The progress of these pages has been slowed because of disagreements primarily with style and structure. I have tried to abide by the WP style guides and policies as best as possible. There has also been some content disputes, basically dealing with wether or not to have a more informative articles with predominantly written content or to have a list/gallery type of article. I have , for a time, desired more input from the community on this project. Unfortunately there has been a great deal of attention from disruptive users. IPs and socks have shown interest there and many of them have been banned because of the inability to use talk pages and mediation properly. However, in fairness to anyone interested in this project I think it is appropriate to open it to a broader and hopefully more civil forum.

Thanks, Libro0 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from casliber

edit

Sorry, I am flat out but I will see if I can see anything to work on from a quick look. I might be able to come back a bit later when I have more time. Apologies I cannot do anything substansive. Fascinating topic. Do you have a book or other offline literature on the material? There is little material currently - how big could a discussion be on market penetration and the rivalry? any good anecdotes? The Topps article is 44kb and so could grow a bit. My hunch would be that if there was not a huge amount more information to add, then focussing on this page as a list is better. If tehre is alot to add on the 1950s, that is whether it was a heyday etc. or loads of controversy, then this may be better as an article. has therer been a book wirtten about this, must have been (??). This would make writing this article a lot easier. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the literature on the subject I have listed on the pages already. There is more however, and I am trying to get through it. There actually is quite a long line of litigation with Topps and Fleer and to a lesser extent Donruss. I have been trying to find as much set information to get onto those pages as possible. Libro0 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black mamba

edit
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 know how I can make improvements for a possible GA article.

Thanks, Brain Dead 7 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Briefly, here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The first thing to do is to respond to the clean-up tags, particularly the big one above "Cultural references". Most of the references are to pop culture and so remote from the snake itself that I'd suggest removing them from the article. It would probably be possible to turn the best few into a paragraph or two of prose.
  • The other clean-up tag notes the lack of sources for the pest-regulation claim. Actually, the whole "Lifestyle" section lacks a source and needs one. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every statistic, every claim that might be challenged, and every direct quote. The in-line citation for a direct quote such as “Sudden movements will cause them to strike”, should appear directly after the quote.
  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. Ideally, it includes at least a mention of the main ideas in the text sections, but it doesn't include ideas that are undeveloped in those sections. The existing lead has physical descriptions of the snake, but the main text has no description section. On the other hand, the main text has a "Breeding" section, but the lead doesn't mention it. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Citations should include author name (if available), title, publisher, date of publication (if available), url (if a web source), and access date (if a web source). Some of the citations are complete, but many are not. The family of cite templates is handy for doing citations. Please see WP:CITE for a general explanation and WP:CIT for templates.
  • I'd suggest looking at the biology sublist of Featured Articles WP:FA for models to imitate. I don't see a snake on the FA list, but just looking at the section heads for Blue Iguana, for example, makes me wonder about "Taxonomy", "Distribution and habitat", and "Conservation" for the black mamba. These might give you some ideas for expansion.
  • If I were working on the article, I'd look for more sources, particularly scientific ones. A trip to the library might help.
  • You should deal with the complications discussed on the talk page of the Mamba article.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Romania

edit
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 eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. I've checked the article and it seems to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). However, we could use a fresh, neutral perspective.

I'm concerned about:

  • the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
  • possible omissions of references where needed.
  • possible use of peacock terms.
  • the appropriate length and number of pictures. Are there any unnecessary details which could be eliminated from the article?

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry to sound negative, but I think you will struggle to get any review of this article in its present form. It is far, far too long, with far, far too many images. If you look at the 10 flag articles that are featured, you will see that their average length is around 3,000 words, the longest being Portugal with 5,000. Yours has 11,000. Similarly, the featured articles have on average around 15 to 20 images. Yours - well, I lost count at 100-plus. It seems that you have not attempted to tailor your article into anything like the form that has been established for the best articles in this topic area. It appears, too, that you are not familiar with either WP:SIZE or WP:SUMMARIZE, or with Featured Article criterion 4.

My advice is that you reduce the length by at least two-thirds, and the number of images by at least three-quarters. I realise that you must have worked very hard to produce this article, but if you want it to be recognised with an appropriate rating, you will need to operate within the Wikipedia parameters. Brianboulton (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I'll try to split the article and reduce the number of images. --Alex:D (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting system

edit
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've worked pretty hard on it and brought it up to GA not too long ago but want to go farther. I've added a bit more information and copyedited it a little and have hit a wall. I think the article has pretty much all the information available and is very comprehensive, and I am interested in promoting this to a FA. Any input is welcome!

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008 - This is the kind of article I love to see move up the ranks. It's original and a treat for a sports fan like myself. These are all from the vantage point of an FAC reviewer who will be waiting eagerly for this to get there. Biggest problem I see is the quality of the citations.

  • This page strikes me as being half of an article and half of a list. I think that it's more the former, but be ready for that objection at FAC.
  • The table has a cite tag for Timo Perez. I recommend trying a New York Times search for articles on him. He was an important part of the Mets' World Series run in 2000, so maybe you'll get lucky.
  • Reference notes: The Baseball Cube isn't considered a reliable source at FAC yet. Use Baseball Reference if possible. JockBio isn't reliable either. Not certain about GoldSea or JapanBall. MLB 365 is a blog, which usually aren't reliable.
  • References 8 and 12 lack publishers, and I'm don't know if they are reliable. Finally, take the caps off references 4 and 33, as they aren't used even if present on the source itself.
  • Past postings: "Of the 37 Japanese-born players playing in the MLB, only twelve have entered the league using the posting system." I count 13 in the two tables.
  • History: "Unfortunately, neither team consulted with Irabu before finalizing the deal..." Remove the first word, as "unfortunately" is considered a point of view statement at FAC.

If you want more comments, please ask here or on my talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that I meant to ask for is something on how the system is received. The ESPN external link looks promising for criticism, and positive press may be out there too. Also, reference 10 doesn't have a publisher; missed that one earlier. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Borneo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it featured. I spent a lot of time expanding it, and I'd like some comments to improve it.

Thanks, iMatthew 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • Unlink common terms like United States
  • ", it was then" – ", and then it was"
  • "season -" – "season," or "season—"
  • "filmed during 2000" – "filmed in early 2000"
  • I'm wondering if the summary should be written in present or past tense. Television series are in present because it's as if we're watching it when reading it, but I understand that this is past because these were real events that happened in the past. Something worth thinking about.

Gary King (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I'll make all terms past tense tonight. iMatthew 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's already in past tense. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have some still in present, so I'll look it over again later. iMatthew 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SRX [TRUco]
  • Before the change to Survivor: Borneo, the season was known universally as Survivor: Pulau Tiga, and then it was changed again to its present title to avoid confusion with the tenth season, Survivor: Palau. - instead of and then -->but it was changed to it's present title...etc. (because it is very repetitive.
  • The show was filmed in early 2000 and aired later that year on CBS. - why not stated the exact dates, as they are in the infobox?
  • When ten players remained, the contestants "merged" into one tribe, named Rattana. - is it necessary to have merged in quotations? If emphasis is needed, why not place it in italics or link to it.
  • At the second immunity challenge, contestants were forced to eat a typical Malaysian food called Butok, live beetle. - are you trying to say which is live beetle here? As there needs to be some word before live beetle to explain that.
  • B.B. Anderson was sent home from the Pagong tribe. - there is no transition from the previous sentence to this one.
  • Like in pro wrestling articles, I recommend linking somewhere the Survivor Rules.
  • By reading the first paragraph, I am lost. It would be better if at some points it is stated on what day the events took place.--TRUCO 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with everything, and a comment. iMatthew 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • The show began filming on March 31, 2000, ending on April 20, 2000, and aired later that year on CBS. - Reads slightly oddly.
  • After 39 days of competition, corporate trainer Richard Hatch was named the Sole Survivor, defeating whitewater rafting guide Kelly Wiglesworth in a 4-3 jury vote. - Hyphen to en dash.
  • Over 6,000 people applied for the show, however only eight hundred were interviewed in sixteen different cities. - "Eight hundred" → "800".
  • During the first night, neither tribe had a completed shelter, or a fire. - Remove the comma after "shelter"
  • Later on, Gervase compared women to cows, which Joel Klug laughed at. - Excessive detail.
  • Gervase however couldn't claim immunity on day 30, as Richard won, and Gervase was voted out. - Expand contraction.
  • The DVD release of season one was released by Paramount Pictures in the U.S. on 11 May 2004, after it had completed broadcast on television. As well as every episode from the season, the DVD release features bonus material including commentary, interviews and behind-the-scenes featurettes. needs a source.
  • Aside from that, an overall copyedit would be helpful. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. iMatthew 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic brain injury

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to take this to FAC eventually, and would like any feedback, especially with respect to accuracy and completeness. Thanks much! delldot ∇. 07:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First of all I want to say that a fast look to the article has given a very good impression. I believe that in the short term this article will surely become FA. I am going to try to review from top to bottom, but it will take me quite a long time; so be patient. My interest in the article comes because I worked for 3 years in a Brain damage association where many of the participants had suffered TBI. Right now I do not work with TBI but I do work investigating neuropsychology of neurological pathologies (I am a psychologist). Anyway here goes a comment for the introduction of the classification.

Classification
Introduction
  • impairment of brain function without physical damage may also be included in the definition of TBI: First of all: how can we be sure that there has been no physical damage? It would be a good idea to say "apparent", since evidence comes from neuroimaging techniques which are not perfect. Secondly: is the reference the same one than for birth at the end of the sentence?: it is a ref about treatment: it would be probably better to search for a general review similar to the one of lancet and not one centred in treatment.
  • and trauma that takes place during birth is excluded from the definition.: better to add it to the next sentence which talks about the difference between congenital and acquired since it is a perinatal brain injury.
  • TBI is classified based on severity, location, mechanism of injury, and other injury characteristics.: They are possible classifications: I would say TBI can be classified...
  • Only as a way of not repeating skull: How about changing A depressed skull fracture occurs when pieces of the broken skull to when bone pieces...
  • A depressed skull fracture occurs when pieces of the broken skull press into the tissue of the brain.; TBI is one of two subsets of acquired brain injury (brain damage that is not congenital); the other subset is non-traumatic brain injury, which does not involve external mechanical force (examples include stroke, meningitis and insufficient oxygen);and Similarly, brain injuries fall under the classification of neurotrauma and central nervous system (CNS) injuries. need a ref (probably one of the already provided)
  • I'm glad you brought this up, it turns out that depressed skull fractures usually or commonly send pieces of bone into the brain but that's not part of the definition. So I removed this sentence as a bit of a tangent (there's a link to skull fracture in the previous sentence). Neurotrauma and CNS are done, still working on done with ABI. delldot ∇. 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come tomorrow. best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Garrondo, I'm thrilled to have a review from someone with your experience in the field, especially one so detailed as this. Take your time with the review, I certainly appreciate the time you're putting in. delldot ∇. 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give it another go.

Severity
  • A general comment: From my point of view entering into detail about the different scales makes the section a bit confusing and difficult to follow. I would try to simplify it.
  • The Glasgow Coma Scale is a universal system for classifying TBI severity.[2]: After this sentence I would give a sentence explaining what does it measure since people may think that it only measures coma, while it is really a consciousness scale.
  • In a similar system, the criteria are the same as listed in the table, except that trauma is only severe if unconsciousness and post-traumatic amnesia last for over a week.[14] Other classification systems use PTA or LOC alone or together.[12]: I feel this is too much specific: I would summarize it into something like: Similar variations have also been proposed and give the refs. (Or even simply eliminate the 2 sentences). My rationale is that going into such detail is only of interest for physicians and not for general reader.
  • Findings on the frequency of each level of severity vary based on the definitions and methods used in studies. A World Health Organization study estimated that between 70 and 90% of head injuries that receive treatment are mild,[15] and a US study found that mild and moderate injuries each account for 10% of TBIs, with the rest mild.[16]: This is truly epidemiology. I would create a separate subsection in epedimiology about severity.
  • The scales use duration of unconsciousness, post-traumatic amnesia, and other concussion symptoms to gauge severity.: This is an introductory sentence. Should go at the very begining of the section, before GCS. Or does it refer only to concussion? It is not clear. Also Unreferenced.
  • with at least 16 concussion grading scales in use.: Saying how many too much specific and also prone to change: Maybe in a few years only 1 is used or maybe 30. Probably better to say with different scales.
  • Can you give a wikilink to "resuscitation"? The medical meaning (at least in spanish) is not the same to the normal use meaning.
  • which can be helpful for comparing results of clinical trials or health care: I believe this is also too much specific and at the same time not inclusive enough since I do not think that this is the only purpouse of such scales. I would eliminate this part of the sentence.
  • An internal link for prognosis?: Not common knowledge for general reader.
  • according to the table at right: Personal preference: I do not like self reference comments such as this one. Is it really needed? I would say it is not.
  • I think I need this to reference the example after rearrangements made above, but yeah, the 'at right' was unnecessary so I took it out. I think there's a guideline in MOS somewhere, I'll try to find it. delldot ∇. 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come in the afternoon or tomorrow. Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More great stuff Garrondo, thanks much. I think this is really improving the article! delldot ∇. 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I can finish with focal and diffuse today but I'll try

Focal and diffuse
  • While useful, classification based on severity does not give information about the pathology of the injury or how to treat it; systems also exist to classify TBI by its features: Different problems with this sentence: while useful is an unneeded opinion, classification on severity does give info on treatment (at least on the need of chronic care)...: I would simply say: Systems also exist to classify TBI by its pathological features.
  • confined to one area of the brain or involving a wider area, respectively.: Diffuse does not depend on how big the area is: there can be a focal damage to the almost the whole brain. How about saying confined to specific areas or the brain or affecting it as a whole in an unspecific manner?: My wording is horrible so try to find a better way to say it, but involving area is uncorrect. Also a ref is needed
  • Types of injuries considered diffuse include concussion and diffuse axonal injury and shaken baby syndrome commonly manifests as diffuse injury.: I would succinctly explain what is diffuse axonal injury. The sentence on shaken baby syndrome: I believe it is too much specific and I would remove it or move it to the causes section: IT can be seen as a cause for diffuse axonal injury. Also unreferenced
  • Diffuse axonal injury is often associated with coma and poor outcome.[2]: this is prognosis

I have to go. Sorry, but I will have to continue on Monday this section.--Garrondo (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Garrondo, you're going far above and beyond what I could have asked or hoped for in a reviewer, I really appreciate it. delldot ∇. 02:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in a very stressful FAC, and right now I needed to feel useful; and this seemed a wonderful way: a very well written article in one of the themes a like most in a one-to-one talk to a person who does as much as he can to improve the article: feels great... At the same time I crossed with you at the Alzheimers FAC, and your comments were as many and as useful as I want mine to be. :-) Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue with Pathological features. Only a general note on style: I have seen that the word brain appears hundreds of times: many of them are needed but many others it is not since it is clear that all time we are talking about brain damage and brain location. It would be great if you can reduce its overuse.

Sounds good, I'll do a read-through for repetition and unnecessary wording. Always happy to find ways to cut it down. delldot ∇. 02:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • those that occur in a specific location in the brain: It has already been defined; not needed.
  • are often associated with symptoms corresponding to the part of the brain that was injured: This might be my neuropsychological bias but I would rather say something like: often produce symptoms related with the functions of the damaged area: the important thing is not directly the area, but the functions it holds.
  • for example manifesting in hemiparesis (partial paralysis on one side of the body) or other focal neurological deficits.: if you are going to say examples say also why they cause it. My proposal: often produce symptoms related with the functions of the damaged area, for example manifesting in hemiparesis or aphasia when motor or language areas are respectively damaged. Also a ref would be needed (I know it is well known facts, but at FAC there is some people prone to ask for them).
  • The section on hemorrages is very difficult to follow. Here is a reordering proposal, but I am not sure if it is correct. I assume that all hemorrages are hematomas. Is it true? I would also simplify the last sentences on extra-axial, centring the text only in location and not consequences so as to make it more easily readable:Another type of focal injury are hematomas. Hematomas are collections of blood in or around the brain.[1] They are divided in intracranial hemorrhage, which involves bleeding that is not mixed with tissue.[2] and intracerebral hemorrhage, with bleeding in the brain tissue itself. While the former is an extra-axial lesion the latter is intra-axial. Extra-axial lesions include epidural hematoma, subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intraventricular hemorrhage.[3] Epidural hematoma involves bleeding into the area between the skull and the dura mater, the outermost of the three membranes surrounding the brain.[1] In subdural hematoma, bleeding occurs between the dura and the arachnoid mater.[4] Subarachnoid hemorrhage, involves bleeding into the space between the arachnoid membrane and the pia mater.[4] Intraventricular hemorrhage occurs when there is bleeding in the ventricles.[3]
Good stuff, I'm using it with some changes. Hematomas are collections of blood that can result from hemorrhages. Intracranial hemorrhage covers all bleeding within the skull. I'll try to clarify, and will find refs for everything that's missing them. delldot ∇. 05:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later or tomorrow; but after a quick glance at signs and symtoms I believe that the section would have to be expanded: it is centred in the acute or subacute stage, but not much is said about the chronic stage. Maybe it would be a good idea to subdivide the section is these 3 stages and talk about each of them, since the signs and symptoms are quite different. Best regards.

I covered the longer term results in complications. There's so many of them that any section that covers it is going to be vast; in fact a spinoff, complications of traumatic brain injury, has been created. As I understand it symptoms is more for the earlier, clinical bases for diagnosis, and complications covers the later stuff. But I'm glad to reorganize if necessary, let me know what you think should be done when you read it. delldot ∇. 05:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since this is a peer review and not a FAC proccess there is no time rush and we can always come back to a section. Lets leave it for the moment like this and we'll see later. Just for curiosity, where are you from? I ask it because you edit exactly in the opposite hours I do it :-) Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll solicit others' input, too. I'm on the east coast of the US, at UTC -5. At least we'll never edit conflict each other! :P delldot ∇. 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking on the section and I believe that complications should be unified with signs and symptoms. I would do a small introduction and then leave the signs and symptoms as short-term and complications as long-term, or complications. Main reasons are because there is not a complications section is MEDMOS and also because the word complication gives the feeling that something has gone wrong, while the truth is that most patients with moderate or severe will have them. --Garrondo (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could rename 'complications' to 'long-term effects' or 'consequences' to avoid that connotation (although some things mentioned are definitely complications, e.g. DVT). I'm more interested in producing a high-quality article than on adhering strictly to MoS, even if it means a harder time at FAC, so I'd rather consider the naming of the sections based on what works best in this article. MEDMOS wasn't really written with trauma articles in mind, it seems. I'm reluctant to move long term effects up because the page is at the moment somewhat chronological (e.g. prevention and diagnosis before treatment). It would seem odd to be discussing the long-term effects so early on in the article, before issues like acute treatment are discussed. Also, I don't really think of long-term disability as 'symptoms'; I think of the latter word as meaning 'clinical indicators on which to base a diagnosis'. Discussion on disability could be moved to under prognosis maybe, that's how subarachnoid hemorrhage does it. At any rate, I'll certainly be thinking on what to do about it and we can keep discussing it throughout this review. delldot ∇. 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably your decision. Maybe a good name (a bit long anyway would be "consequences and complication", since as you say some are not complications but long-term effects and other are truly complications. Regarding position; if it is left down on the page I would write a few lines in the signs and symptoms, something like a summary. Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had much time today but I'll keep working. Thanks again Garrondo, this is great stuff. delldot ∇. 05:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until we take a decision about the signs and symptoms section I jump to next section.

Causes
  • General comment: My main problem with this section is that it gives some figures but it is not said where do they apply. I do not think they are world-wide, (probably US). Other articles on TBI epidemiology-causes in other countries would be needed or even better world wide. I cannot do a more in-depth revision of the section until it is expanded to give a world-wide view or at the very least say where the sentences provided apply. Anyway some minor comments:
  • and has been identified as the "signature injury" among wounded soldiers of the current military engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq: it is unneeded and quite US-centric and recentist.
  • United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: give only the initials to summurise
  • Image:the most common is falls, followed by vehicle accidents, then striking or being struck by something: Not needed: info is in the image, main text and ref.

Best regards... More to come following days (I hope you are not in a rush... I have a lot of work these days and I only have less than half an hour a day for wikipedia.).--Garrondo (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush at all, take your time. I have plenty to catch up on (I'm not ignoring your earlier comments, just haven't had time to get to them all). I'll work on expanding the causes section to give it a worldwide view. Thanks again, this is really good input. delldot ∇. 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a FAC so take those comments that you find useful and do not take those you don't like, and anyway... take your time. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I begin with the mechanism section. Little by little we are approaching the end... :-)

Mechanism
  • General comments: I know you have said that you do not want to strictly follow medmos, however I would include mechanism inside the causes section either as a subsection or simply after the causes text. The reason is that I feel that mechanism and causes are very closely related, having each kind of cause an specific kind of mechanism. (And you simplify the firs level structure of the article, which right now is a bit complicated and ease things at FAC)
  • I see what you're saying but I don't think causes and mechanism are that closely related; causes is about the history, whereas mechanism focuses on the types of forces involved. However, mechanism and pathophysiology are kind of related, and MEDMOS calls for "Pathophysiology or mechanism". What do you think of combining the two sections to "Mechanism and pathophysiology"? I've done this as a trial thing, not sure if I like it or not. delldot ∇. 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph: I would simplify it a lot since it is quite difficult to follow. I would leave the paragraph simply like this: The type, direction, intensity, and duration of forces all contribute to the characteristics and severity TBI.[2] Forces that may contribute to TBI include angular, rotational, shear, and translational forces with refs 19 and 37 after it. Rationale is that everything after is too much specific, saying what each kind of force produces. After it I will continue with Even in the absence of an impact...
  • Shock waves can also destroy tissue along the path of a projectile in penetrating injuries through a cavitation injury mechanism: Ok, this is probably true (I did not know it), however you haver forgotten to say that the the projectile itself causes a direct damage (You probably forgot due to its obviousness... :-)
  • In impact loading, the force sends shock waves through the skull and brain, resulting in tissue damage.[19] Shock waves can also destroy tissue along the path of a projectile in penetrating injuries through a cavitation injury mechanism.[14] Pressure waves propagate through the tissue, forcing it out of the way and creating a temporary cavity; the tissue quickly moves back into place, but is damaged.: Maybe it could be summarized into something like: Shock waves can also destroy tissue in penetrating injuries, through a cavitation injury mechanism, or after impact loading.
  • The mechanism, especially for contrecoup injuries, is a subject of much debate; potential mechanisms include the effects of inertia on the brain within the skull, movement of the cerebrospinal fluid that surrounds the brain,[39] and inbending of the skull.[19]: I would eliminate this sentence:

the info does not add much very interesting since it is too much specific.

  • Image: it is a great image, however right now in most computers it is out of the section due to the causes section image. Until the causes section is expanded it might be a good idea to leave any one of the two in the talk page.
  • I'm not happy with the image placement currently either, but I've decided to postpone worrying about it until I have a more final draft; I'm sure so many changes will take place that it'll get worked out in the end. You're right though, this will have to be fixed before taking it to FAC. Of course, suggestions are welcome. delldot ∇. 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed quite a lot of eliminations in this section to ease the following and structure of the section. Since the info is correct and it is a pity to loose it I would post it in the talk page until a secondary article is created (Maybe one about causes and mechanism in the near future?). More to come:

Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey... Today I have some more time and I am also going to attack the pathophisiology section.

It is the section I know less, but I will still try:

Pathophisiology
  • First paragraph sounds great
  • changes in the blood flow to the brain; hypotension (low blood pressure) and isquemia,: They should be together since they are all blood-flow related. How about Other factors in secondary injury are changes in the blood flow to the brain such as ischemia (insufficient blood flow) or hypotension (low blood pressure)...
  • ...intracranial pressure (the pressure within the skull).[45] Intracranial pressure may rise due to swelling or a mass effect from a lesion: A minor simplification could be intracranial pressure (pressure within the skull), which can rise due to swelling or a mass effect from a lesion
  • Good suggestion, but I'm not sure how to implement it. In the first sentence, which is already quite long? Or in the second sentence, which would leave the first mention without the definition? delldot ∇. 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is reduced; ischemia (insufficient blood flow to tissues) results: isquemia has already been defined. Info in brackets is not needed.
  • in which parts of the brain are squeezed past structures in the skull: is this sentence correct? What means past here?
  • or potentially deadly herniation: Potentially deadly is not needed since most complications commented (hypotension, ischemia...) are also potentially deadly.
  • No medication exists to halt the progression of secondary injury,[36] but the variety of pathological events presents opportunities to find treatments that interfere with the damage processes.[2] For example, mechanical ventilation and fluid resuscitation seek to ensure adequate oxygen and fluid levels respectively.[47]: All these is treatment. I think it should be moved
  • Moved the first sentence to Research directions, where it creates a nice intro for the relevant idea (We're working on finding ways to interfere with secondary injury processes). The fluid and ventilation is already covered in treatment, so removed. delldot ∇. 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's it for today...As you have probably seen in my talk page I am spanish; and here is 8 pm, so as you said we will hardly have edit conflicts. This is the longest peer-review I have done (It is truly only my second peer-review), and I hope you find it useful. Anyway, I promise that as soon as I finish with it I will closely collaborate with you to take it to FA. At the same time if you need, I have access to most medical journals, so if you need access to an specific article you can ask me. Best regards, and see you tomorrow :-)--Garrondo (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful, I'm so excited you're willing to work so much on it, and collaborate to take it to FA! Journal access is a terrific resource. These past two installments are more great stuff, I'm sorry I've been tied up lately but this is definitely my top WP priority. I'll tackle it all as soon as I can and am delighted to have your continued help as long as you're willing to give it. delldot ∇. 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next week I have to go to a congress so I doubt I'll have time to do anything. Take your time to think over my proposals. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, take your time, I'll work on the points I missed on my first run-through. Thanks again! delldot ∇. 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks better. As I told you I don't have much time this week. I have taken a quick glance at diagnosis; but I will have to read it much more in depth. However two minor comments: Best regards --Garrondo (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diagnosis
  • the abbreviation of each technique appears in brackets; however only MRI and CT are used later in text. You can eliminate all others since the complete name and a wikilink is given (EEG, PET, fMRI, SPECT)
  • Does not have sense to name neuropsychological tests and neuropsychological evaluation: I would only leave the latter. They can get to the first one from neuropsychological evaluation. On the other hand neuropsychological tests is only a list with MANY MANY red links...

Back again. I think this week I will have some more time to review the article. I have reread the diagnosis section and I have multiple issues with it:

  • Diagnosis is suspected based on clinical evidence and confirmed using neuroimaging.[3] In addition, medical personnel perform a neurological examination, for example checking whether the pupils constrict normally in response to light and assigning a Glasgow Coma Score: In addition? neurological examination is almost the main method to obtain clinical evidence. I would mention history or description of the lesion; which is not exactly clinical evidence; and combine clinical evidence and neurological examination in some way.
  • medical personnel: is probably redundant: most people would assume that a neurological examination is carried out by medical personnel.
  • confirmed using...: Is this always true? I would better say usually confirmed: On the one hand in some countries access to neuroimaging is scarce; on the other neuroimaging can not always confirm diagnosis as it has already been stated when speaking about concussion.
  • Imaging tests: As I psychologist it sounds very strange to me the word test here. I always assume that a test needs of some cut-off value to classify people. How about "procedures"?
  • gold standard radiologic imaging test: gold standard is a dangerous expression: it may be the most commonly used; however MRI is more accurate and therefore it can also be termed as the gold-standard.
  • X-ray may be used to check for fractures, but evidence suggests it is not useful for head trauma evaluation: I am not very sure of the meaning of this section since it seems to contradict itself.
  • which uses a powerful magnetic field to produce images: This info is not needed: it already appears in the link and it is not given for any of the other methods named
  • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which uses a powerful magnetic field to produce images, can show more detail than X-rays or CT, and can add information about expected outcome in the long-term treatment of TBI (...) MRI is more useful than CT for detecting some injury characteristics in the longer term: This two sentences right now are separated; however they are both advantages of MRI. Can they combined in a single sentence or consecutive sentences? Also the second sentence seems vague; I would add some injury characteristics in the longer term such as...
  • Xenon-enhanced CT and single photon emission computed tomography can measure cerebral blood flow.[50] Functional magnetic resonance imaging can show activity in specific regions, and Positron emission tomography can show changes in cerebral blood flow and metabolism; these findings can help predict outcome The aim of all these four is similar although the methodology they use is different. Maybe it could be simplified into something like: Xenon-enhanced CT, SPECT fMRI and PET can measure cerebral blood flow or metabolism; inferring neuronal activity in specific regions. These findings can help predict outcome.: Since in this case methods are not as common or important I would only use abreviattions with links instead of full names.
  • Although not directly related with this article it would be great if you could create a stub from xenon-enhanced CT: I hate red links; but I now nothing about this technique.
  • Last paragraph: I'll try to rewrite it today or tomorrow since it has some minor conceptual mistakes.

Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention

edit

Today I have read the prevention section. My first impression is that it is a bit disordered and with some redundancies. It could be simplified. I would say there are 3 main directions for prevention: 1-prevention of traffic accidents and reduction of their consequences; 2-Reduction of sports accidents 3-Reduction of house accidents and children brain damage. The section would be better ordered around this 3 themes creating 3 different paragraphs with the information around each theme in a separate paragraph. Maybe it would also be a good idea to specifically search for a review article which treats TBI prevention, prevention measures and their efficacy, instead of generally TBI. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separated into 3 paras, will look for review article. delldot ∇. 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Garrondo, this is more great stuff! I'm not quite done with this batch, I'll finish later. delldot ∇. 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a new pass on these two sections, since I have more new ideas: --Garrondo (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A proposal for the first paragraph of diagnosis (You can add first sentence of 2nd par since it mostly says the same. I have also added comment on lesion circumstances): Diagnosis is suspected based on lesion circumstances and clinical evidence, most prominently a neurological examination, for example checking whether the pupils constrict normally in response to light and assigning a Glasgow Coma Score. Neuroimaging helps in determining the diagnosis and prognosis and in deciding what treatments to give.

I will continue later

I have reordered and changed a bit the diagnosis section according to my own comments above since it would have taken me much more effort to explain them here than to go on with them: feel free to comment if you don't agree. My aim was both to simplify and give more order to the section.--Garrondo (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much improved in terms of order and logic. Definitely feel free to make edits yourself if it's easier for you, I certainly don't mind that. Thanks again for the work you're putting in here. Hopefully I'll get a chance to address the comments I haven't gotten to yet today. delldot ∇. 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I a similar way I have a summary proposal for the first paragraph of prevention: I have added an introduction line and reordered most of the information. I have also eliminated the mentions in children, since they are only examples and with the ones already presented I believe its enough: I have not added yet; so do it yourself if you believe its worth, but I am quite happy with the result.: --Garrondo (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since a major cause of TBI are vehicle accidents, their prevention or the amelioration of their consequences can both reduce the incidence and gravity of TBI. In case of accident, damage can be reduced with the use of seat belts, child safety seats,[5] and motorcycle helmets,[6] or presence of roll bars and airbags.[2] Education programs exist to lower the number of crashes.[7] In addition, changes to public policy and safety laws can be made to reduce the number of accidents or their sequels, these include speed limits, seat belt and helmet laws, and road engineering practices.[8]

Some more comments with the prevention section (second par):--Garrondo (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changes to common practices have also been discussed with regard to prevention of TBI: I would add in sports after common practices; and I would eliminate the comment to army; so the paragraph only talks about sports. It would be easier to follow.
  • for example a reduction in alcohol abuse: The for example is unneeded. It is clear is an example.
  • Design of protective equipment can be improved to prevent injuries; research toward this end includes Head Impact Telemetry System technology placed in sports and military helmets to measure and record impacts to the head.[51: I would completely eliminate this sentence: it may be too much specific, the ref is not of good quality, and it is probably still under research (At most it would be more suitable for the research directions section, with a better ref)
  • In sports, improved helmet...: if you follow my previous proposals "in sports" would not be needed.
  • Sports commented (baseball and I suppose American football): Too much american centred: In Europe both are very rare games. It would be great to change one of them for another sport, such as soccer (or any other). If info on spear tackling is kept it should about which sport are we talking about; I had no idea.
  • I'll add more rather than taking info out. I think the soccer idea is a good one, I'll look into that. I've heard of a mild head injury health concern with soccer, but I don't know if that should go on this article or concussion. delldot ∇. 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph of prevention: sounds Ok. I would only make a search in pubmed to see if enforcement of laws reducing availability of fire arms reduces TBIs (in a country where almost nobody has firearms as mine last sentence sounds a bit strange. :-) Similarly the epidemiology image would be very different in Europe: TBIs by firearms are very very rare. (In my experience out of 200 people I met with TBI only 1 was due to firearm. Next week I'll move on to next sections. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, another good point about US-centeredness. This statistic is probably only valid in the US. Should I remove the chart and info altogether? I doubt other places will have as detailed statistics. delldot ∇. 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the chart; since it is an example and gives "color". However the text would have to say that epidemiology varies from countries and comment differences between countries that can help somebody to get an image of epidemiology in different countries and zones. As traumatic brain injury moves a lot of money due to insurances I am sure there will be statistics for almost any country: At least for Europe there has to be plenty of them. Insurance companies spend a lot of money investigating TBI; and specially epidemiology.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be of use: PMID 16311842, PMID 18162698, PMID 11783750

As a side comment: the last par on diagnosis (the one on neuropsychological deficits) is one more reason why I believe that long term symptoms (or sequels) should be combined with symtoms: Until this section we have only talked of short-term deficits, but here we give a paragraph on diagnosis of the long term symptoms; only to talk about them in a complications section. We still have time to discuss it; but the more I read of the article the more convinced I am (And we will also go with MEDMOS). Have a good weekend. Monday is holidays here so I doubt I will do anything in the article (I do not have internet at home; too expensive). Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. I'll bring others into the discussion of what to do with long- and short-term symptoms, and I have plenty to catch up on from this peer review so take your time! delldot ∇. 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

edit

Although the peer-review has been closed; I have decided to continue it here, to ease the following of the proccess. The treatment section is going to be a hard one to review, since its one of the longest; and secondly I do not know as much about treatment as for other sections. I think I have some info at home for families about rehabilitation of TBI depending of the phase. If I find it it may be of use to clarify the section. --Garrondo (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment
Introduction
  • I would create a first introductory paragraph. I have made a proposal directly in the article. Tell me what you think. The section is too long and it eases the understanding acting as a summary.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • people with mild traumatic brain injuries may need nothing more than rest and treatment for symptoms like pain.: Reference needed.
  • maintaining adequate cerebral blood flow, and controlling blood pressure.: is there a difference between the two?
Damage prevention: New section created from what was the first paragraph
  • Hypotension (low blood pressure), which has a devastating outcome in TBI: why is it so devastating?
  • I assume because not enough blood flow to the brain, but I think the reasons aren't totally clear (see e.g. [6]). It's very strongly correlated with poor outcome though. Should I change 'has' to 'is correlated with'? delldot ∇. 15:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other methods to prevent further damage include endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation: I would change it to: endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation may be used to ensure proper oxygen supply. I would also move to follow the sentence on hypotension. This way we follow the structure proposed in the introduction par.
  • Next sentence would remain as: Other methods to prevent further damage include management of other injuries, and prevention of seizures.
  • in rare cases paralytic agents, and antipsychotics only if absolutely necessary (because they can prolong recovery).: if they are only used in rare cases I would not mention them. They could be eliminated; since it is entering technicities of interest only for professionals.
  • Certain facilities are equipped to handle TBI better than others are; care involves bringing the patient to such specialist facilities: I feel this is important; but it breaks the "flow of the paragraph". It seems like a pastiche; but I do not where could we move it. Maybe to the introduction paragraph?
  • deteriorating condition: could be simplified with only the word deterioration
Control of intracranial pressure
  • I would initiate the par with a line explaining why raised ICP is dangerous
  • it may require ventriculostomy, a procedure that drains cerebrospinal fluid from the ventricles: I would add surgical before procedure for more explanation.
  • Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, moves water across the blood–brain barrier and improves cerebral blood flow to the injured area.[2] However it appears likely that studies suggesting that mannitol was of use[60][61][62] were falsified.[63] Studies have found insufficient evidence to make recommendations about its use and have found that hypertonic saline may be more effective.[46]: This may be too much complicated. A possible simplification: Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic,[9] was also studied for this use,[10][11][12] but such studies have been heavily questioned. [13]Hypertonic saline may be more effective.[14]
  • If simplified as proposed I would combine the 3 pars into only 1.

A general comment about all the article: For example is used too many times along the article, and many of them could simply be eliminated. In the following par: Craniotomy, in which part of the skull is removed, is required in about a third of severe TBIs. For example it may be needed to remove pieces of fractured skull or other objects that have become imbedded in the brain. Nothing happens if you eliminate the "for example".

I've done a purge! These are great suggestions, always happy to find new ways to remove fluff. Thanks again Garrondo, I'll finish up with your suggestions as soon as I can. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments on treatment
  • Firstly a comment that I made in the treatment section that you have not followed: I am sure if I was not clear enough, you do not feel they are needed, or simply you did not have time: I think that a sentence on both the hypotension and ICP saying why they are dangerous would be most welcomed.
  • Done now, sorry for the delay. There are several points I'm not caught up on just because I haven't had a lot of time for editing lately. I hope to catch up on them when I get time. delldot ∇. 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surgery section
  • It would also be great if you could create a mini-stub for mass lesions: creating stubs instead of red links is a great way of improving the encyclopedia.
  • Wikilinks for suction (medical) (I do not know if it exists), and for forceps?
  • This procedure, termed "primary DC", is relatively uncontroversial.[67] When DC is performed hours or days after TBI in order to control high intracranial pressures, it is termed secondary DC.[67] A controversial procedure under ongoing study, it has not been shown to improve outcome in all trials and may be associated with severe side effects.[2] Could be simplified into: during operations to treat hematomas; part of the skull is removed temporarily (primary DC).[67] When DC is performed hours or days after TBI in order to control high intracranial pressures, it is termed secondary DC.[67] Secondary DC has not been shown to improve outcome in some trials and may be associated with severe side effects.[2]
Rehabilitation
During the acute stage of rehabilitation: I would change rehabilitation with recovery, since rehabilition implies some short of programmed action; which is not the case. I would leave rehabilitation for the sub-acute stage.

Some more later...--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks great, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Feel free to move it if you had a better place in mind. Also always feel free to edit the article yourself if you want! You're always on point anyway. delldot ∇. 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I am going to try to rewritte the full section: Give me a few days.

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast

edit
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 bring it to FAC soon. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only two things that I really noticed. I would try to massage the lead to make this more about being a tech demo than an additional level (since it was mainly to boast about HDR), which brings me to the second point, that I would try to see if it's possible to establish if the plot for this level is part of the HL2 story, or if it is clearly not possible to say that; you say it was a scrapped level in terms of gameplay but not for plot itself.
  • You absolutely need a source about the fisherman being the first non-model character to justify the picture for it.
  • On the non-vs-HDR pic, you may want to include in its description and/or caption what the reader should be looking at to compare. I can tell differences from the beach at the bottom but that's all I can readily see. (This may require a different split comparison)
  • You may want to brush up all the rataionles a bit. You have 4 non-frees for a single level - and while this isn't excessive, you need to have the reasoning for them spotless to have fewer problems at FAC. --MASEM 14:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I bulleted your points to make it easier to read and go through. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're really going to have to work on your nomination statements there, Gary. Anyhow on the image front:
    • You've got four fair use images. Way I see it, you can keep the logo, and maybe one other as defensible. The issue is that the images are either muddy and not high-res enough to really allow for subtle details that would distinguish this game from its predecessors. On the other hand, Image:Hl2 lostcoast fisherman.jpg doesn't show too much of the graphics technologies and is way too high resolution (man, is his hat texturing nice, though.) Considering its such a short article, I would suggest trying to find one really good image that can show multiple graphical elements; that way you can defend a higher resolution as necessary for critical commentary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just contradict yourself by saying that none of the images were high-res enough and then saying that the fisherman one was too high res? :) Anyways, I'll remove fisherman and sanctuary and keep the comparison, which I find the most useful visually speaking for explaining the differences. I'll ask Sabre for his suggestions on other images. Gary King (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but just see if you can get a cleaner shot :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the choice, I would retain the comparison one, although I would have liked to retain the interior one as well as that also shows a whole bunch of effects that you can't get outside. As such, a combined image displaying both isn't possible. As for getting a cleaner shot, that's also not possible. The image is a straight screenshot from an official video by Valve, it doesn't come in any higher quality than that (the video's here). You can make out the essentials in it though: the blurring of the skyline from the bloom, the hot whitespots in the water, the reflections off the wet sand, etc etc, despite its slighly unwieldy low quality -- Sabre (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't wrangle up someone who has the game to take some screenshots from the games and merge them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you put it that way. I have both the game and a computer that is capable of running it all on high. I'll need a few days, haven't access to it at the moment. -- Sabre (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashnard comments
  • "Lost Coast is designed with a" Has been? Was?
  • "and consensus was that" Among whom—fans, reviewers, both?
  • Should be a very brief statement explaining HL2 gameplay in lead.
  • "For most of the level, the player maintains control of the player character, except for a brief moment at the beginning and end of the level." It's hard looking at this sentence end without explanation of the alternative.
  • "A head-up display at the bottom of the screen shows the player's health, energy, and ammunition status, while a toggle screen shows available weapons at the top." For health and energy, surely it is the gauge/meter they are showing. Instead of specifying, this could be linked to Health (game mechanic) to save a disjointing explanation. "toggle screen" is jargon.
  • I think there's a length issue with the story. As I understand it, this is the plotline of a single level. It seems to me that it has been over elaborated so that the length has semblance of that of a video game article. This section should be roughly proportionate to the length of the story, within reason. This sections seems to detail every one of Gordan's actions sequentially. Apologies if I've misinterpreted the section.
  • "The first attempts at implementing HDR rendering in Source were in late 2003." Could spruce the up a little bit by writing "Valve first attempted to..". To avoid repetition, start the next sentence with "They tested ..."
  • Not a fan of "allowed for", especially when repeated multiple times in one paragraph. I can spot many points in the paragraph where the same words are used repeatedly, even in the same sentence.
  • "Refraction effects were also added, making light account for the physical attributes of an object, such as a stained glass window, and emulating the way light is reflected by water." A dodgy and nonsensical sentence. You could try splitting it into two. Same withy the following sentence; needs some work.
  • "but was later discarded during development". Any reason?
  • "Lost Coast features minor storyline details that were scrapped from". I don't think I have to say what's wrong here.
  • "Valve announced on May 30, 2007 that Lost Coast, along with Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, would be made available for free to owners of ATI Radeon cards,[15] and was later released without charge to Nvidia graphics card owners along with Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Peggle Extreme, and the first eleven levels of Portal". Awkward sentence. Starting with "and", it seems the info should be reserved as its own sentence as it reads as if this is been announced, but does not fit that concept.
  • "Elliott continued by praising the game's commentary system, calling it an informative addition and enjoyed the" Strange as you're making a transition between describing his actions as a reviewer and then just describing him as a passive character, if that makes sense.
  • "UGO's Nigel Grammer stated that Lost Coast considered gameplay secondary, and also voiced that the level was short." Lost Coast considered this? Secondary to what? Voiced?
  • The "Reception" section is decent, although, when looking at it, it is three accounts of three reviewers' views. Can anything else be said, or found even?
  • Ref 15 is missing author info.
  • This is not a question about filling references, but who has written the walkthroughs sourced here?

Okay, a very solid article. I find that this article's main problem is repetition in prose, which I find is more frequent as the article progresses. The article would really benefit from added "Reception"; maybe some fan reaction? Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. There isn't much else available for the Reception section, but I'll keep looking. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Italian Grand Prix

edit
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 to know if there's anything I've missed before I nominate it for GA (I don't think I'll take this to FAC). The template we are following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is stylistically identical to 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which has been PR'ed here. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's comments

Lead

Before we get started, is it just me who reads formally as formerly in all these race reports? Anyway onto the PR:

I had to read it a couple of times at first, but you get used to it. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Me too, but it is entirely logical... 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Rain early in the race allowed Vettel to establish a solid lead over Kovalainen, giving him his first Formula One victory." - Sentence implies the two things are linked, while in reality, the early rain was only part of what gave him the victory.

Background

Practice and qualifying

  • "Both sessions lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes." - Not sure about this, personally I don't like seeing "1 hour" with a figure, but I realise the MOS says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". Any of these look better: "lasted one hour and thirty minutes", "lasted one and a half hours", "lasted an hour and a half"?
  • "Adrian Sutil was quickest with a time of 1:32.842 in the first session, more than half a second quicker than Rubens Barrichello and Giancarlo Fisichella." - Better as "...quicker than the next fastest drivers Rubens..."?
  • "The session was eventually called to a halt with four minutes to go" - eventually seems unnecessary: to my knowledge, there was no delay or anything to the session. "Called to a halt" - simpler as stopped?
  • "Vettel became the youngest driver in the [[history of Formula One]] to take pole position" - Link to History of F1 doesn't add much. The link you do want to get in there somewhere is [[List of Formula One driver records#Youngest pole position winners]] - it might mean reworking the sentence.
  • "The performance was McLaren's only result outside the top ten in qualifying all season." Bit clunky - needs rewording. Avoid "the performance" if possible.
  • "Jenson Button and Kazuki Nakajima began the race from the pitlane" - Really picky, but I tend to prefer "started" to "began" when referring to F1. It's generally the way others view it too; officially the FIA have a start procedure, not a begin procedure. It's the start/finish line not the beginning/end line.
    • I changed that bit. I understand what you mean, but I'm generally trying to provide some kind of variety in the text, so I use both "started" and "began". I usually use what seems best in the context. Saying "started" all the time would probably look a little clunky. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The race began at 14:00 local time (UTC+1) behind the safety car." - those last four words are buried away slightly, considering that such an event is not a normal procedure. The reader may be asking for example 'Why did we start behind the safety car?' and 'What does it mean to start behind the safety car'.
  • "Emerging ahead of the Ferrari, he gave the place back." - explain for the unfamiliar reader, he gave the place back to avoid being penalised for taking an unfair advantage.
  • "Coulthard was the first driver to try intermediate wet-weather tyres when he pitted on lap 28." - Last we heard about the weather was "Rain began to fall again on lap 26." What happened between 26 and 28 for DC to downgrade his wets to inters?
  • "Vettel crossed the finish line on lap 53 by 12.512 seconds over Kovalainen" - Is ten-thousandth second accuracy (something like 0.0008% of 12.5seconds) really necessary here?
    • I had that there as we have lap times to the thousandth, but it's not a huge loss if I drop it to 12.5, so I did. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this is quite a common 'mistake' to be made, not just in F1 articles, but generally. Just because we know something to quite a few decimal places doesn't mean we have to use them all. Three dp accuracy is great for things like qualifying laps where there's very little between them, but for comfortable race victory margins, we don't need them all. Try and think how accurate a TV commentator for example would give the figures. AlexJ (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Räikkönen finished in ninth position, just outside the points," - using "the points" like that might be jargon to the unfamiliar reader.
    • I don't actually think mentioning "points" at all there is necessary.

Post-race

  • "As the race winner, Vettel appeared on the podium and in the subsequent press conference." - Perhaps better to mention here that the top-three attended the podium & PC rather than have "Kovalainen and Kubica joined Vettel on the podium and press conference." later on.

Other stuff

  • WRT references, you seem to have relied entirely on FIA, FOM (a primary source and a subject affiliated source) and Autosport (the only independent source used). For a bit of variety, is there anything on BBC Sport/GrandPrix.com than could be used for referencing?

As you can see, had to try a lot harder to find anything to mention with this one, so well done for that. Any questions with what I've said, just ask. AlexJ (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Useful advice as ever. I think I'm getting the hang of this (doesn't make it any easier!) And thanks for being so prompt again. Japan next... Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
  • Lead: "Rain early in the race allowed Vettel to establish a solid lead over Kovalainen, which gave him his first Formula One victory." That undersells it a bit doesn't it? It wasn't just the rain early in the race, he maintained a front-running pace to the end (from memory, Hamilton was the only one who looked as if he might take victory from him). It was also the first victory for Toro Rosso (former Minardi, minnows of F1, blah, blah) and makes Vettel the youngest F1 race winnner! Can we beef that section up a bit? I know he made it look easy, but it really was a remarkable performance.[citation needed]
  • Background: "Heading into the 14th race of the season, McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was leading" replace "was leading" with "led"? Not sure why, just seems better...
  • Background: "...Hamilton was leading the Drivers' Championship with 76 points; Ferrari driver Felipe Massa was second on 74 points, two points behind Hamilton." Do we need to specify both that Massa was on 74 points and that he was two points behind?
  • Background: "Robert Kubica was third on 58 points in a BMW, with Massa's Ferrari team-mate Kimi Räikkönen fourth on 57 points". More concise to say "BMW's Robert Kubica"? Not sure the joining word here should be "with" - wouldn't "and" be more appropriate? In what way is Kubica with Raikkonen?
  • More to come. 4u1e (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LeaveSleaves comments

I didn't read most of the comments above. So if I'm repeating any of the concerns already answered, please ignore them.

Lead:

  • Is it just me or does somebody else feels that the second paragraph actually has nothing to do with the race? It feels more of a comment, something that a magazine article or an editorial would say. I don't feel such a comment should be included, at least in the race. On the other hand I notice there is no mention in rest of the article about drivers' attitude in this race towards chicane cutting. I read/heard this repeatedly being commented that drivers were conservative in overtaking and were rescinding their advantage rather immediately on slightest doubt.
    • I think both of those comments could tie together. If I mention the chicane cutting nervous thing in "Background" and add a sentence to the second paragraph along the same lines, we could solve both problems. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just feel that that paragraph isn't exactly lead material. It did not have any direct effect on the race (if you exclude drivers' change of attitude towards overtaking at corners). If you still feel that it is necessary, I'd suggest making it third paragraph to separate it from the race events. LeaveSleaves talk 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've written an alternate lead in my sandbox (one of them!) This one substitutes pre-race for consequences, maybe making it more race-centric. The top one is the new one, the bottom the old one, for comparison. Let me know what you think. Apterygial 03:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better, albeit shorter now. If you feel it is shorter, I could suggest adding some details on qualifying since that was perhaps the only other notable part of the weekend. LeaveSleaves talk 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not actually shorter; both are 224 words. I tried to avoid talking about qualifying by saying "... started in ..." I like it much better than the old one, actually. I'll replace the article version. Apterygial 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

P&Q:

Race:

Post-race:

That's all for now. LeaveSleaves talk 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'm closing this to nominate for GA, but the PR for 2008 Japanese Grand Prix is here. Apterygial 09:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic blue marlin

edit
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 people to tell me if I have any gaps in my information or if any of my information is not clear or poorly written. Also, I would like some people to check my sources.

Thanks, --Grander13 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of the main ideas in each of the article sections and to avoid including things in the lead that are not developed in the main sections. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • It's often not clear in this article what part of a long block of material a source supports. For example, the "Physical description" section consists of one long paragraph with citation 5 at the end of the next-to-last sentence and citation 6 at the end of the last sentence. It's not clear whether 5 or 6 support earlier parts of the section such as the claim that the blue marlin's "first dorsal fin has 39 to 43 rays". Another kind of sourcing problem occurs in the "Economic importance" section, where the first paragraph is unsourced even though it includes statements such as "Atlantic blue marlin landings totaled 3064 metric tons in 2000." Things like this need a source. A good rule of thumb for Wikipedia articles is that each paragraph, each statistic, each claim that might reasonably be questioned, and each direct quote should be sourced.
  • Be careful not to imitate the language of sources too directly. In the "Economic importance" section, the enthusiastic language seemed out of place to me. The article says, "Makaira nigricans has become a highly sought, prestigious catch for recreational fishermen on rod and reel because of its rarity, substantial size, blistering speed, and awe-inspiring aerobics." The source says, "Due to its rarity, large size, legendary speed, and powerful aerobics on rod and reel, M. nigricans is a popular and prestigious catch for recreational fishermen." The source supports the claim, but the source language is a bit too rah-rah for an encyclopedia.
  • Quantities often need to be expressed in metric as well as imperial units of measure in the format recommended by the Manual of Style. A handy way of doing this is to use the "convert" template, which gets the arithmetic right and uses the correct spellings and abbreviations automatically. I added one of these to the "Conservation" section as an example of how the templates work. The template can handle many things, including conversions from Centigrade to Fahrenheit that should be added to the "Range" section of the article. Please see Template:Convert/doc for more details.
  • All of the many phrases such as makaira nigricans that are in Latin need to be in italics.
  • A copyeditor would probably catch and fix many small errors in the text. I fixed a few, but I see others such as the line of all-caps in citation 7. Wikipedia uses what's called "title case" even if the source uses all caps. "EVIDENCE OF BLUE MARLIN", for example, would be rendered as "Evidence of Blue Marlin".
  • I would suggest linking terms like "bycatch".

I hope you find these brief remarks helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celle Air Base

edit
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 know what other users than the two main authors (Ekki01 and me) think about it. Mabye even get it ready for GA or FA when time permitts.

Thanks, It wasn't me (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD so that it is 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 third apragraph of Location and approach or the last paragraph of Bundeswehr 1957 until the present (before Disaster relief) have no refs. Several of the sections on units using the air base are also uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per the MOS, images should not sandwich text (but do in several places, such as Allied occupation 1945 until 1957
  • I would translate German in images such as Image:Titelbild Cellesche Zeitung vom 30. November 1957.jpg (German aircraft again at Celle...)
  • The list of units would likely be a problem at WP:FAC - a lot of bullet points and not much flowing prose. Could it be broken out as a separate article and then briefly summarized here per WP:Summary style?
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - could they 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 (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chondromalacia patellae

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to see if i am on the right track with editing my article and to get suggestion on what i need to fix.

Thanks, Mmc cyclone (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This will be quite harsh because this is no where near ready for GA nomination or FAC. I suggest you do more editing than swapping two words and adding a single reference line (incorrectly I might add, as instead of one reference appearing in your "References" section, it appears multiple times). It also took me about 3 seconds to notice that your "jgames" website has its information TAKEN from the wikipedia article you are editing. How can it be that you are citing yourself? If this is not a form of plagarism it is certainly unethical and a poor attempt to "cheat" the system. That being said, I suggest you fix the following:

  • Fix your reference - you cannot cite your own work.
  • Find out how to list an inline citation multiple times for one reference (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming_a_ref_tag_so_it_can_be_used_more_than_once}
  • "It is common in young adults, especially soccer players, cyclists, rowers, tennis players, ballet dancers, horseback riders, and runners." -- Reference please?
  • Don't use inline citations in the middle of sentences unless it is required (author's name etc.) -- they tend to go at the end
  • I don't see a single line that defines RICE in this reference
  • Try to get rid of the "External links" section
  • This is a medical journal, not a website and should be cited as such
Also, I see nothing that supports your claim in the abstract and, as a general rule of thumb, you do not link to abstracts of a medical journal -- only the full journal article (if available). Please use PubMed

Overall, this article needs a lot of work but it is do-able. FoodPuma 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on references - (this version)
    • All of them except for 3,5 and 8 need to be replaced.
      • Jgames is a mirror of Wikipedia...you can't use copied text to cite the original text, pal...
    • Mayo Clinic is in the references section, but where do you use that in the article? Use an in-line citation please. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE REQUEST FOR PEER REVIEW HAS BEEN CANCELED - THIS ARTICLE IS NO LONGER BEING ACTIVELY EDITED BY Mmc cyclone.

List of Major League Baseball first overall draft choices

edit
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's got a shot to be a featured list, along with the first overall picks of all of the other major sports.

I want to know if it's got the "substance" to be a featured list.

I think that the intro especially needs reviewing, and hopefully there is enough material going into enough depth on the actual chart.


Thanks, See The Morning (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Killervogel5

I was asked to review this list by the contributor who opened the review, and will do so per the FL criteria as requested.

  • Per WP:BOLDTITLE, no links in the bold part of the lead. Considering that First-Year Player Draft is not the title, I say leave the link and remove the bold.
  • "Major League Baseball's primary mechanism"→"Major League Baseball's (MLB) primary mechanism": If you are going to use this abbreviation, you MUST make this change to explicitly define it.
  • "assigning amateur baseball players, from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs, to its teams" - remove commas after players and clubs.
  • "the MLB does not permit" - remove "the".
  • "so the draft order is solely determined based on the previous season's standings, with the team possessing the worst record receiving the first pick. If two teams have identical records, the team with the worse record in the previous season will receive the higher pick. In addition, teams which lost free agents in the previous off-season may be awarded "compensatory" picks." Each of these statements needs a reference.
  • Although only 2 of the 44 picks" - 2→two
  • The entire second paragraph needs specific references. That external link at the bottom of the paragraph has to GO. If that's your source, format it using Template:Cite web and put it in the references section. In addition, every reference that you currently have needs to be formatted properly using Cite-web.
  • Consider creating linked footnotes (see List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons or List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for suggestions on this). The current footnotes are unhelpful because they are static. In addition, notes have to be in their own section, not just at the end of the table.
  • Per WP:BOLDFACE, don't use bold as an indicator in the table. Use italics instead, or a different symbol.
  • In your footnotes, no space between punctuation and the reference that follows, per MoS.
  • This table absolutely has to be sortable if it's going to pass FL. There are no circumstances at all that would make it unable to be sorted.
  • If you are going to use the MLB navbox, it needs to have a link to this article. Otherwise, remove it.
  • Shawon Dunston's asterisk is in the wrong place.
  • I would replace the picture of Pat Burrell, but I'm partial because I see the Phillies' pictures all the time. Be that as it may, [this] is a much better quality picture.

I am watching this page and will come back from time to time to check if you need help with any of these items. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC Strasbourg

edit
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 been working on it but I am not really WP-litterate yet, so I am not really sure that it is exactly what is expected. In addition, English is only a second language for me, so maybe some excerpts will look weird to native speakers. It would help me a lot should reviewers point to the most problematic parts of the article so that I can focus my work.

Thanks, Zitelli67 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has certainly improved thanks to your work. A variety of points:

  • For an article of this size, the lead section should be two or three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
  • External links should not be present within the text, only as references or in the "External links" section at the bottom.
  • The pictures of the crests on scarves are not correctly licensed. The crest itself is copyrighted, so while the photograph can be licensed under a Creative Commons license, the crest it depicts cannot be freely licensed. See derivative work for more context.
  • A particularly bewildering one for newcomers: Dashes in scorelines and date ranges should be endashes, not hyphens, see WP:DASH. In English, scores are very rarely presented using colons (i.e. 0–0, not 0:0).
  • For the "former players" section, it is not always clear why players ar included. Splitting this off into an article List of RC Strasbourg players is perhaps appropriate. See List of Ipswich Town F.C. players for an example. I'd also argue against the inclusion of players who did not play internationally while at Strasbourg. It is players noted for their achievements with Strasbourg that we are concerned with, not those who found their success elsewhere.
  • For the list of coaching staff, a personal rule of thumb is to only include individuals notable enough to merit an article.

More to follow later. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and advice. I have fixed the en dash thing (definitely learned some thing here, I had never noticed the difference before!) and expanded the lead to three paragraphs. I will do the rest shortly (pictures, etc.)
As far as external links are concerned, I will remove those for the supporters sites but I thought the ones used for match sheets were quite interesting since these are not available on WP (as opposed to cup finals for example where I made an internal link). Is it mandatory to remove these links or is it just preferable?
The notable player section: I definitely need to work on that... Difficult to struck a satisfying middle ground for this section, very subjective. For example Djorkaeff never had caps with France when at Strasbourg but clearly had its breakthrough there when he was a youngster. I will figure out something.Zitelli67 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I corrected the licensing for the pictures. For the notable players section I went back to the older version, clearly this table of internationals was too long and I'll save it for the List of RC Strasbourg players you suggested (when I have time!). I included in the article all RCS player who had caps with France when at Strasbourg and some others that I consider notable enough. As far as coaching staff is concerned, I took the idea to include it from the Arsenal FC article... I thought that I could do that since for example every pro player is included in the "current squad" section even though some of them have yet to play a game with the first team. Again, many thanks for your helpful comments. Zitelli67 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of RC Strasbourg players is done according to similar criterias as the Ipswich one, thanks for the indication. As of now, I donnot really see what I could improve in the article. Do you or others still have suggestions? I would still find it useful if a native English speaker could check the article for the general style. I also find it a bit discouraging that the article is still rated as "start" since there are many other articles that are in my opinion not as good but have better ratings :( Zitelli67 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

edit
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 it to be listed as GA status. I feel that the peer review will outline any major areas for improvement, thus making the GA nomination easier. I felt that the culture section is the worst as I'm not entirely sure on how to define culture. If you could tell me which section the improvements are located in, that would be really helpful.

Thanks, Sam Davidson (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking good, but below a few questions/comments which may help with GA review:
  • In the lede should United States of America, France and Spain be wikilinked?
  • Should World War II be wikilinked in the lede?
  • Some reviewers may want refs in the lede - particularly for the population figure & the claim "largest operational naval base in Western Europe"
  • The university is mentioned in the lede, but not named or wikilinked
  • Early History "soon silted up" can you be more specific in geological terms "soon" could be anything
  • What is a "back-formation"? or is that just me being ignorant?
  • Nope, I've never heard of it. Smalljim added, so I'll leave this for him.
Back formation is a wikipedia page that explains the idea. Back formation in the case of Plymouth is that it is the mouth of the Plym, a river named after its town, Plympton, on the assumption that the town was named after the river, Plym-ton - when in fact the town was named after plums. The river's current name is a back formation, I am unaware of its older name - and indeed it's possible any older name was lost. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact forget that - Duncanhill has beaten me to it by about a week - late to the party. Thanks for the review. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early defence and Renaissance Royal Citadel is mentioned but not linked to Royal Citadel, Plymouth until the 2nd occurrence
  • Not sure about "their time" as 16th century has already been included
  • Naval power Why is the text "Royal Dockyard" used as the link to HMNB Devonport? I found this confusing as there are other royal dockyards.
  • Does the "Three towns" need a little explanation in the article rather than making the reader follow the link?
  • The 2nd para in naval power isn't really anything to do with the navy
  • In Local Govt history Three towns is linked for a 2nd time
  • Should "Devon County Council" be wikilinked?
  • In City Council how can a non event (election) coincide with something else?
  • Is there a more recent figure for electorate than 2003?
  • "granted the dignity of Lord Mayor" is a strange phrase - does it have specific meaning?
  • I don't understand "political alias" - ? allegiance - this whole sentance could do with a rewrite
  • "become the centre of a controversy as the council disagrees" - what about - I don't understand
  • In Geography "Plymouth Sound" is wikilinked twice
  • In geology you might want one of those links to go to Devonian
  • In Economy does 10% come from the dockyard or from nuclear submarines?
  • What is "a pannier market"?
  • Tinside pool could be referenced to IoE record (a search of IoE would also show some Grade I listed buildings which are not included in the article)

I've run out of time now - but will do more later if useful. — Rod talk 09:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:
  • In Demography there are some abbreviations eg GVA which should be written in full or explained
  • 2001 census is linked twice in the same para
  • In Transport Pont Aven is mentioned in a picture caption (ferry) but not mentioned in the text - should this be Pont-Aven?
  • In Education why is Plymouth College "most notable"?
  • The first sentence in that section "Plymouth is home to the 11th largest university in the United Kingdom (excluding the Open University) — the University of Plymouth." could be reworded for clarity eg "the University of Plymouth is the 11th largest university in the United Kingdom (excluding the Open University)"
  • Re: Plymouth Marine Laboratory, .. who study the area for scientific research. Is that the local area or the subject area?
  • In religion you might want to use this ref for the grade II* listed status of the synagogue as it is independent of the institution & ref 102 doesn't take you directly to that info
  • In sports what makes Plymouth Albion R.F.C. and the Plymouth Raiders more notable than the other clubs mentioned?
  • The sentence "Plymouth Raiders play in the top tier of British basketball, the British Basketball League. They play at the Plymouth Pavilions, along with many other sports clubs and were founded in 1983" might need looking at for clarity are the other clubs founded in 1983?
  • In culture - I'm not sure "kicking-out time" would be recognised as a phrase outside the UK
  • Is the Palace Theatre mentioned in the text the same as the New Palace Theatre of the picture caption?
  • Beryl Cook & Robert Lenkiewicz appear (with the same text) in both culture & notable people
  • In public services Are EDF & British Gas monopolies in Plymouth - elsewhere in the UK you can purchase gas & electricity from a variety of providers
  • In notable people should alittle more explanation of the term Janner be included in the article?
  • Why was Robert Lenkiewicz controversial?
  • Should Plymouth Sound be in geography rather than Landmarks?

I hope these comments are helpful.— Rod talk 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's reply

Thank you very much for your thorough review. I swear you and Jza84 are brothers. I have just finished going through all the issues you have raised for this article. I still haven't found a reiable source stating how long it took for the river to silt up, but I was wondering if this will affect its chance of becoming a GA? Not to mention the problem raised with Plymouth Marine Laboratory. In paragrph eight of this source, it seems to be around the 14th century, which would mean that the section on the silting should be moved from "early history". Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have done a really good job of improving the article & I would urge you to nominate it for GA. While you are waiting for that there are a few other (minor) things you might want to look at:
  • In the lede, the sentence "Plymouth's economy is still strongly influenced by shipbuilding, but has, since the 1990s, become a more service-based economy with the 11th largest university in the United Kingdom, the University of Plymouth." might do with a tweak for clarity.
  • In Early defence and Renaissance "A series of fortifications were built in the Tudor and Elizabethan era" - should era be plural?
  • "Plymouth was the home port for successful maritime traders, among them Sir John Hawkins, who led England's first foray into the Atlantic slave trade,[13] as well as Sir Francis Drake, who, according to legend, insisted on completing his game of bowls on the Hoe before engaging the Spanish Armada in 1588." is a long sentence which I would split into 2.
  • "besieged for almost four years by the Royalists." but you don't say whether this was successful
  • In 20th century is the "1943 plan" the same as that by Sir Patrick Abercrombie? - this is answered in Geography but unclear earlier
  • Why more Royal Marines - we haven't heard about them before why not just the Royal Marines?
  • In Local government history the first sentence "Plymouth's first recording of existence was in the Domesday Book in 1086 as Sudtone" could be reworded for clarity ? "The first record of the existence of Plymouth was in the..." - how is this different to the bit from Early History "first mentioned in a Pipe Roll of 1211"
  • There is a big jump from 1439 to 1914 - how was it governed in between?
  • "A provisional order was made on 2 May 1914, to come into effect in November" - does this relate to the three towns? as, at the moment, it doesn't really say anything.
  • We have "The city's first Lord Mayor was appointed in 1935" in Local Govt history & then in City Council we get "Since 6 May 1935 Plymouth has been granted a Lord Mayor by the King..." perhaps it should just be in one or the other?
I've removed the dates from City Council, but still mentioned that Plymouth has a Lord Mayor. Jolly Ω Janner 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly in Local govt hist we learn "As of 2009 or 2010, the next general election, the..." & later in City Council find out about the current MPs - I would put these together, probably in Local govt hist, rather than separating them
  • for layout I might swap Image:Great Hall - Plymouth Guildhall.jpg to the left & Image:Plymouth Civic Centre.jpg to the right - but it might just be my screen
Yep & I've done all at List of SSSIs in Somerset & most at List of SSSIs in Avon & looked at List of SSSIs in Devon which is where I spotted Plymouth Sound Shores And Cliffs.— Rod talk 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd better not comment on the climate sections as I think I originally wrote it!
  • The Theatre Royal is first wikilinked in Plymouth 2020 (and again in Culture) but was not linked in Naval power, docks and Foulston
  • In Transport you could remove the brackets in "Plymouth railway station (opened in 1877)" & make it "Plymouth railway station, which opened in 1877, is managed..."
  • The 3,000 staff & 30,000 students of the university are in numbers in Education & in text in Economy
  • "Polytechnic South West as (The..." does read right, possibly as could be replaced by following eg "It was founded in 1992 from Polytechnic South West following The Further and Higher Education Act 1992."
  • In Sport when did Plymouth United F.C. cease to exist? and is it Plymouth United F.C. or Plymouth Argyle Football Club, which is linked with "English non-conformists that left Plymouth..."?
  • In Notable People the article says Drake had a Leat, a Shopping Centre and an Island named after him but we have a picture caption saying "Unloading mail by hand from the Sir Francis Drake at Millbay Docks, March 1926" so there must be a boat as well
  • In landmarks why is the Plymouth Naval war memorial most notable?

I'm getting really picky now & most of the issues above would only be a problem at FA rather than GA but I offer them for your consideration in the hope that they are helpful. Good luck with the GA nomination.— Rod talk 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the edits from this - but someone may need to close it as I remember a rule which says the GA review can't be done if there is a PR ongoing.— Rod talk 19:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locally connected space

edit
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 that it is good enough to be a good article (!). User:Plclark has given many contructive comments (thankyou) but I would appreciate any help with regards to the following:

a) Is this article good enough to be a FAC or at least a good article? If so, can I nominate it for one of these? If not, what major cleanup is required to make the article good?

b) I would also be grateful for any comments with regards to the improvement of particular sections in the article. For example, the 'theorems' section which according to User:Plclark, needs to be contracted.

c) Any images illustrating particular concepts would be much appreciated. For instance, I would really appreciate an image of the broom space (currently there is no article on the broom space).

d) References and inline citations are ample and this leads me to believe that the article can be a good article. However, if additional citations could be added, I would appreciate someone doing so.

Thanks, Topology Expert (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is a very long way from FAC, and quite some way from good article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook, but an encyclopedia. At the moment the style is very textbook.
The reader needs to be able to verify that everything in the article is a balance of material which can be found in reliable sources. For good articles and featured articles, the reader needs to be able to do this easily. An inline citation is not just a link which says "see the references section" or "see the external links section", but direction to a specific source or sources where the stated fact can be found. I have made a start by adding a notes section, but do not have Munkres to hand, so was not able to supply page references.
At the moment this article has only one main source, Munkres. Although MathWorld is a useful reference, it should ideally only be used as a supplement. How about adding another popular textbook or two?
I agree with Plclark that the Theorems section needs to be shortened. In fact it should probably be removed or renamed and the material in it distributed elsewhere. For example, the article lacks a "definitions" section, where the definition and equivalent definitions are explained. Theorem 1 belongs there. Theorem 2 belongs in the section on local path connectedness.
At the moment the definitions are in the lead. However, the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article and give an overview of the subject. At the moment it does neither.
I may add further comments once there is progress on these basic issues. Geometry guy 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob Scholbach

Thanks for working on the article. I totally agree with the points raised by Geometry guy above. The article is at the moment far from GA or FA standards. I'm personally not a fan of citing guidelines etc., but this article is strikingly not adhering to "WP is not a textbook". The article is basically like a section in some introductory topology textbook. I have no experience with writing articles about minor technical notions such as this one, so it's not clear to me whether most of the content can remain while fitting to the not-textbook idea of WP. From a glance at the Mathematics Good Articles, it looks like Znám's problem is roughly a reasonable model for comparison.

Some more details

  • The lead is too short, and does not cover the content of the article. As a rough rule of thumb, every section should be compressed into one sentence in the lead.
  • You give hardly any references. (BTW, MathWorld is not so good a reference, I think, since it usually contains only little information. I count this more as an external link). This is crucial for a satisfying reading experience (and a must have for GA and beyond). Every mathematical claim should be backed up by a precise reference (book / journal with chapter or preferrably page). Phrases such as "as the reader can check" have to be eliminated by providing a reference for the facts in question.
  • Avoid using "we" where possible (usually this is always possible). Also avoid collocative style such as "Here is a picture", "the previous property may seem strange"
  • The article is a bit hard to read since the definitions are pretty much dispersed. I would prefer a Definitions section or better a "Motivation and Definitions" section.
  • Another problem is that the article does not tell whether this is a crucial notion in topology or just a technical thing. I'm not a topologist, but I would expect a statement like "Virtually any space in geometry is locally connected, but there are some pathologies" (I think "Counterexamples in Topology" would be a good reference, btw)
  • The article is very short on images. (Comb space should be easy, for example). Also the caption of the first image should make clearer the relation to the article's subject.
  • Examples, 2.: "local property" is not defined nor explained
  • The picture (in Examples 4.) does not give (at least not to the illiterate reader) the "intuitive idea".
  • "Applications of local connectedness": what do you mean by "other mathematical fields"? Also, the sentence "Also, in the study of ..." is pretty vague (and should have a reference).
  • "The Jordan curve theorem is also one of the most famous theorems in topology" -- according to whom? REFERENCE!
  • Definition in Quasiconnectedness: what does "separation" mean?
  • The proofs of the theorem are distracting my attention. I would not go as far as saying removing this kind of material would improve the article, but try to find a more inviting way of presenting the facts.
  • The "see also" section should not repeat items covered in the text.
  • Who developed all these notions? , i.e. a (small) history section would be good, too.

My overall suggestion is trimming down this article by removing all unencyclopedic content (e.g. replacing wordy proofs of easy/trivial statements by precise references), aiming for a presentation that focusses more on (and thus makes clearer) the interdependence of the various concepts, guiding the reader to the literature. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteochondrosis

edit
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 suggestions of how to make my article better. Thanks, Ccde56 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an informative short article on a subject of general interest. I can't assess the content scientifically, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • With a general audience in mind, you might wikilink or explain more of the uncommon terms. I added a couple of links by way of example. In the lead, I linked "ossification" and "etiology", and in the "Cause" section, I linked "chondrocyte". I see others such as "parthogenesis", "anatomic conformation" that most readers would not be able to define. On the other hand, I don't think you need to link common terms like "blood" or "pig". The idea is to help the reader understand the subject.
  • Link the first occurrence of a term rather than skipping the first occurrence and linking a subsequent one. When I encountered Kienbock's disease in "Presentation", I wondered what it referred to. It wasn't linked until the next section.
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the main title in any of the section heads. Thus, I would change "Human osteochondrosis" to something like "In humans". This, by the way, suggests an idea for future expansion: "In animals", perhaps with pig, horse, and dog subsections.
  • I'd suggest turning the numbered list into straight prose. Each item in the list could be expanded to paragraph length, possibly by adding presentation material here rather than in a separate section.
  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the main text sections and should not include material that is not developed in the main text. The lead as it stands is like the introductory paragraph of an essay rather than an abstract of an article. It includes that tantalizing statistic about 40 to 80 percent. More stats would be good in the main text sections. The 40 to 80 is pretty amazing. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • It would be good to add images, illustrations, or charts if you can find ones that are licensed for use on Wikipedia.
  • Citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for web-based sources if this data is known. I note that some of the citations are correct, and some are incomplete. The complete ones use the "cite" family of templates, which is what I would recommend for the others. Please see WP:CIT. With two windows open, you can copy a template from WP:CIT and paste it where you want it in your article, and then fill in the blanks. That way, you don't have to memorize each of the footnote forms.
  • I fixed a couple of minor errors, but I see more. A copyeditor would probably catch and fix these.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortfin mako shark

edit
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 interested in improving the article to obtain GA status. Any help to move the article along would be grealty appreciated.

Thanks, Duckhunter92 (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (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 for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space 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." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should add taxonomy information, like other species in the genus? subspecies? I know the authority is in the taxobox but I think it would be good to have it in the article too, maybe with a few lines on how the species was found. I always try to put the etymology of the scientific name, you might be able to find that. Finally it is always useful to compare with other good/featured articles in the subject or simply about a species. (E.g. Oceanic whitetip shark). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar urticaria

edit
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 that in order to reach its full potential, this article must be analyzed, and revised as needed, by the respected users of Wikipedia.

Thanks, NYYfan1 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be expanded from two sentences to two to three paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but Merklen is only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the types are not in the lead as one example.
  • Language needs cleaned up - for example This condition is classified as a type of physical urticaria[2] and was first described by a man known as Merklen in 1904.[3] could be This condition is classified as a type of physical urticaria[2] and was first described by P. Merklen in 1904.[3] (the article gives the first initial, assume it was a man, but does not explictly say so).
  • There are several short paragraphs and sections (one or two sentences) - these should either be combined with others or possibly expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • I would also try to make some of the bullet points into prose (reads better). For example with the six types, what other differences besides the wavelnegth of light do they have? Other symptoms? WHich is most common? When were they described?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Asylum

edit
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 some help or suggestions to improve the article with the aim of raising it to FA standard. Kew Asylum is my first WP article, I've managed to get it to GA (many thanks to those who've helped) but I'm unsure of where to start with improving it further

Thanks, Shelbypark (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeepestGreen comments: This is a great article that I really enjoyed reviewing. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The use of an unpublished PhD thesis as a primary source is likely to be questioned at FA. For instance, in the first lead paragraph there is a sentence that ends: to house the growing number of "lunatics", "inebriates" and "idiots" in the Colony of Victoria. This suggests to me that the terms quoted are from a source contemporary to the period in which the asylum was built, rather than the words of the thesis author. If this is the case, it would be better to access the original source and quote from there, or couch the sentence in more modern terms. This applies to other uses of the thesis as a primary source throughout the article.
  • The asylum's buildings are typical examples of the French Second Empire style which was popular in Victorian era Melbourne. -> I suggest that the term 'Victorian' already implies 'era'. I chose the term Victorian era to differentiate from Victorian ie belonging to the state of Victoria, the state of Australia in which Kew Asylum resides
  • Designed to be elegant, beautiful, yet substantial to be viewed as 'a magnificent asylum for the insane' -> Suggest yet substantial, and to be viewed as done
  • Kew Asylum had a difficult and chequered history resulting in several inquiries -> can a history result in several inquiries? Were the problems specific to Kew? Are the issues mentioned in fact any different from those at the other hospitals in the area?
  • Kew Asylum and its complex of buildings was registered on the Register of the National Estate in March 1978. This sentence seems out of place at the end of the lead. moved and elaborated
  • Yarra Bend Asylum, while only six years old, was considered "altogether unsuitable" -> quote needs sourcing.
  • healthy came from a wider Victorian era belief that -> unnecessary 'era' as mentioned above.
  • foetid atmosphere of squalor -> your words or a quote?was a quote, but not a neccessary one
  • that miasmas carried impure air -> a miasma was impure air.fixed
  • After Frederick Kawerau's resignation -> what happened here? clarified and elaborated
  • The asylum complex is an example of the E-plan barracks type lunatic asylums based on the model 1850s asylum in Colney Hatch, England. - barracks type lunatic asylum? are you sure? needs a source.
  • The central administration block is three storeyed with an attic mansard roof -> not quite sure what is meant by attic mansard, the attic is perhaps redundant. was in original reference, but does sound daft. Done
  • Two storeyed ward wings extend to each side, one for each sex. -> slightly ambiguous, two storeys, two wings, or both?
  • Whilst Kew's plan and detail are similar -> While is generally preferred to whilst. done
  • The useful image kewhaha.jpg would be better redrawn and the text removed from the image and added as a caption, especially as it is used in other articles. done
  • It is not known if Linaker was responsible for the oak avenues, but it appears that many of the conifers -> appears to whom? Original research?
  • Up until after World War I -> Suggest - Until the end of World War I done
  • Belongings, such as books and clothes, were often returned to friends or family as patients were required to dress in institutional clothes. -> reason given for clothes being returned, but why books or other belongings? Done, but I need to add the reference
  • and large number of alcoholics were moved out of the lunatic asylums -> large number? done
  • The first sentence in Investigations and Inquiries is a repeat of that in the lead. A bit more detail relating to the findings of the inquiries would be useful.
  • The section titled Changing names, changing society could be cut down, and then perhaps expanded to include what life at Kew was like through these changes.
  • An extensive Conservation Analysis was completed in 1988[40] from which the bulk of the original buildings were recommended to be conserved. suggest ->An extensive Conservation Analysis was completed in 1988[40] that recommended the bulk of the original buildings be conserved. done
  • Overall this is an interesting little article that has some nice illustrations - especially poignant is the woodcut from 1876. I think perhaps the article needs more about what life was like at Kew for both staff and patients. The final section (Documented histories of Kew Asylum) contains references to material that might provide a good basis for such a section.
  • Finally, I think perhaps the inline citations need attention. It might be preferable to have a list of references and use a footnotes section to indicate the individual page numbers - something like this page for example.

I hope this review helps. It was my first review as well as your first article! If I can be of any help at all, please let me know. I'd be very happy to help. Yours DeepestGreen[talk] 11:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest Green - thank you VERY MUCH for reviewing the article, and for your excellent comments. I'll definitely do some work on the references and inline citations - they're out of control! Shelbypark (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done some of the updating, more to follow Shelbypark (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevado del Ruiz

edit
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 know it needs some work before becoming featured, and I'd like to identify and fix the issues specifically raised here in order to bring it to FA standards.

Thanks, —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you for responding so swiftly, and I will get to these ASAP. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with all of the comments above, and think this still has organizational issues.

  • I would look at the FAC and use that as a fairly detailed peer review and try to address all of the points raised there too.
  • done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some mountain / volcano FAs that would be great models as Mav has noted, see also Mauna Loa.
  • done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headers do not follow the MOS< specifically WP:HEAD - do not repeat the name of the article or a higher level header if at all possible, but Section 4 is "Eruptions", which has three subsections each with the word eruption (4.1 1595 eruption, 4.2 1845 eruption, and 4.3 1985 eruption - why not just 1595, 1845, and 1985 here?) and subsection 4.3 itself has a subsection 4.3.2 "Eruption" (hard to avoid this if it remains a subsection of 1985).
  • done. —Ceran [speak] 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems a bit simplistic - Nevado del Ruiz is a broad, icy stratovolcano that covers an area of more than 200 kilometres (124 mi). Area should be given in square km or square miles (km and mi are distances). {{convert}} templates may help here.
  • Working on it, but we might need a copyeditor uninvolved with the article. —Ceran [speak] 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • now being refined, so done.
  • Refs are odd in places - what does "Case Study: LEDC." mean here: ... eruption in 1985 that was the world's deadliest.[8][9][4] Case Study: LEDC. Also put the refs in numerical order please.
  • done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language needs some serious work. two examples: Since Ruiz gained instant fame after its devastating eruption in 1985, scientists and government officials in Colombia are afraid the glaciers might melt completely.[11] What does the first part of the sentence (instant fame) have to do with the second part (fear of glaciers melting)? The use of "Since" makes it sound like there is a causal relationship (the fame will somehow melt the glaciers???).
  • done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other places are just a little awkward, for example Out of 204 volcanoes in South America, Colombia itself counts for 37%.[5] might read better as Colombia accounts for 37% of the 204 volcanoes in South America.[5] or "flatly" is a word (you can flatly deny something) but I do not think it is used correctly in From there on, the hills stretch almost flatly to the edge of the Magdalena River north of the volcano, and the Cauca River to the west.[10]
  • done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just gonna pop in and out. I may not be around to answer questions.
  • What does "numbering" mean "The ash ejected was extremely rich and numbering"
  • Too many sentences start with "it". Actually, almost none should.
  • I find it useful to begin at the end and work up. The final sections mention an irrelevant lahar in Nevado del Huila. Seriously consider deleting this, although doing so would leave you with a one-paragraph section, which means reorganization is needed. Why are AFMs mentined in ths article but not in lahar? This article needs major work. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton–Rowett Expedition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This rather sad little expedition is frequently overlooked in Antarctic histories, coming as it did rather late in the day, when the main work of the "Heroic Age" was over. It was intended to be Ernest Shackleton's last hurrah, but he died in South Georgia before it was properly under way. The expedition carried on without him, but achieved little and soon returned home. A general review requested, please: prose, images, sources etc. I'll be grateful for all comments and sugestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the expedition's one real achievement was definitively disproving the existence of New South Greenland it really should get a mention (ludicrous as its existence may have been thought even then). Even the SPRI site mentions it [9]. It is a pity not to have some of the original photographs, but it's going to be difficult to get hold of them and check their status. I always wonder why the trans-Antarctic idea fell out of favour after Endurance (until the 1950s at least) but maybe this belongs in the ITAE article rather than here. Apart from that, I think it is now a cracking article. Yomanganitalk 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While looking for info on the photos I've just found this which states that the ITAE disproved the existence of New South Greenland. Ho hum. Yomanganitalk 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well...I'm pretty sure that the SPRI meant to say that Quest proved the non-existence of Ross's "appearance of land", which is fully covered in this article. Maybe someone should tell them. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is "Kerr (Chief Engineer) Examining the Lucas Deep-sea Sounding Machine" from facing page 13 of Wild's book. Presumably Bee-Mason was the photographer and he didn't die until 1957, so I assume it isn't PD, but it might be worth further investigation. Yomanganitalk 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gone and bought Wild's book? Zzzzzzzzz..... I'm not sure I like the pic enough to go through a lot of hassle, I've got two FU rationales in the article already. Might mention in the prose that they had a Lucas Deep-sea Sounding machine, though. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the pic was rather nice as a Heroic Age meets Mechanical Age illustration (though it would be better if Kerr was bearded and dirty), but FU doesn't cover it. I'll do some more digging. Yomanganitalk 11:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the British and US versions of Wild's book were published in May 1923, so miss being PD by 5 months. The photos are mostly by Wilkins and Macklin who died in 1958 and 1967 respectively so they won't be PD either. The book does have some better photos of Rowett and Quest though (as you already have these under FU rationales). A better online copy of the book is here (actually there are s lot of nice pics in there that can grace the article in 30 years or so). What do you think about having a map of the Antarctic voyage? Yomanganitalk 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I am still editing on Wikipedia in 30 years I will bear those photos in mind. As to the map, can you do them? I seem to remember hijacking one of your sketches for the James Caird voyage article - you were AWOL at the time so I couldn't ask. It would be great if you could do it - it's beyond me, however. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if there is enough detail in the Wild book to knock one up on Monday. Yomanganitalk 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not the most exciting map in the world, but the land is too far away to feature without making the course tiny. Yomanganitalk 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the map, but there is a problem with the longitudes. The voyage started from South Georgia, Long. 36°W, and proceeded east and south to Long. 17°E. That's approx 53 degrees of longitude eastward. Elephant Island, at the end of the westward return journey, is in Long. 55°, so the westward journey covered 72° of longitude. The total distance covered on the round trip, ignoring detours, was about 6,000 miles. I'm not sure what point the westerly end of your red line represents, but if it is Elephant Island, you have it too far south - its latitude is 61°. When the longitude problem is sorted out, it should be possible to indicate parts of the coastline they sailed near, when returning from their farthest south, and also key points such as South Georgia, Elephant Island etc. Since the journey started and finished at South Georgia, the journey line should return there, with directional arrows. I do appreciate the time and effort put into this, and I'm sure that once the longitude problem is sorted out the map will look fine. I thought I had better delete it, temporarily, in case it confuses someone. Sorry! Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only shows the attempts to break through to Enderby Land (from 3rd to 25th Feb), so there isn't a problem with the long or lat, just the labelling of the image. I'm trying to hunt down more detailed info on the rest of the trip, so it doesn't end up being highly detailed for that section and a couple of lines for the rest. Yomanganitalk 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood, didn't notice the dates. I've restored the map, with what I think is an appropriate caption. Would it be possible to have a brief message at the 3 February end "from S. Georgia", and an arrow at the other end with "to Elephant Island"? The map will do fine then. The alternative, a map on a much smaller scale for the whole voyage, would probably be less useful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (just about visible to the keen-sighted). Yomanganitalk 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've forced the size, which I think you are allowed to do. It looks great!. I will cite the caption to Wild's book. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded Image:Rowett.png which you may like to use instead of the existing head-down, hat-on, no-photos picture of Rowett. Let me know if not and I'll have it deleted as it's in with an FU rationale. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is the better image, so let's use that one. Mine, the hatted one, is also with FU rationale, and that can be deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this a copyedit; it's looking good (and I am happy to see that you haven't run out of expeditions yet, as I had thought!). I also went looking for images, as I am wont to do. I didn't find anything for this one, but I did find some beautiful RGS maps:

You surely know more than I do about the copyright status of RGS works, but I hope you can use them—they are just gorgeous. Maralia (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maralia, for the copyedits and the pictures. I'm not out of expeditions just yet, although the main Antarctic ones are all done, now. There's still the Australian one - some exciting things happened there - but at the moment I'm likely next to turn North, as I am researching Nansen's drift. The maps would look great in their appropriate articles; whether they can be used is something I will investigate. RGS guards its UK copyrights, but sometimes their images are free under US copyright laws. A couple of months ago I would simply have asked Elcobbola, and he would have given the answer. As it is I will have to dig around. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfton, Houston

edit
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 see this become a featured article; it is already listed as a good article, but I think this can become something even greater.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Places in the United States are almost always named "Place, State" (see Houston, Texas for example). Why is this not named Gulfton, Houston, Texas?
  • The lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. 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. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead sentence makes it sound like there are only low rent apartment compleexes there, but the article makes it clear there are schools, libraries, businesses, etc there too.
  • Despite the maps, I am not clear where the borders are or where this is relative to the rest of Metro Houston - could there be a locator map
  • References should be in numerical order, so fix things like HPL Express facilities are library facilities located in existing buildings.[120][40]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Seems like there are too many pictures of schools and several sections that have no pictures at all.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the feedback! Here are a few things I thought of:
    • 1. This is not an independent city, nor is it an unincorporated area. This is a neighborhood of Houston. This was named "Gulfton, Houston, Texas" but a user moved all Houston neighborhoods to "X, Houston"
    • 2. I will correct the reference orders.
    • 3. Regarding the borders, Susan Rogers gave a definition of the "boundaries" of Gulfton - So I could modify the image and add the boundary according to Rogers's map.
    • 4. Some of these references, even though they are on the internet, originate in published works (i.e. newspapers, TV channel websites), so I did not include access date in many of them. I tend to only include access date on things which do not have dates attached to them per se. If you want I could simply generate new access dates for newspaper articles, etc. Also some of the internet refs I found have no author, per se. I only attach authors if I know an exact authorship.
      • If something is available on the internet and then is changed / moves / disappears, having the access date helps to locate the version you accessed for this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usually news publications stay the same. Although URLs do change, the web publications themselves often stay the same (but are in a different area) - however access dates can help in that respect. I also love web.archive.org as I can use that to access prior materials that vanished. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Divas Championship

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is so that the article can be added to our current WWE champions FT as an audited article too short to be a GA or FL. For that to happen, it needs a peer review. All comments welcome. -- Scorpion0422 03:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing really about FLs, but isn't this article also too short to be added to the FT? Really I don't understand. Anyway, the only problem I see is that it isn't out of universe. The ring names don't have their real names beside them, which should be for consistency. Kayfabe should also not be used since the article is really un-understable and could serve a problem.--WillC 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lack of quality is never a reason to exclude a page from a FT. I'll add real names, but not to the table. -- Scorpion0422 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Latin School alumni

edit
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 make it a featured list on Wikipedia. This article would be the first alumni article for a high school.

Thanks, Pgp688 (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannonball Jellyfish

edit
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 overall review of my article. Thanks, Desert fox2009 (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sillyfolkboy – I'll start off by saying this is a good, solid basis for an article and it's developing well. You should look to continue expanding it. After taking a quick look at Blackbird for reference, there are certain pieces of information that need to be included:

  • Who was the first to describe the species and when? (etymology etc)
  • Give a description of the creature, using lengths and weights where applicable.
  • Is the family Stomolophidae so limited or is Wikipedia coverage poor? If it is limited then there is sure to be more information expanding on its separate taxonomy etc.
  • What is its conservation status? (threatened? common?)
  • What are the main predators of these animals?

Also there are a couple of mistakes and omissions I noticed:

  • Typos: "Although Somolophus Mealegris"
  • Reference 7 states that this is also known as the cabbage head jellyfish. Make a note of the alternate name.
  • Remember to always list the sources publisher – sources 2 and 7 are missing this info.
  • What's with the strange citation at the bottom of the page?

You can remove the "cnidarian stub" template now too as this is more of a start class article. Hope this gives you some ideas on what to do next. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multimeter

edit
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 and several other editors have addressed the coments from the previous peer review, which was done about eighteen months ago.

Thanks, Mikeblas (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a device of many uses! Here are some ideas to get you started:

  • Logically I think the history should go first. There are certain questions this section should answer:
    • Who invented the device?
    • Where does the technology stem from? (i.e. what were the preceding technologies?)
    • Who coined the term "multimeter"?
    • How has the multimeter developed and evolved over time?

This kind of information will be able to put some of the sections in context. The article is largely technical at the moment thus the sections don't have a specific order that they should go in. Providing an overview of its history will cater for the average reader and begin a clear structure for this article.

The lead section also mentions pricing but this isn't mentioned in the main body at all. Perhaps this could be expanded upon, providing a brief analysis of how and where the devices are produced.

Referencing is another thing that could be improved. Any documentation could be used to back up technical explanations. Hopefully this has given you some ideas on where the article can go from here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North American River Otter

edit
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 for this article to be refined and edited by experienced members of the Wikipedia community. Those with expertise in this area would be very beneficial to the advancement of this article's quality. It is my ultimate goal to promote this article to Featured Article status. This project is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note by DanaBoomer

I have dropped a note on Wikitrevor's page about the fact that this review was closed by an IP. It appears from subsequent edits that WT and the IP may infact be one and the same, so I'm not sure if this is a true closure or simply vandalism that is slightly more technically competent and subtle than usual. Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment on WT's talk page, I have reopened the peer review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for helping me get back on track Ruhrfisch. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,--Wikitrevor (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: You are very welcome. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The article should have a 2 or 3 paragraphs lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Taxonomy and Care in captivity sections have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The references need to be standardized and provide more information. For example current refs 4, 5, and 6 are all apparently the same. They can be referenced once using the <ref name = "blah">...</ref> system. Ask on my talk page if this is unclear.
  • Other refs do not give enough information for an interested party to find the source. FOr example are Toweill and Tabor 1982, Melquist and Dronkert 1987 books or journals? Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase , so fix all of them - one example is Ectoparasites include ticks[32], sucking lice Latagophthirus rauschi[33], and the flea Oropsylla arctomys[34]. [35]
  • There are several one or two sentence paragrapsh that need to be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Would it be possible to vary the captions some - they all seem to be "A river otter in X zoo"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review Ruhrfisch. Your advice is very valuable and beneficial to me. I'll work on getting those kinks worked out.

Best regards,--Wikitrevor (talk)

Endomembrane system

edit
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 interested in learning what I can do to achieve g.a. status. Where should I add content? Is the language well written? Any suggestion or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, VivaLaLacy (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few points, hopefully with this and Ruhrfisch's comments you'll have what you need to work on. Overall it's very good work, keep it up. You could get this to featured level even if you wanted, it's not terribly far from it. 1) The lead section should be about 3 paragraphs for an article this size, though I see why you've held it together. Perhaps you could justify as few as 2 paragraphs, split the way I did for example. But the second paragraph should probably be expanded. 2) The article has a heavy focus on the function of each organelle, what about structure? This really isn't my area, but I'd assume the Endomembrane system is really the membranes themselves not the organelles. Try to focus more on the function of the membranes and especially add more on the structure of them. Unfortunately that might mean reducing some of the organelle function material. Some of the sections are better at this than others. 3) It is referenced pretty well over all, but it's a little uneven. For example the Plasma membrane section is short on them and various other paragraphs are as well. Another example, the sentence "The golgi apparatus is known as the packing and shipping department for the cell." could be covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph, but since there's not really a way to denote if that is for a sentence or paragraph, I thought I'd ask. That's awfully colloquial and I'd actually be surprised if it was technically true that it was known as that by most people even if the analogy is apt. 4) Expand the vesicles section. - Taxman Talk 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Taxman's comments above, and also think this is fairly close to GA and could be FA with some work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Reading this, I kept thinking that it would make sense to organize the article a little differently. I would start with a section on membranes and explain what they are composed of and how they function before launching into descriptions on the various organelles. In a similar vein there is no obvious link to membrane / cell membrane in the lead.
  • Captions needed (second image of nucleus has no caption) or need to be expanded (third image has numbered points to 11, but caption stops at number 7).
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. If you want to make all the figures bigger (probably OK), then make them a uniform width.
  • Biggest problem I see with this making GA is a lack of references in some places. For example the middle paragraph of Nuclear envelope or the first paragraph for ER have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Also per WP:CITE, references come directly AFTER punctuation (no spaces between), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • I read for comprehension, not to proofread. The language is good overall, but needs to be polished - for example I recall "nuclear envelopes" where it seemed the possessive "nuclear evekople's" was meant

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is featured content on both the dutch and the german wiki. Being very much a collaboration between de:Benutzer:UW, User:ThaiBeaver, some benevolent cleaner-uppers and myself, I think this article may be ready for FA status on the english Wiki, So measure it to high standards, and i will see what i can do to improve the article. Thanks, Kleuske (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to peer review this article. Unfortunately I don't have time to give it the attention it deserves. I would, however, suggest looking at some of our FAs to see the kind of articles we promote. See, for example, Learned Hand, one law-related article that recently passed. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer and your time and input. Do you think the article is not up to the harsh standards set? Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. WHile this is an interesting article, it does not yet meet the Englsih Wikipedia's criteria for Featured Articles.

  • I know there are differences in citation style between the English and German Wikipedias, but to reach GA or FA, this needs many more citations, for example the whole Congo section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The refs that are there do not always have enough information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need publisher, date, city. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • The {{cquote}} template is used, but this is not recommended. {{blockquote}} would be better, but it is for quotes longer of about four lines or longer (not one line). See WP:MOSQUOTE
  • The language is decent, but could use some polishing in places.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps a lot. And I did not really think the article is ready for FA yet, but i did want a fair stab of what should be improved. The Congo section is quite "new" (translated from the work done by UWon the german Wiki) and hasn't been thourougly reffed yet. I worried most about the language, as it's damn near impossible for me (being a non-native speaker) to keep british and american versions separated. At least you gave me some peace of mind there. I'll take a long hard look at the refs. Thanks!
Kind regards, Kleuske (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lepton

edit
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 not quite sure where to go from here.
  • Get feedback on what's already there.
  • And maybe even get other people to add content and to clarify what I can't.

Thanks, Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff
  • At present the article doesn't seem all that well developed and I think it needs a copy-edit. I feel it should be addressed more at a lay reader who is unfamiliar with particle physics, so more explanation is needed in general.—RJH (talk)
  • Well, I'm mostly trying to get the physics right and to be comprehensive in the coverage for the moment. I'm not denying that in the present state, a lay reader won't grasp everything, but this I don't think there's one subject in particle physics that a lay reader will feel comfortable in claiming that they "get it". If you have ideas about how to write things more clearly, don't be shy in sharing them.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}
  • Perhaps the article could start off with a verbal discussion of the particles and how there were discovered? I think some history can go a long way to putting things in perspective and helping people gain a better understanding.—RJH (talk)
  • In the mass section, is Q in the Koide formula the charge from the prior section? The units don't seem to match.—RJH (talk)
  • In the 'Lepton universality' section, could you explain what 'flavor-independent' means? K and GF are also unexplained, so why not just say proportional to the mass? The 'branching ratios' needs to be clarified. Is the Γ the same as the gamma function? In the last half, does the B mean the beta function? If so, there should be two parameters. Otherwise, B is unexplained. In the first B formula, should the l− be l−?—RJH (talk)


  • No offense, but the Leptonic numbers section seems somewhat meandering and a little disorganized. The term 'weak isospin doublet' is introduced without explanation. (In this case, just providing a link doesn't seem sufficient to me. An explanation would provide clarity.) Conservation of leptonic numbers is introduced, immediately followed by a violation, thereafter with the stronger version, then back to why conservation it is relevant in most cases. I think it should be written: concept introduction, followed by the majority case, then the exceptions with an explanation.—RJH (talk)
  • I reordered things according to that scheme, it's indeed a better way to say things. As far as the weak isospin doublet goes, I'm not quite sure how to convey that in a less technical way.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}
  • You might mention the possibility of fourth generation leptons.[10]—RJH (talk)

Here are some comments that I hope are of some use:

  • The individual sections under Properties seem too short. See, for example, paragraph 1, Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections. With regard to section titles, see bullet 5 of Wikipedia:HEAD#Section_headings. The short sections should either be expanded or merged. It might be interesting to have some information about how the values in the Properties section are determined.—RJH (talk)
  • In the mass section, something could be said about how physicists don't yet understand how the different particles are at the masses they have. (Perhaps a mention of the Higgs boson?) You could also explain why they suspect neutrinos may have mass. I'm not sure what to suggest about spin.—RJH (talk)
  • I'm, no expert, but from what I gather, the higgs is the explanation of why the W and Z bosons have mass, while the photon doesn't. I've never seen the higgs generalized as an explanation as to why all massives particles have mass, but then again, I never looked for that generalization, and again, I'm no expert. Neutrino oscillations are the reason why they suspect neutrinos have mass, and it's mentionned. But I'll try to expand that section.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}
  • Indeed, in the standard model the Higgs mechanism gives mass to all massive elementary particles including leptons. (Note, however that it is not the source of all mass, as is often claimed in popular media. In fact, almost all mass in nature comes from QCD binding energy in hadrons.) (TimothyRias (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • The term 'weak isospin projection' should be clarified.—RJH (talk)
  • I'd like to see some information relating leptons to everyday experience, as well as physical phenomenon. For example, lepton decay from cosmic rays, the role of lepton formation during the big bang, and the possible contribution to dark matter. I'd also like to see some discussion of how they are detected.—RJH (talk)

Comments by TR

edit
  • The section "Spin, helicity, and parity" claims that the standard model contains only left handed leptons. This is wrong. The SM contains both left and right-handed charged leptons. It only doesn't contain right handed neutrinos.
  • On a related note, the same section talks about the helicity of leptons as a well defined quantity, while this is only well defined for massless particles. For massive particles, their helicity is state and observer dependent!there are two ways out of this problem:
    1. Refer to the more abstract chirality of the particle.
    2. Use that on a formal level all leptons are massless in the SM.
  • Related to the last remark. The article should mention that leptons in the SM acquire their mass for the vacuum expectation value of the higgs field.
  • Related to that it should mention that (because their are no right handed neutrinos) the lepton mass matrix does not contain off diagonal terms. (i.e. there are no transitions between leptons of different generations.) (This obviously should not be mentioned in these technical terms)
  • The table of lepton properties lists mass limits for each lepton. This doesn't quite make sense. First of all, the mass eigenstates of the neutrinos are quite probably very different from the flavor eigenstates, this what is causing neutrino oscilations. This means that an electron neutrino will not have a well defined mass. Current data consists of estimates for the total sum of masses en parameters measuring relative masses of the neutrinos. Interpretation of this data has an hierarchy ambiguity (it is unknown if there are two light and one heavy (relatively speaking) neutrinos or that there are one light and two heavy neutrinos.

I'll have a look to see if I can sort out some of these problems.(TimothyRias (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, good idea, since this is completely beyond me.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to add in some of the missing info. I do however fear that the text might be a bit jargony at the moment. So it might be good to have some feedback from people that don't speak QFT for a living. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Train horn

edit
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 believe this article has seen significant improvements in the past year.

Thanks, HarveyHenkelmann (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting topic and good start. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I also note that the previos peer review has many suggestions which have not yet been adressed. I will repeat some here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. It 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. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article is almost entirely unreferenced - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Without them, it is hard to be sure there is no WP:OR. Refs also helps establish notability for topics.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Galleries of images are generally discouraged in articles
  • Article is very US-centric, which seems to raise WP:NPOV issues
  • Article has very many short (one or two sentenc) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article. They should be combinmed with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Rangers seasons

edit
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 make it a featured list. A hockey seasons list hasn't been promoted to FL since January, and FL standards have risen significantly since then. I followed Calgary Flames seasons, the closest model, to a certain extent while attempting to make the list better conform with current standards. Still, an outside review or two before going to FLC is always a good idea. Prose comments in particular will be welcomed. Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One glaring issue is the need to removed the redlinks from the article. The seperate Rangers seasons articles are going to need to be created. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, and have been working on them over the past several days. As I type this, the number of season red links is 37 out of 81 (not including the current season), and I am going to reduce this further before nominating the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire

edit
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 there are some disagreements about the right level of "interconnectedness" of the various paragraphs. Most of the article has been written with self-contained paragraphs, where the first sentence of the next paragraph does not directly follow on from last sentence of the previous. The interwar period section, however, has been written in the style where each paragraph is connected to the previous, beginning with words or phrases such as "Nevertheless...", "A similar struggle...", and several uses of "also".

I support (and am responsible for) the former style, but another editor views this as resulting in "choppy" or "bitty" paragraphs. This editor prefers interconnected paragraphs, and is responsible for the interwar section, but I view these "connection phrases" as unnecessary and not adding any information for the reader.

I would be interested to know what outside editors feel about this.

Thanks, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is not for dispute resolution. I would try a WP:RFC on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're not trying to resolve a dispute per se. We are trying to understand what the recommended style is for good and featured articles, and thought that a peer review would help us understand this. We have a difference of opinion on this, not a dispute. We are not asking people to discern the truth, falsity, verifiability or unverifiability of anything, just a neutral assessment of the quality of the article. If the answer is that it comes across as too choppy, or the paragraphs do not flow from one into another, then we need to change that. Otherwise we don't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It is on the Peer Review backlog, so someone will get to a review in the next week to ten days, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might try taking a read through User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a to see if it is helpful in this regard.—RJH (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: To answer your main question, I found the prose generally to be flowing and pleasing. I'd suggest eventually heading to FAC with this article, and I don't think your prose would be a big issue there after a bit more polishing. The one prose issue I have relates to sentences that exceed my run-on threshold. An example is "In 1902, Japan and Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance which allowed Britain to leave the policing of the Pacific to Japan but the alliance fell apart in 1922 after the Washington Naval Conference when Britain opted to side with the United States." You might improve this by adding a comma between "Alliance" and "which" and another between "Japan" and "but". Better, I think, would be to break the big sentence apart. Maybe this would work: "In 1902, Japan and Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which allowed Britain to leave the policing of the Pacific to Japan. However, the alliance fell apart when Britain opted to side with the United States after the Washington Naval Conference in 1922." I think you could improve the prose by tracking down any other over-complex sentences and dividing them. I have some other mostly minor suggestions for improvement, as follows:

  • MOS:IMAGES says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." It also says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." About a half-dozen of the images in the article violate either one or the other of these guidelines.
  • The Manual of Style suggests that date ranges such as 1852-1877 use en-dashes rather than hyphens as connectors. Also, it suggests shortening the second set of four numbers in a range like this if the first two numbers are the same. Thus the range should appear as 1852–77. Here and there throughout the article are other hyphenated ranges and a few ranges that could be compressed.
  • Page ranges also get an en-dash.
  • On my monitor, the five-column "Notes" section looks very strange. It's much more readable in a four-column layout. I have never seen five used in any article.
  • The spacing in the Notes is odd. For example, "Madisson 2001, p.98,242" needs a space between "98," and "242", and I think one between "p." and "98" is usual as well.
  • If you go to FA, you will want to add the place of publication to the entries in the "Reference" section. "Yale University Press" would become "New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press".
  • The Contested Vocabulary subsection of WP:MOS advises against using the word "whilst". I remember seeing it in the article in at least two places. "While" is the better choice.
  • Numbers expressed in imperial units need also to be expressed in metric units and vice versa. Thus, in the lead "14 million square miles" should read "14 million square miles (36 million km2)". I see a few more expressions in the article that need conversions.
  • Digits should be tied to the units they modify with a non-breaking space to prevent separation by line-wrap on monitors. Please see WP:NBSP.
  • The MoS generally recommends spelling out "percent" in regular text rather than using the symbol, %. Exceptions include complex lists of demographic data and science articles in which the symbol is the norm. For this article, "percent" would be better.
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, see 164, 165, and 167.
  • Numbers from one to nine are generally spelled out. Numbers from 10 on up are usually written as digits in Wikipedia unless they start a sentence. These rules apply to constructions like 19th century as well. The article as it stands has some one way and some the other.
  • I think "slave trade" should be lower-case in the second section subhead.
  • MOSNUM generally recommends against full-date formatting. I ran a script to unlink these. I think there were only three.
  • I don't know enough about the content to give any expert advice or to weigh in on debates about which reliable sources are the best reliable sources. As a general reader, though, I can say that this seems to be neutral, well-supported, and broad in its coverage.

If you find this brief review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. As you know, that is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for this review. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the above points have now been addressed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt

edit
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 have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:What!?Why?Who?

  • Very Detailed
  • Good grammar
  • Informative
  • Great article overall, but...
  • Could be a bit more neutral

--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this really doesn't help the article at all. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall looks pretty good. Very briefly, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement. Needs a copyedit to meet 1A of WP:WIAFA

  • Why no year for Twelve Monkeys in He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995) and Twelve Monkeys, and won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in Twelve Monkeys. Also the language could be a bit tighter here, perhaps something like He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995), and Twelve Monkeys (year), for which he won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor.
  • Avoid words like now, so Following a high profile relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow, and marriage to Jennifer Aniston, Pitt now lives with actress Angelina Jolie,... could be something like Pitt has lived with actress Angelina Jolie since date... or perhaps the old "as of 2008" could be added
  • I am a bit confused - was Etta his mother's middle name? Why not add "Pitt"the son of Jane Etta (née Hillhouse) [Pitt], a high school counselor, and William Alvin Pitt, a
  • If two or more sentences in a row use the same refs, then I think it is OK to just have one set of refs at the end (if there are no direct quotes or extraordinary claims in there). So fix for example Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth.[7][8] Growing up, he was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist, singing in the church choir.[7][8]
  • Problem sentence - we already were told he moved to MO soon after his birth, so does high school need to start with the move there too? Fix to something like After moving to Missouri, where Pitt attended Kickapoo High School [in Springfield,] excelling at school[;] he was a member of the golf, tennis and swimming teams, as well as the Key and Forensics clubs.[8]
  • There are lots of places where the order of phrases is different than what I'd expect. Two examples: He took a number of odd jobs, once he moved to Los Angeles, ... would flow better as Once he moved to Los Angeles, he took a number of odd jobs ... or even After moving to Los Angeles he took a number of odd jobs... OR Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth. could be something like The family moved to Springfield, Missouri soon after his birth, and he grew up there with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal.
  • Captions could be more informative, for example Pitt, who has been named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine could be something like Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine in 1995 and 2000.
  • This is just to point out some example rough spots - there are many more. Images and basic information looks good.
  • Refs generally OK, but watch that they meet WP:RS - is Yahoo really the best ref possible, is it reliable? Ref 126 Angelina Jolie - Yahoo! Profile". Yahoo! Search. Retrieved on 2008-05-16.
  • The lists of awards and roles at the end of the article have no refs at all - they will need refs for 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I'm a little late to the party, but I just stumbled upon this PR. Some thoughts on this article:

  • "was cast in supporting roles in such standard teen-oriented films, slasher flicks, comedies and family-oriented sports dramas" What are "such standard teen-oriented films" exactly, slasher flicks is too informal, the whole sentence sound more like Entertainment Weekly than an Encyclopedia.
  • In the lead, his roles in Thelma & Louise and Fight Club are the only ones that have a description of his film character. Are those supposed to be the pivotal roles for his career? If so, it should be made clearer, otherwise the reader wonders why you don't elaborate on his other roles that are mentioned in the lead.
  • The text is pretty heavy on lists. Biggest commercial successes, odd jobs in LA, ex-girlfriends. Sentences that list more than three items should be uses sparely imho.
  • Critical commentary is often included with a very lengthy introduction ("In the Entertainment Weekly review of the television movie, critic Ken Tucker, wrote" could be just "Entertainment Weekly wrote" unless Ken Tucker is a particularly notable author).
  • Since Legends of the Fall earned him a GG nomination, it should be mentioned a bit more prominently. Overall, emphasis is not always ideal (Snitch has a whole paragraph in comparison).
  • "Rita Kempley of The Washington Post in her review of the film praised Pitt's performance as "impressive"" This offers no inside whatsoever, it's only function seems to be to praise Pitt, which is very POV.
  • "Pitt won his first Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor,[22] and received his first nomination for an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor." Since first=only here, this somewhat implies future GGs and Oscar nominations.
  • Oceans 12 is only mentioned very briefly. It should at least be made clear, that it's a sequel.
  • His involvement in producing The Departed must be explained more. It reads like he was the sole producer and he won an Oscar for it, but in fact he did not win an Oscar.
  • I'm not sure if the story of how he received this award from Venice should be mentioned at such length; I'm not certain it should be mentioned at all to be honest.
  • Overall, the acting career section does not include one negative review, which seems odd. I don't think you need to include negative commentary just to satisfy NPOV, but I think the included reviews should ideally reflect the critical consensus. Now I don't know all of Pitt's movies too well, but I would guess there were a few films that critics generally were not very impressed with him or the film he did.
  • "he was credited, along with his best friend Tiago Miranda Paulo, with " Who is Tiago Miranda Paulo exactly, and what's the source for the claim that he is his best friend, because the Time link doesn't even mention him.
  • The sources for him supporting Obama seem pretty weak; in both stories his name appears to be thrown in there rather randomly. To my knowledge, he did not publicly support any candidate, so I'm not sure this should really be mentioned.
  • Is there any other source to support the notion that he ever was a fundamentalist Christian. To me, this sounds more like an interpretation from the author of this article than anything he actually said.
  • My only big concern with this article: The length of the sections on Aniston and Jolie are very disproportional; his entire marriage of seven years only gets one paragraph (even the last paragraph on Aniston is basically about Jolie). Granted, a lot in the Jolie section is about his children, but this still makes it appear very unbalanced to me. It might also be seen as WP:recentism. I think either the children need their own section, or some more information about his marriage to Aniston has to be added to balance it out (my guess would be there are quite a few more notable things to say about the marriage than the ceremony itself, but I don't know too much about it really).
  • The awards section is pretty long. I'm not sure what the consensus on this is, but personally, I would radically cut it down to just GG, Oscars, Emmys, Venice and BFCA. I'm pretty sure he didn't show up to collect most of the other ones anyway.

I think the article is pretty strong as it is, don't take my long list the wrong way. I hope I can help out. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masters Tournament

edit
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 improve this article to good article status over the next week or two, and hopefully towards FA status later on. Anything you think would improve the article would be appreciated. Also, I would love an opinion on how close it is to GA status. :)

Thanks, Grovermj 04:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
    •   Done and copyedit ongoing

Comments from Brianboulton: This looks an informative article about a major international sporting event. In terms of its becoming GA or FA, I suggest development along the following lines:-

  • Lead: Should be extended to provide a proper summary of the whole article. Information that could be mentioned in an expanded lead includes the role of Augusta National Golf Club in not only hosting the event but deciding who plays there, hence the restricted field; a summary of the privileges accorded to the winner – green jacket, club membership, tour exemption etc; a brief survey of winners – who has won most times, first overseas winner, that sort of thing. These details are properly covered in the article's main body, but should be briefly prefigured in the lead.   Done. Expanded lead, may need a copyedit though. Grovermj 11:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have copyedited the lead. However, the third paragraph as it stands is not really suitable for a lead - the particulars of the Sarazen story really belongs in the article, as do certain other small details. I suggest a shorter version of the third paragraph as follows:-

Jack Nicklaus has won more Masters Tournaments than any other golfer, winning it six times between 1963 and 1986. Other multiple winners include Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods, with four apiece. Gary Player from South Africa, was the first non-American player to win the tournament in 1961. The tournament organisers regularly extend the length and layout of the course to meet developments in equipment technology and player skill, a practice which began after the arrival of Tiger Woods at the 1997 tournament.

    • If you are happy with this, I advise you put it in instead of the present third paragraph. I will keep an eye on this article, and try to come back soon to help with some further suggestions. Meantime I will ask the user, below, to give us a link to the Wikipedia table chronology rule to which he refers. Call me on my talkpage if the need arises. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for that, i've put in your suggestion for the lead. Thanks for all your help! Grovermj 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadcasting: Consider converting the bullet-point format to text.   Done. converted bullet points to text, also revised slightly. Grovermj 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Par 3 winners: Is this necessary? As I understand it, the Par 3 pre-tournament is a semi-social event that has no bearing on the main tournament and is not considered by the pundits as serious golf. I would have thought a brief reference to it was all that was required.   Done. I can definately see your point here, I have put the information in the traditions section and lost the table. It can always be salvaged and turned into another article one day. Grovermj 12:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are some points for you to consider. I have not checked out the prose – it would be a good idea to get someone to do a general copyedit. Incidentally, I like the format of your winners' table, having the most recent at the top of the list. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, i'll get to your suggestions straight away! Grovermj 11:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All   Done and ready for more! Any other suggestions from anyone? Grovermj 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a bit of heavy copyediting, down as far as the history section. I will try to get back and do the rest, but it can't be for a few days. I have scanned through the rest of the article, and a couple of things occur to me that could be worked on meantime:-
  • Prize money. It would be interesting to have something about the size of the prize fund, and its growth in recent years, including how much the winner gets now compared with what he got in 1934 and other earlier years. This information must be on the web somewhere, or perhaps you have a printed source?   Done. I wish I had a good printed source, but it's all on the internet anyway. Thanks again for your time on this article. Grovermj 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much "golfspeak" in the history sections. Sentences like "...pitched with an eight-iron to the green, where the ball sat down too quickly" are difficult for non-golfing people to understand. As a general point I think there is too much detail in these history sections and it would be better to summarise them more concisely.   Done. Grovermj 10:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do feel free to revert any of my changes if, as a result, you think the article no longer says what you wanted to say. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Personally I don't think the winners table is needed seeing as their is a separate list for it, the heading should be kept and a bit more info about the winners should be added as well. Incidentally the table is also in breach of Wikipedia rules on chronology which states that tables should begin from the latest date not the most recent. NapHit (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here NapHit (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page does not state that the table has to be in first to last order. "if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable". I think that it is much more useful to have this way up. On the topic of whether or not the table should actually be there, I can see your point, maybe I should just put some prose in and link to your FL. Grovermj 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I would go along with that, having the table there is duplicating info, especially seeing as the list is of featured quality, seems pretty stupid to have two lists. A paragraph of prose and maybe a picture of Jack Nicklaus should suffice. NapHit (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary of the main features of the list will do fine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Replaced table with prose. Grovermj 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazys

edit
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 make sure it is the sort of article that Wikipedia wants. I was a bit concerned that sections of "The JD Set" paragraph may not meet these requirements (it may seem too much like an advertisement for a little garage band, when it is actually an up-and-coming band that won the JD Set award for the best live band in Australia). Thanks, Luke LJStapley LJStapley (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the article does not pass notability requirements. They meet none of the criteria (does not pass #9 as the "JD set" is a syndicated competition to promote Jack Daniels in regional areas.) The "faster louder" web site is not a reliable source as it is an extended "blog" site — besides the coverage is only of a live date. The Sydney Morning Herald article has nothing to do with The Lazys and should be removed. Unless you can find a reliable source (national newspapers discussing band/their album etc) then this article may be deleted. I'm pre-emptively moving the content to your user page. Try to find a reliable source unless I will nominate this article for deletion shortly. Sorry. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenEye

edit
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 has undergone extensive upgrading since last peer review. The article is in my opinion ready for FAC but I thought I'd make first a peer review as a neutral point of view to show what's missing.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Recent changes to WP:MOSNUM deprecate the autoformatting of full dates. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article and to render them in month-day-year (m-d-y) format to match the existing pattern in the main text. I see, however, that the date formatting pattern varies in the citations, and the script won't change these. It would be good to choose a single date format for the citations and use it throughout. I believe it's OK to use yyyy-mm-dd for all of these since most of them already appear in that format. This would give you a consistent formatting for the main text and a consistent (though different) one for the citations.
  • The "Plot" and "Cast" sections cite no sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for each paragraph, each statistic, each unusual claim, and each direct quotation. If you cite no sources for the plot summary or the casting list, your work looks like original research. Please see WP:NOR.
  • In some places in the article, blue links run together in a way that makes it hard for the reader to tell at a glance what is being linked. An example is Georgian lust murderer. I would try to break these up either by unlinking or re-casting. If you think it's important to link Georgia, you could rewrite in this way: "A lust murderer and Trevelyan's henchwoman. A sadist and masochist from Georgia... " Another of these blue overlaps is "New Zealander Martin Campbell", and another is "Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication", and I see others. It's best to avoid this kind of link bump.
  • In the "Prelude" section, the sentence, "Also, in 1989, MGM/UA was sold to the Australian based broadcasting group Quintex, who wanted to merge the company with Pathé" has some errors that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix. "Quintex" is misspelled and should be "Qintex", and I'd suggest wikilinking it. "Australian-based" needs a hyphen. A company, Quintex, is a "which" rather than a "who". It would be good to find a fresh eye to look for little details like this to spiff up.

  • Avoid Easter-egg links such as "in the new film" in the "Prelude" section. Easter-egg links take the reader to surprises rather than to pages that are chiefly about the linked terms. I would fix this particular one by removing the link.
  • You need a source for the analysis of Bond's character.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: Thinking about the lack of Plot and Cast sources some more got me to wondering if it's possible to find sources for detailed movie plots. I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure you could find a reliable source for any cast list. I looked at a few WP:FA articles about movies to see what other editors had done with plots and casts. Indeed, some have plot and cast sections with no sources. If I were the main contributor to any of these, I'd try hard to find sources and to rely as little as possible on my own observations and opinions about what the plot consists of. You might look at Halloween (1978 film) for ideas about how to improve the "Cast" section. Fun Home in the arts and literature FA list handles the plot questions in an interesting way, and it's well-sourced. Maybe these ideas or ideas from other FA articles could get help get your article up to FA. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Monowi: I'd like to try & help out by suggesting a few thing in the way of copyediting:

  1. The second sentence of the lead section reads, "It was directed by Martin Campbell." This sentence is way too short. Perhaps you could tack its info on before the sentence about writer Michael France, so that the new sentence would read something like, "Directed by Martin Campbell, the film's story was conceived and written by Michael France, with later collaboration by other writers."
  1. The sentence in the lead that reads, "The film was praised by most critics and performed well at the box office, considerably better than Dalton's films, without taking inflation into account." doesn't conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view even with the accompanying reference. My suggestion is to stick to concrete facts and figures. For example, instead of saying, "...performed well at the box office...", just state its exact total gross. A sentence like, "The film accumulated a worldwide gross of $350.7 million...."
  2. For average Wikipedia readers, it would be best to type out BAFTA's abbreviation. Consider a sentence that reads like, "The film also received award nominations for "Best Achievement in Special Effects" and "Best Sound" from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts."
  3. Scanning through the article, there are multiple instances of paragraphs that consist of less than three sentence, such as in the "Effects" and "Music" sections. In general, paragraphs typically consist of three sentences or more, so definitely try to remedy that before the article's next FAC nomination.

I'll try to add additional specific comments later, but I hope these help for now. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trupial: Regarding the suggestion that plot summaries should cite sources, this is frequently impossible; there are no published sources of detailed plot summaries for most movies. WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines says this: Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. Exceptions to this rule may apply to films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the various interpretations should be cited to reliable sources. Trupial (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarfism

edit
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 this article is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and I want to find ways to flesh out the information contained and get the article slated for a WP:GA or even WP:FA nomination in the upcoming six months.

For instance:

  • Tips on the type of information that would be helpful in describing Dwarfism and its effects
  • Pointers in helping the article conform to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)
  • Help in describing dwarfism and its relation to culture throughout history, namely how culture would tie into an encyclopedic entry on Dwarfism
  • Organizing the content up to an encyclopedic standard
  • Any other advice on grammar, wording, or anything that could be helpful in getting Dwarfism up to FA status!


Thanks, Deusraijin (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Cultural refs and Treatment / problems are not in the lead.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded.
  • There are also many bullet point lists which should be converted into prose text in almost all cases.
  • The whole literature section needs references. 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. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • IMDB is not generallly a relaible source
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation (no extra spaces), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Per WP:HEAD, do not repeat the name of the article in headers - so "Problems associated with dwarfism" could just be "Associated problems". The same MOS section says to change "Film & Television" to "Film and television"
  • Problem sentence Nowadays, the LPA (Little Peoples of America) deems "little people" the most appropriate description.[2] Use a date (As of 2008...) not nowadays. The name is Little People of America and should linked. Focusing only on America could be seen as POV - see WP:NPOV
  • As the above sentence shows, this needs a copyedit.
  • See also should be at the top of a section
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure and examples to follow - there are many possible model FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gastritis

edit
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 more knowledgeable people to review my page, and I'm not sure how to add photos to the article

Thanks, Llamoedu (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment for now

The is little, if any evidence that Epstein-Barr virus causes gastritis, (as opposed to gastric adenocarcinoma). I think this section should be deleted. Viruses, particularly Herpes simplex virus can cause gastritis by usually only in immunocompromised people. The most common cause of this disease if Helicobacter pylori, and this bacterium should be at the top of the list of infectious causes. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations should generally be placed after the full stop (period). See "Wikipedia:Cite#Inline_reference". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few brief suggestions for improvement.

  • The first thing you might try in looking for possible illustrations is to try out some likely search terms in the Wikipedia search box in the left-hand column of your Wikipedia screen. I stuck "stomach ulcer" in there to see what would happen and came up with this awful-looking but possibly appropriate thing: Image:Deep gastric ulcer.png. If you look at the page, Peptic ulcer, where I found this, you can examine the infobox in edit mode to see how the image was inserted and what the template parameters look like. A lot can be learned quickly on Wikipedia by observation and imitation. You can also make use of explanations such as those found at WP:Images and related tutorials.
  • The citation notes should be inserted after the sentence punctuation rather than before. I fixed citation 1 as an example of the correct format.
  • When you plan to use an acronymn or abbreviation in place of a spelled-out name or term, it's standard practice to place the abbreviation in parentheses after the first full use of the term. I fixed Epstein-Barr (EBV) in the "Infection" subsection as an example. You should do this with GC, a few lines down. I have to assume it means Gastric Cancer, but why not GA for "gastric adenocarcinoma"?
  • The lead should be an abstract or summary of the whole article. Your existing lead doesn't mention diagnosis or treatment, and it should. My rule of thumb for writing a lead is to include at least a mention of the main idea of each main text section.
  • It's not clear in the "Infection" subsection what is meant by "prevalence". It would be good to explain or link to an explanation of prevalence and how it applies here. It would be possible to read the percentages in different ways if no explanation is given. It seems to suggest that 7.08 of the patients with gastric adenocarcinoma had detectible levels of EBV in their stomachs. But this doesn't fit well with the opening sentence that says, "The Epstein-Barr (EBV) virus plays a role in gastritis". If only 7.09 percent of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma have the virus in their stomachs, then "plays a role" is much too strong. Perhaps "may play a role", would be accurate.
  • More detail about the yeasts would be helpful. It's not clear whether Candida galbrata is a cause or an effect of gastric adenocarcinoma. Why does it matter that it's difficult to distinguish from Histoplasma capsulatum?
  • I would recommend looking through the whole article again for technical terms that most readers would not be familiar with, and I would either link or explain these. Examples are flagella, antibody, mucous, eicosanoid, biosynthesis, and prostaglandin, and I see others. On the other hand, you don't have to link common terms like "blood".
  • In the sentence in "Diagnosis" that reads, "He or she may do a endoscopy, where a flexible probe with a camera on the end is sent into one's stomach to check for stomach lining inflammation and mucous erosion", the phrase "one's stomach" personalizes the experience in a way advised against by the Manual of Style. Better would be "the stomach". I might re-cast the whole sentence in this way: "The physician might perform an endoscopy to examine the stomach lining for inflammation and mucous erosion". Or something like that.
  • Just as the Manual of Style recommends against using "one" as in "one's stomach", it recommends against addressing the reader directly as "you" (although it's OK here in my informal note to you). Thus in the second sentence of the "Treatment" section you should replace "your doctor may recommend" with something like "a physician may recommend".

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keratosis pilaris

edit
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 know how I can improve this to GA status. I would appreciate any input on the "flow" and conciseness of this article. Do I need more details or information in a particular section? Also, how can I insert pictures?

Thanks, Sleepless dreamer (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD to two or possibly three paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only (like acne) - 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.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded.
  • The article is pretty short, while length is not a criterion for GA (see WP:WIAGA), making sure it is broad in its coverage is, and the length may reflect a lack of broadness.
  • This needs a ref: Although it may clear up with treatment, reccurance of KP is very likely. Therefore, treatment should be continued regularly. It may take several months to years for the condition to completely clear up
  • The references could be cleaned up a bit - if the exact same ref is used repeatedly, you can use <ref name = "blah">Reference Blah</ref>, then next time you only need to put in <ref name = "blah"/> and the same ref will be used again.
  • The last sentence on diagnosis seems out of place in the Treatment section
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure and examples to follow - there are many possible model FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphangioma

edit
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 some editing help and possibly some ideas of what other information I could add to the article itself. Also I need assistance with adding pictures of my own to my article.

Thanks,--Amitampocco (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most obvious (and easy to fix) thing is that the article needs wikification.
  • Pictures would be nice, if you want to add them, just click 'upload file' in the left column on the screen and you get guided through the process.
  • Citations can be improved, use a good review article rather than webpages such as righthealth.com.
  • The text about lymph nodes is too long, just have a short explanation, if people want to know more, they can click through to the lymph node article. --WS (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have part-wikified the lead section (mainly de-bolding), to make a start on the article's wikification. I suggest you take a good long look at Wikipedia manual of style and the various other style guide pages, to get a better idea of how a wikipedia article should be structured and presented. Also, at present the language is very specialised and hard for the general reader to understand - try and make the prose less like that of an article in a medical journal and more like an entry in a general encyclopedia. Make more use of wikilinks, especially with the more obscure medical terms. If you can do these things, I'd be willing to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland A.F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not really common with taking an article past GA, so I'd like to list this for peer review to help get some comments on how to improve this article, to eventually take it to featured article status. I'm in the process of asking someone to copyedit the article as we speak, so that should shortly be sorted. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit

Might not get all the way through before my lunch break ends, but here goes anyway......

Lead
edit
  • The first sentence in the lead refers to the club in the singular, but almost everywhere else the club is referred to in the plural - be consistent. Done - Is -> are.
  • "in 1936, when they became the last team wearing striped shirts to win the league" - is this really a noteworthy fact? I'd hesitate to mention it in the article at all, never mind in the lead. Done - Removed.
  • "the league's birth in 1888" - a league cannot be born, choose a different word. Done - Birth -> inauguration.
  • The bit about the England games which have been played at the Stadium of Light has no relevance to Sunderland as a club and shouldn't be in the lead. Done - Removed.
History
edit
  • Wikilink Perry Barr Done - Linked.
  • I see that the slangy term "top flight" is linked to wiktionary, but personally I'd simply not use it Done - Changed to highest divison.
  • "Sunderland won their last major trophy in 1973 courtesy of 1–0 victory" - should be "courtesy of a 1-0 victory" Done - Corrected.
  • In the next sentence, wikilink Second Division, don't think it had been linked before Done - Linked.
  • Wikilink and/or explain "volley", for those unfamiliar with footy terms Done - Linked.
  • "In 1990, they were promoted back to the top flight, after losing to Swindon Town in the play off final, Swindon's victory was revoked....." - grammatically incorrect run-on sentence, split it into two Done - Changed.
  • Next sentence is unreferenced Done - Referenced.
  • "Peter Reid was brought in, and quickly turned things around" - specify what role he was brought in to do, as it could have been anything from chairman down to tea boy (I realise the next sentence mentions him being manager, but it should be mentioned earlier) 'Done'
  • "The Stadium capacity was later increased to 49,000." - very short sentence, culd it not be expanded or merged with another sentence? Done - Merged.
  • "Sunderland returned to the first division as champions" - they did not return to the First Division. They may have returned to the top division in English football, but this should be written in a way which is not potentially confusing Done - Corrected.
  • Wikilink Luton Town Done
Colours and crest
edit
  • "an all blue strip, somewhat different from their red and white stripes of today" - the latter clause is a bit "stating the obvious"...... Done - Removed.
  • "In front" is two words Done - Split.

Back for some more later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

edit

General advice, from a person who talks like an expert despite only having half-shares in one featured article :-)

FAs aim for brilliant prose, not convinced they often get it :-) but the featured article candidate does need to be well written, and it will need a copyedit. So I'm not going to pick out every bit of prose that I think needs tweaking, because your copyeditor can do that themselves. Have a look at the WP:Featured article criteria, and the advice articles linked from there. And check out the structure and content of other featured football club articles. Arsenal F.C. has the balance about right, to my taste: enough detail to be complete, interesting and informative, without space-filling woffle. FAC takes quality of referencing more seriously than GA or FLC.

  • Lead. SAFC is a professional club, not team. Done - Changed to team.
  • History. What's an "unhealthy" rivalry? Done - Changed.
  • 1973 cup final. You'll need a more obviously neutral reference for the "greatest save" stuff than a Sunderland book. Done - Referenced with the FA and changed to "most famous save".
  • And there are better sources for the result/scorer than the not-always-accurate fa-cupfinals.co.uk (if you look at their 1931 Cup Final, their Birmingham team is actually the Newcastle team from the previous year): try The Times archive, or The FA. Done - Changed to The FA reference.
  • "Since 1973 only two other clubs ... have equalled Sunderland's achievement of lifting the FA Cup while playing outside the top tier of English football." needs citing. The current references cite that those clubs were lower division; they don't cite them being the only lower division clubs to do it. Done - Changed reference.
  • Friendship Trophy needs explaining. Done - Created a smaller section in Honours section, then linked to from history section.
  • I'd be tempted to add a non-Sunderland source for Swindon being relegated for financial irregularities. Done - Changed to Swindon source.
  • Relegation to Third Div. Third Division needs linking. Better say just "for the first time": anything like "first and only" would need an "as of" date. Done - Linked.
  • Too much recent detail (and too little ancient-history detail). You've got three times as much detail of SAFC winning the Second Division in 2007 as you have of them winning three league titles and three league runners-ups in the 1890s. - Comment - I've revisited and expanded the earlier years quite a lot, I feel there's a much better balance between the beginning and current periods of the club.
  • Colours and crest. Ref #49, which seems to know what it's talking about, says there's no evidence for South Bank giving them the striped kit, and ref #50 isn't what I'd call reliable, being a Q&A column where answers are variously submitted by readers, come from Wikipedia, and/or are totally unsourced. Does your book, or Historical Kits, not say anything on the origins of the striped kit? Comment - I'll have a look in my book, but the page with the Sunderland logos on is solely for the images.
    • Now numbers 48 and 49, which may be what's confusing us. The Roker Park one says there's no evidence, and the Guardian one is IMO unreliable.
      • Removed about South Bank.
        • The book says we first played in red and white stripes in the 1886-87 season, I've added it to the articles.
  • Stadiums. Add a {{main}} for Roker Park and SoL. Done - Added.
  • "After renovating the Main Stand, the club were nearly bankrupted as a result of it, and Roker Park was put up for sale." Did anyone buy it, or what? Done - Added some.
  • Maybe some of the detail on the SoL from the History section belongs here? Done - I've moved the part about the Davy Lamp.
  • Supporters. Hooligan firm needs linking. Done - Linked.
  • The brawl quote. The name of the person saying it isn't important: his job, a lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service, is what makes his words relevant. Second, according to the cited source, it isn't a continuous quote. The first half came from the CPS lawyer, but we aren't told when; the second half came from the trial, but we aren't told who said it. Maybe too much detail? Done - Split quote.
  • The cited source for banning orders refers to people banned by the courts, not the club. And the two references could be combined, they're only two pages of the same report. Done - Changed to court order, and they're two references because it links to a specific part, and takes trawling through different parts out of the equation.
  • Programme price needs an "as of" date if included. Done - Included.
  • "The current fanzine of choice" needs rewording. Done - Changed.
  • Nicknames. "Sunderland do not have an official nickname". Is that not what the vote was for? Oops - That was old news, changed.
  • "As expected" needs either citing or removing. Done - Removed.
  • Maybe a bit much detail about the renaming of the battery? could some perhaps go in a footnote? Done - Trimmed, left a bit info, and relevent info to Black Cat battery.
  • Managers. You don't need a full list of managers here, only duplicates the main manager list. Either write a couple of sentences mentioning achievements of particularly important managers, or cut the table to a well-defined subset (those having won a trophy, perhaps). And if you keep the table, the flags column isn't MoS-compliant: see MOS:FLAG. Actually, neither is the use of flags in the players section, but as that's standard football-club-article usage hopefully it's not your problem. Comment - It doesn't include all the managers in Sunderland's history, I already cut the table down to a minimum of 50 games which cut the list from 33 managers down to 21.
    • You're right :-) I looked at the long list and failed to read the words. Still seems a lot to me, but that's a matter of taste. If you're keeping the flags column, though, you do need to add the country name alongside the flag.
  • Honours. If it was me, I'd lump the second-tier titles all together, as Second Division / First Division / Championship (level 2), but that's just a matter of taste. Either way, the section needs sourcing. Done - Added references.
  • References. ISBNs need a hyphen in the middle, not an endash. It took me ages to work out why they weren't linking like they're supposed to. Done - Changed back to hyphens.
  • Documentation for cite templates now requires the publication date to be in the same format as used for dates in the main article. Comment - Sorry I don't quite understand, could you point me towards where this happens.
    • That's me not making myself clear, just for a change... In the article you correctly write dates in the non-US format 28 November 2008. If you look at Template:Cite web etc, in the reading it now says that the "date" parameter should be entered in the same format as used in the main text of the article. What that means is, instead of writing Cite web |date=2008-11-28 you need to write Cite web |date=28 November 2008.
      • I've done that, and changed book references too.
  • Categories. Need to be mentioned and sourced somewhere in the article. There's no mention of "United Soccer Association imported teams" or "Companies formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange" in the article, as far as I noticed. Done - Removed.
  • Things you haven't got. Maybe a bit more on ownership?

Please don't take all this as things you need to do now. Much of it is just suggestions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

edit
Lead
  • "making them one of the most successful clubs in English association football." Could probably do with a reference. Done - Removed, strangely I couldn't find a reference despite it being here.
  • "Prior to the Second World War, Sunderland were league champions six times: in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936." This seems to be simply a repeat of the previous sentence. Done - Merged with previous paragraph.
  • "Sunderland stayed in the top flight until 1958, a record which only Arsenal, in 1992, surpassed." What's the record? Successive seasons or total seasons? Done - Successive.
  • "which translates into English as "Stadium of Light"." Any need for the italics? Done - Removed italics.
History
  • "Glasgow-born and Sunderland-based school teacher James Allan started the Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club in October 1879." I don't think you need to link 1879 here. It doesn't really add much. There's quite a few similar to this. Done - Unlinked.
    • A couple more years are still linked for unobvious reasons. The two I can see, are "In 1904" and "In 1913". If you feel they are necessary keep them, but I fail to see any reason to link there. Peanut4 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sunderland Albion F.C." Other clubs are referred to by their commonname rather than XX F.C. It's probably best to be consistent. Done - Piped.
  • "They finished the season as champions after gaining 42 points, they were labelled by The Times newspaper as "A wonderfully fine team"." Two main verbs. I've had to re-read this three times and I still can't find the emhasis. Also I don't think "A" should be capped. Done - Uncapitalised the A, but as its a direct quote, can't really do anything with it.
  • "before West Brom acheveied the same feat in the 1919–20 season." Should spell out team names in full. Should be West Bromwich Albion. Done - Spelled out.
  • "The club won their fifth league title in the 1901–02 season, after finishing second in the previous campaign, they finished just three points above Everton to secure the title." Again two main verbs. Probably a best idea to put a semi-colon after "campaign". Done - Added semi-colon.
  • "Due to the outbreak of World War I in 1915," Br. English prefers the First World War. Done
  • Similar with World War II. Done
  • "for the first, and only, time to date." first is redundant. Simply say "for the only time to date." Done - Changed.
  • "They won the first leg 2–1 at Roker Park but were defeated 2–0 in the away leg, meaning they were knocked out of the competition 3–2 on aggregate." Might be best to wikilink aggregate. Comment - It is linked in the previous sentence.
  • "After having lost to Swindon Town in the play off final," Very awkward wording. Done - Simplified.
  • "They stayed up for one year before being relegated on the final day of the season." I'm confused if they spent just one or two seasons. I guess it's two seasons, in which case it ought to read "final day of the following season." Done - Changed.
  • "Sunderland's last outing in a major final came in 1992 when, as a Second Division club, they returned to the FA Cup final." Perhaps wl 1992 to 1992 FA Cup Final. Done - Linked.
  • The history section seems a little weighted towards recent events.
Colours
  • "Sunderland began playing in an all blue strip since their formation in 1879." Probably best as "from their formation." Done - Changed
  • "The club played in a strip with red and white halves,[56] until the 1886–87 season," I'm confused. It says they played in blue in the previous sentence. Done - Changed.
  • "The crest also contains two lions, the black cats of Sunderland and a banner reading the club's motto Consectatio Excellentiae which means In pursuit of excellence" Might be a good idea to put "In pursuit of excellence" in quote marks. Done
    • "Sunderland began playing in an all blue strip from their formation,[55] until they changed to a red and white halved strip,[56] until the 1886–87 season, when they gained the red and white stripes they currently play in." Two uses of "until" in the same sentence. Can you provide a year when they changed from blue to the halved-shirt? Finally, you shouldn't finish a sentence with a preposition. Not entirely sure about the use of currently either. I suggest changing it to "...red and white stripes in which they now play." Peanut4 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Done - Added year, split and reworded sentence.[reply]
      • Just a thought. Have they played in red and white stripes since 1887? If so it might actually be better to change the final part to "...in which they have played since." Peanut4 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to that.
Stadiums
  • The club then moved from Blue House Field to Groves Field in Ashbrooke in 1882," then is redundant. Done - Removed.
  • "The club's third stadium was Horatio Street in Roker which became the first Sunderland stadium to be north of the River Wear, the club played a single season there before moving." Again two main verbs. Perhaps add a semi-colon after Wear. Done - Added.
  • "Roker Park was one of the venues for the 1966 FIFA World Cup and witnessed games between; Italy and Chile,[67] USSR and Italy,[68] USSR and Chile,[69] and the quarter final between USSR and Hungary." Are the actual games relevant to Sunderland? Best for that info to be at Roker Park but not here. Done - Removed.
  • "It hosted its first England match on 10 October 1999 against Belgium as England won 2–1, the attendance was 40,897." Again the details aren't relevant to Sunderland. Done - Removed.
  • "the stadium hosted its first competitive match, when England and Turkey played in a Euro 2004 qualifier infront of 46,667." First competitive international match surely? Done - Removed as that is too irelevant.
  • "From 2004 the Stadium of Light has been used as a host for graduations from the University of Sunderland." Again not relevant to Sunderland AFC. Done - Removed.
Supporters
  • "The Seaburn Casuals and Newcastle's firm, The Gremlins brawled, with Kingsley Hyland OBE" I suggest re-writing. On first read I thought Seaburn Casuals and the Gremlins had a fight against Kingsley Hyland. Secondly, who is Kingsley Hyland? Done - Split sentences and indicated who Hyland is.
  • "the jury stated it was "like a scene from the film Braveheart" in a previous trial." Is this definite? Juries don't normally give any verdicts in trials. Done - Resolved.
  • "Sunderland has a small number of supporters who have had Banning Orders placed on them by court order for unreasonable behaviour." Who says it's small? I suggest re-writing to indicate a reason to say small. Done - Removed small part completely.
  • "The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest ground in the 2007–08 season following a survey which was carried out at every ground in the league, the highest peak volume was measured at 129.2 decibels." Again two main verbs. Done - Semi-colon to split.
  • "Tyne–Wear" and "Tees–Wear" should have dashes not hyphens. Done - Added.
  • "Sunderland proposed that the gate money to be donated to charity, Albion declined and Sunderland won the match 2–0." Two main verbs. Done - Semi-colon to split.
Sponsorship
  • "Sunderland A.F.C. is currently sponsored" Should be are to be consistent with the rest of the page. Done - Spelled out.
Friendship Trophy
  • "Each time Sunderland and Norwich City meet, they contest the Friendship Trophy," Why the bold? Done - De-bolded.
Sources

Hope this all helps. Peanut4 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A three time FAC, this article is very close to becoming a feature article. It just needs fine tuning all around, hence the need for a peer review. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

  • General: As with most weather articles, this one uses a lot of technical language. The impression is that these articles are written for weather buffs, and there is not much effort made to interest the general reader. A pity, really, because the weather is a great topic for conversation, particularly here in the UK, and I believe that the subject could be made more accessible.
  • Specific points in lead:
    • Being pedantic, the 15 people weren't killed "in Mexico", but "off the coast of Mexico"
    • Second sentence of the lead conjoins unrelated clauses. It should be reorganised along the lines: "Kiko, which peaked just below hurricane lines, was forecast..." etc
    • You need to indicate how a wave that started in the Atlantic entered the Pacific. It must have crossed land - where did this happen?
  • Meteorological History:
    • I suggest you link "convection" to convection (meteorology)
    • Middle of last para, a close repetition of the phrase "weakening trend" reads awkwardly. Suggest rewording.
    • What does "a dryer and more hostile area" mean?
  • Preparations:
    • "in case" is two words
    • Casualties: It looks as though, since nine bodies were never found, the total deaths should be recorded in the lead as 24, not "at least 15", which sounds like a provisional assessment made while there was some possibility that other survivors may be found. Incidentally, the numbers 2 and 9 should be written out.
    • The sentence "Other than the capsized ship, the storm's effects were relatively minor" reads rather heartlessly, like: "Apart from the fact that 24 people died, nothing much happened". Surely this rather grave consequemce shouldn't be dismissed quite that casually?

I hope that these comments are of help to you. Perhaps you would consider helping the peer review process by reviewing another article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for the casualty count, I can't assume that the nine missing people were killed according to wiki standards, I'm just going by the available info. I've also fixed the issues you've found. Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite all the fixes done. 2 and 9 are still given numerically, and "hostile" is not explained in the context you are using it in. Also I disagree with what you say about the casualties; people whose bodies are never found after a shipwreck are assumed dead (think Titanic etc). However, the last is not a point I wish to press. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, ok, now I've fixed them. I checked with an administrator, Juliancolton about the fatalities, and he said that the nine missing should be listed as missing not as casualties, unless an article as stated them as such, or it would be considered Original Research. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Pin Xiu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean swimmer with muscular dystrophy, who won two medals and set two world records at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out issues (such as prose issues) that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. BLP issues are a major concern, especially considering that she is a minor and a private figure. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Wizard's comments

edit

I have only made a cursory review of the article so far, but here are some initial thoughts to consider:

  • Would the article benefit from an infobox?
  • Is there a free image available to illustrate the article? This could be an image of the whole swimming team if there isn't a picture of Yip Pin Xiu on her own.
  • Would conversion of the citations to using Citation templates be beneficial?

These three are all fairly minor and shouldn't stop the article from passing GA, but they may be worth considering anyway. I will take another look through the article later to see if there are any more substantial problems. Road Wizard (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so short that an infobox would contain little information, most of which would be already in the lead section. It did not take me long to find a photo of her; isn't she cute? But, if I uploaded it, the anti-fair use brigade would delete it pretty quickly. As for citation templates, I will consider your suggestion, but I prefer not to use them because they make editing more difficult for exopedians. Thanks for your suggestions, though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a pre-GA peer review I have based the following comments on the Good article criteria.

1. Well-written
Prose issues;
  • "She is the youngest of three children to her parents" - who else would she be the youngest of 3 children to other than her parents? May need a little rewording/pruning.
Done Changed to "youngest of three children in her family". Does that adequately address your concern? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manual of style issues;
  • Lead: The lead is quite short and could provide a better summary of the article - perhaps a brief mention of the other sporting events she participated in other than the Paralympics or the influence her success is having on changing public perceptions of disabled people in Singapore.
Noted Will expand the lead with a sentence about the impact of her successes on disabled sports in Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added a sentence about the subsequent debate to the lead. Feel free to improve the sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout: Generally well laid out though the last two paragraphs may benefit from being placed in a separate section (they do not particularly relate to her swimming career). Other optional features to consider for inclusion are navboxes, to help readers navigate between related articles (e.g. a Paralympics or Singaporean sport navbox may be of interest to readers, if available), and perhaps an infobox (as mentioned earlier).
You mean like the "Films by Jack Neo" template at the bottom of I Not Stupid Too? Sounds like a good idea. What do you think of splitting the Swimming career section into subsections entitled Early career (paragraphs 2-3), Paralympics (paragraph 4) and Post-Paralympic impact (paragraphs 5-6)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More sections may be useful, but we need to be careful not to go too far. Two or three paragraphs is a good target to aim for when looking at the minimum size of a section. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs? Perhaps paragraphs 2-3 should go into an Early career section, while paragraphs 4-5 should go into a "2008 Summer Paralympics" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon: What is MCYS? I think I can guess what it is through reading the article, but the acronym should first appear next to the term it represents. What is "Project 0812"? This should either be explained in detail within the text or alternatively a brief explanation in the text with a link to a more detailed article.
Done I had forgotten to mention the acronym the first time the full name was mentioned. The references do not thoroughly explain Project 0812, but they provided enough information for a half-sentence summary. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
I am unable to access any of the supplied references, but all the key paragraphs have at least one citation flagged. This should allow editors familiar with the subject to check the validity of any claims. Links to online sources may be useful both to editors and readers if available, though offline sources are also fully acceptable.
Thanks for your comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage
I am not an expert in the field of sports biographies or knowledgeable about this particular individual. However, as a general reader, it seems to cover most aspects I would expect to see. The article is a little short and could benefit from expansion if possible, though the shortness can be justified on grounds of the presumed age of the subject. I am aware that the date of birth is part of an ongoing BLP dispute, but it may be wise to give the reader at least some indication of her general age (would the year of birth be an acceptable compromise until the BLP dispute is resolved?)
Little is known about her, so I can hardly expand the article. That is why it will never be an FA. If the BLP policy lets me mention her year of birth without a reference, I would be happy to do so. I removed a sentence about her upcoming (now finished) O Levels as fluff, but if it had stayed in the article, it would help readers (especially Singaporeans) infer her age. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, the shortness of the article can be justified by the age of the subject. If she progresses any further in her career it would be logical for her article to grow over time. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of years later, if I still edit Wikipedia, I will look for newspaper articles detailing her more recent (currently future, what an oxymoron!) career. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral
The article is written slightly on the positive side of neutrality, but this is most likely due to a lack of negative issues in this young person's life rather than any bias in the text. As there has been no suggestion of non-neutral writing on the article this shouldn't prove a problem in a formal GA review.
I have not found any negative issues so far. If I find any, I would be cautious about mentioning them due to the minefield that is BLP. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for negative points to be added to the article. My comment is simply a review against the criteria - the article reads slightly more positively than most biographies I have seen but that it shouldn't pose a problem for passing GA. I also put forward a possible reason why the positive tone is correct in this instance. No further action is needed on this point unless additional source material becomes available. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification. No action taken. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable
The article is currently subject to an unresolved content dispute with potential WP:BLP issues. Unless the dispute is resolved in some manner, the article will fail this aspect of the GA criteria.
I hope the BLP dispute will quickly be settled. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute should be resolved soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
There are no images on this article. Images are optional, but a formal GA review will ask whether it is possible to add any. If possible please add images relevant to the subject or prepare a reasoned justification to provide to the GA review when questioned.
See above for my comments regarding images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is not specifically mentioned in the Good Article criteria, the abundance of red links in the article may be of concern to the GA reviewer. Where possible, articles should be created for any subjects that a reader may wish to explore further. Road Wizard (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six redlinks! Oh dear. I blame systemic bias. Wikipedia needs better coverage of disabled sports. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of blame or bias. It is a matter of article standards. A Good Article is one that provides the reader with answers to the majority of the questions they may on a subject. As there are several red links in the article on key subjects it is likely that a reader will not have their questions answered. While 6 links doesn't sound like much, I have seen a smaller number of links cause problems for larger articles at the review stage; on a short article like this one, 6 links equates to about 18% of all the links in the text.
This should be seen as a spur to improve the coverage of disabled sports. Allowing articles to reach GA status without attempting to resolve the difficult problems of systemic bias would be tantamount to sweeping the issue under the carpet. Road Wizard (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is to blame for systemic bias; it exists because most Wikipedians are American. I agree that "this should be seen as a spur to improve the coverage of disabled sports" and will write about another Singaporean disabled sportsperson, William Tan, as part of our National Day DYK Project. As for the redlinks, I will see what I can do; I know almost nothing about those competitions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklee's comments

edit

Reviewers would like to note the discussion on certain aspects of the article taking place at "Talk:Yip Pin Xiu#Three questions about Jacklee's edits", and comment on those aspects either on the article's talk page or here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing peer review

edit

Since this has received only one review, by Road Wizard, I shall close this peer review to focus on resolving the BLP dispute and other unfinished business, as well as preparing I Not Stupid Too (which is also on peer review). Thanks for the helpful review, Road Wizard; feel free to post follow-up comments on the article talk page. On 1 January 2009, I will file a new peer review - by then, all the issues should (hopefully) be resolved. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippa (a book of the dead)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone a successful GA review, and will be, I hope, a suitable candidate for FA someday. I would very much appreciate brutally honest comments and suggestions for improvement. Muchas gracias, the skomorokh 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I recall reading about this at the time - generally nicely done article. Here very briefly, are mostly nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • 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 Content and editions and critical receptions are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Unclear sentence Shortly after the project had germinated in the minds of Begos Jr. and Ashbaugh, Gibson was recruited to complete the trio.[2] - the trio has not been mentioned before, and it took me a second to realize what was meant
  • Problem sentence - what is "than a" there for? ... as poetry.[8] than a Gibson stated that Ashbaugh's design "eventually included a supposedly self-devouring floppy-disk intended to display the text only once, then eat itself."[9]
  • Would it be clearer to say who, in order to classify it had to read it, and in the process, necessarily had to destroy it.[6]? two "to read it"s in a row seemed a bit confusing
  • Darknet is a dab
  • Would specifics of the Kroupa conjecture read better as specifics of Kroupa's conjecture?
  • There are two things that look like block quotes in the Release and replication section. Per WP:MOSQUOTE, block quotes should be at least four lines long. The attributions are also inconsisten (William Gibson is first name, last name - Kirschenbaum, Matthew G is last name, first name. I also think this last block quote needs to be put into context - see WP:PCR
  • Give metric as well as english units (book dimensions) {{convert}} may be helpful here.
  • "Partly unique" No - something is either unique or it is not.
  • The poem is a detailed description of several objects, including a photo album and the camera that took the pictures in it, and is essentially about the nostalgia that the speaker, presumably Gibson himself, feels towards the details of his family's history: the painstaking descriptions of the houses they lived in, the cars they drove, and even their pets. needs a ref
  • The section "The mechanism" makes little sense to me - could it be rewritten to be more accessible to the lay reader?
  • Should it not be mentioned that the text of the poem is available online at http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/source/agrippa.asp (an external link)? Or is this only part of the text?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Baker

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was a group collab. for WikiProject Volcanoes a while ago, and I'd like to get feedback for bringing it to FA.

Thanks, —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 23:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does not really follow 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. Most of the names paragraph or the most snow at the ski area is not in the body of the article, for example.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. They should also be in numerical order, so fix things like ... about 31 miles (50 km) [8] due east of the city of Bellingham, Whatcom County, making it the northernmost volcano in the Cascade Range but not the northernmost of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which extends north into the Coast Mountains. Additionally, it is the fourth highest mountain in Washington State and the sixth highest in the Cascade Range.[9][3] move ref 8, make it [3][9]
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Statements like ... the volume of snow and ice on Mount Baker (0.43 cubic miles, 1.8 cubic kilometers) is greater than that of all the other Cascades volcanoes (except Rainier) combined. are confusing - perhaps say something like "the volume of snow and ice is second greatest after Mount Rainier, and is greater than that of all of the other Cascade volcanoes."
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - combine with others or expand to improve the flow of the aricle.
  • I would put the history in chronological order - now it skips around from hundreds of thousands of years ago, to "Modern Mount Baker" (violates WP:HEAD by repeating the title of the article), to 6,600 years ago, then 1792.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some mountain / volcano FAs that would be great models, see Mount St. Helens, Mount Tambora, Mount Pinatubo, and Mauna Loa.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Gay Power, Gay Politics

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it's new I believe it is at or near Good Article status and wanted another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks very good to me, I think it should do well at WP:GAN - these are mostly nitpicks.

  • To provide context for the reader, would it make sense to add the year to the first sentence? I know the air date is given later in the lead, but I think adding the year earlier would help.
  • Spell out abbreviations before their first use, so fix LGBT and BDSM (not sure if there are others). Most people will know what these mean, but not everyone will
  • Is there more information available on its original airing? What kind of ratings did it get? What sort of initial critical response did it get? Did it ever air as a rerun (I guess not). Is it available on DVD? This kind of infdrmation is often included in television episode articles.
  • When did this occur: Right-wing groups used copies of Gay Power, Gay Politics as fundraising tools until CBS forced them to stop. ?
  • For NPOV, could a bit more on what the right wing groups said about the episode be added?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macaroni Penguin

edit
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 for general critique and edits and to improve the general quality of the article. This article is a part of the WikiProject:Ap Biology. Thanks, --LNG123 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, after a quick look over.
  • Overall there is an inconsistency between caps for the species name, used sometimes, not others. One should be settled on, and WP:BIRD preferentially uses caps ( see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms).
  • the lead is a good summary of the article, but needs some wikilinks. Actually, wikilinks are needed throughout.
  • They are usually distinguished by yellow and black plumes on the top of their heads. distinguished from what? Several penguin species have yellow plumes, don't they? Distinguishing features separate something from everything else, so this needs to be changed to say that they have them or clarify what separates them from other penguins
  • mention in the lead their distribution, even if it is brief.
  • The species is listed as vulnerable, so it would be worth discussing the threats and conservation of the species.

Additional Commentary by JimmyButler

  • Enormous amounts of specific information (numerical data) without any effort to provide citations. I highly recommend as you add content - cite the source. Going back and randomly shot-gunning citations that may or may not contain the information that you propose to attribute is a very dangerous strategy. The only credibility this article and Wikipedia has as a whole; is the accuracy of the citations. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wronkiew

edit
  • "Like all penguins, they cannot fly, and their and wings are stiffened and flattened into flippers for a marine lifestyle." Extra "and". Also, lifestyle is a word generally applied to humans, not birds.
  • "They dive to depths up to 100 meters, but most dives for food are usually under 6 meters in depth." Redundant.
  • "Not much is known about macaroni penguins outside of their breeding patterns." It seems from what I have read so far that quite a bit is known about them besides their breeding patterns.
  • "The Macaroni Penguin was described in 1837 by German naturalist Johann Friedrich von Brandt." Was this in a book? If so, what was its title?
  • You might want to split part of the Taxonomy section into a new one called "Discovery".
  • The taxonomy section could use some expansion. What are some other related species? How many species are known in its genus? What are the defining characteristics of its genus?
  • Some of the content in "Description" should be moved to Taxonomy for the reasons described above.
  • The reference to Yankee Doodle should come after the penguin's crest has been completely described.
  • The description section could use an image.
  • Do Macaroni Penguins moult? Does their appearance change from young to adult?
  • "There are a minimum of 216 breeding colonies at 50 sites, including southern Chile, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands, the South Orkney and South Shetland Islands, Bouvet Island, the Prince Edward and Marion islands, the Crozet Islands, the Kerguelen Islands, the Heard and McDonald Islands, and very locally on the Antarctic Peninsula." This sentence is too long. Categorize the islands, and break up the categories into separate sentences.
  • Reference numbers should go right after the period at the end of the sentence, without a space in between.
  • "There is a greater population of males, which is why females breed at a younger age." Avoid starting a sentence with "there" unless it is referring to a specific place. In this case, "there" is a placeholder for a missing subject in the sentence. This can be rewritten as "Females breed at a younger age because the male population is larger." It says the same thing in 12 words instead of 16.
  • "It allows females to select more experienced males as partners and they can usually find a partner from amongst the surplus of males, as soon as they are physically able to breed." Not immediately clear what "it" refers to. The "and" needs a comma before it, as this is a compound sentence. "Amongst" is overly formal, also the sentence would read better if it was removed.
  • "A fertile macaroni penguin will lay 2 eggs each breeding season, which is unusual among other species of penguins who lay only 1 egg." Spell out numbers below 10.
  • "It is often ignored by the penguin and quite often eaten by predators, including other larger birds such as gulls skua gulls." Huh?
  • "The smaller egg may also be lost to fighting among in the penguin colony." Just "in" will do.
  • "Incubation, or keeping the egg warm, is done by both the male and female in long shifts." The "or" makes it sound like these are different concepts. Also, starting with "incubation" forces the rest of the sentence to be a little awkward. Maybe rewrite as "Both the male and female penguins keep the egg warm in long shifts, a process called incubation." Or you could assume the reader knows what incubation is and just wikilink it.
  • Everything mentioned in the article lead must by explained somewhere later in the article. For example, the number of penguins should be explained in the "Distribution" section.
  • An appropriate lead section for this article's length should be two paragraphs.
  • There are some interesting things explained in the article which do not show up in the lead, for example, the penguins' predators, their geographic range, and their migration patterns. Conversely, there are some details in the lead that do not help the reader to understand why this penguin is important or interesting, like the depth of their dives.
  • You should study the article about Emperor Penguins in detail. It was promoted to FA status, and it covers a similar subject.

That's all for now. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Wronkiew (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayer–Vietoris sequence

edit
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 this is my first article, and I want to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, GeometryGirl (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakob.scholbach I think, overall the article is a good asset, written clearly and inviting to read. Some minor issues:

  • Lead section: "as the groups of singular chains" -- should omit the "as"
  • Also, the lead section should summarize the article. This article is relatively short, but in principle every section of the article should be represented by the lead appropriately.
  • Mathematical markup: I personally prefer using usual text whereever possible. For the long exact sequences LateX is fine, I guess, but
Thus   so that  .
could be rewritten as
Thus ∂x = ∂(u + v) = 0
which looks neater, IMO. Check out this list of characters if you need.

*Another thing: in mathematical text, minus should not be typed by a hyphen but by &minus;, which gives a longer dash: −

  • The [citation needed] tag has to be dealt with. (In general referencing is fine, but the Bott-Tu reference should be placed next to the other ones. A helpful resource is zeteo.info, which contains many mathematics books references, in this case it is at [12]).
  • In the second homological version long exact sequence, the indices are somehow messed up (i_* would go from H(A, C) to H(X,Y), I guess). It would also be good to name the maps (already for the first one).
  • What does "chain groups" mean (derivation section)? A redlink is not so helpful, a short explanation is better.
  • What does C_n (A + B) mean?
  • Examples: k-sphere should be wikilinked.
  • The hemispheres are not complementary, as pointed out later.

Since you also candidate for Good Article status, some other remarks that I think would be nice to be adressed for the article being "good":

  • There is no history information at all. At least mentioning whether M & V proved the thing should be done.
  • An image would be really good (also a formal GA criterion, I think). The sphere-case should be no big deal to draw.
  • Perhaps one more advanced example would be nice. Currently the article reads a bit like a introductory textbook section.
  • What about generalizations and related notions? E.g. what about other topologies (e.g. Nisnevich topology). Also other types of (co)homology would be good, e.g. etale cohomology (actually pretty much any cohomology theory, right?) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jakob that the article needs images. This is a priority, in my view, and I've added this point to the maths rating. Geometry guy 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I know nothing about creating pictures. I have ideas about pictures but I feel powerless... For example, I would like to illustrate the boundary map in the homological case. I want a two-dimensional space (a torus would be nice) decomposed as two overlapping subspaces A and B with a 1-cycle looping around and decomposed as the sum of two cycles lying wholly in A and B with the relevant common boundary represented. Any help? GeometryGirl (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an image expert, but Inkscape usually does a good job. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The images chosen in the article are better than nothing, but a drawing that really shows the two overlapping(!) hemispheres would be better then just cutting a billiard ball into halves. The current images don't illustrate the use of the sequence too well. Hatchers book (Hatcher, Allen (2002), Algebraic topology, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-79540-1) might give some ideas... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could use a bit of discussion about possible generalizations, the uses of such sequences, and how they apply to the field of topology as a whole. I'm far from an expert on topology, so apologies if these are already here. RayAYang (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of districts of West Bengal

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 this list has a potential to be a featured list. Please put your comments or suggestions 1)to improve this list, 2) to indicate what it is lacking.

Thanks, GDibyendu (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried modifying the image to improve text readability. I screwed it up and reverted back and so on. But, in the process, what I figured out is that its probably a problem of display of SVG files in browser. When I opened the file, clicking thumbnail from image page, it looked much better and readable. And after that it looks good and readable in this page too. If you think that still it should be improved, I'll need to consult with people who are better with maps, as this image is used in West Bengal article too. BTW, I use mostly Mozilla on Windows.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This map is updated now.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Images need to be ideally SVG. I can teach you how to do this.
    Thanks. I think we have to recreate the main map showing districts also, as it does not show the islands properly, even though the original map, on which this one was based, had shown those. I'll start the discussion on how to use inkscape in your talk page. I downloaded it few weeks back. Also, AreJay's suggestion on using same color for individual district maps sounds good. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Based on locator map. Also made all svg maps for individual districts, as used in the table. Used colors in main map as suggested in cartography dept of WPIndia for a 4-color map. Thanks for your guidance. --GDibyendu (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too much content in the lead. Move to a new section and surmise the article as a whole into lead text
    Planning to cover geographical perspective in lead. In that case will move current lead to another section like History of districts or simply History.
    Done. Lead now describes geographical perspective.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, looking at many other FLs, it seems that lead is not being used as a summary, rather its an introduction to the topic and is often longer than it is in normal non-list articles.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Headquarter --> Headquarters. --Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Left-align the "Subdivisions" column. --Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You can add something on the Chicken's Neck and on the Bangladesh corridor to the enclaves
    Covered Chicken's Neck, need to see how to mention the enclaves.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Something on the enclaves would be interesting
    Details are covered in another article, will add a link in see also.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Format the references correctly. Needs an accessdate, publisher, and more details.--Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (2001) --> {{As of|2001|at=2001}}--Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from AreJay: Well composed. Some quick observations:
    • The ToC should be above the table with the Divisions
    • Headquarter is a verb, which means to establish an entity's headquarters :). --Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subdivisions should be left-aligned style="align: left;" in the particular cell. --Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why only 2001 census data was used? Can we provided 2008 estimates, if available (as a supplement to 2001 data)?
    • District maps should be in SVG format, and should be highlighted with the same color (see List of counties in Texas as an example)
    • I'm planning to work on a similar list for Karnataka at some point in the future and was considering including the etymology of the names of districts (some may or may not be very clear). Any thoughts on including that in this article? I was also considering including Net District Domestic Product as well. Don't know if that info is available and can be included for WB. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Etymology for many districts are controversial or unknown. Controversial ones: Birbhum, Midnapore. Unknown:Darjeeling, Dinajpur. If we had one outstanding theory behind etymology of each district, then we could have added a column for this. In case of US counties, mostly they are named after someone, and usually all of them have a few hundred years of history: so finding right origin of name easy for them. However, I'll keep on searching on this as I had also notice a similar list of counties earlier. Alternatively, I am thinking of adding a column on municipal corporations/municipalities as there are not too many of them for each district (max:27) (to add some more flesh to the table).--GDibyendu (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:

  1. You can add the coordinates of the headquarters as an extra column. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since HQ column is already there, we can show coord in bracket there. What do you think?--GDibyendu (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried this. But the table looses show as wikitable tries to show the content within available area so that scrollbar is not needed.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a suggestion that the description of the two Midnapur districts (that is, description of the subdivisions which they were made of) is not needed in the History section. The sub-divisions are listed in the list proper.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Inline references needed for the following para--

A district in the state of West Bengal is governed by a district collector or district magistrate, who is appointed either by the Indian Administrative Service or the West Bengal Civil Service. Each district is divided into subdivisions. A subdivision is governed by a sub-divisional magistrate (SDM), better known as Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). Other than urban units like town municipalities, a subdivision contains 'community development blocks' (also known as 'CD blocks' or simply 'blocks'). A block consists of urban units like census towns and rural units called gram panchayats. A block is administered by 'Block Development Officer' (BDO). A gram panchayat, which consists of a group of villages, is administered by a village council headed by Sarpanch.

--KnowledgeHegemony talk 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You can state it like: word (Bengali: "meaning"). However I not quite sure whether these words are purely Bengali(:?) I guess they are Hindustani. --KnowledgeHegemony talk 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably OK as many Indian languages will have same word or close which means same. My question is whether it should be simply added as a note like: Purba<ref>detail</ref> Medinipur or rather just with a bullet in references section (no inline citation, but listed in references section)?--GDibyendu (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the above prescribed format in the main text itself. No need to make it a note or a ref. Simply use brackets().

Eg. The head of a gang is called Zillaxyz (Bengali: "leader").

Review2 by =Nichalp
  • Too much of blue links in the lead. Could this be removed?
  • But, all are unique links. Not using lead as summary mainly because of layout problem: a short lead will necessitate shortening pic size which will make the text unreadable. Only two words can be delinked: enclave and exclave. And possibly district names, as they will be linked in the article later anyway. What do you think?--GDibyendu (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When India gained independence --> After India...
  • the province of Bengal was partitioned --> I thought Bengal was already partitioned in 1905. Also convert to active voice
No, the partition of Bengal in 1905 was temporary, and was amalgamated again in 1911. However, it did not remain as big, with Bihar, Orisa etc states being created. But the Bengali-speaking area of Bengal remained as Bengal Province.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • States Reorganisation Act of 1956 advised revision --> was this just an advisory? -Fixed.
  • divided into two districts --> bifurcated-Fixed.
  • A district in the state of West Bengal --> A district (this sentence is not unique to WB alone) - Rephrased, rest of sentence applicable for West Bengal only due to presence of 'WBCS officer'.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'CD blocks' or simply 'blocks' --> italicise instead-Fixed.
  • 'Block Development Officer' --> Remove quotes-Fixed.
  • Please show the international border vis-a-vis the state border in the maps (thicker for International) see WP:INMAP
  • 3 divisions --> spell numbers < 10-Fixed.
  • A division, which consists of a number of districts, is administered --> A division consists of a group of districts that is...-Fixed.
  • Make the "Total" row a header row. -- Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{official}} for the external link
  • You can also mention any district renames such as Calcutta to Kolkata
  • Chandanagore sentence needs to be split-Done.
  • Suggest the colours of the two district maps be in line with WP:INMAP for consistency
  • Are you saying that the coloring scheme should be different for all district maps as per WP:INMAP? First two maps (districts, divisions) uses INMAP-prescribed colors for four-color maps. If you meant to say it about maps in the table, how about 1st color (cream) for other districts and orange one for highlighted districts instead of red?--GDibyendu (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about subdivisions before 1947?
  • There was no West Bengal before 1947. Following 1905 partition, erstwhile Bengal was partitioned into Bengal province (covering present day West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa) and a new province named East Bengal and Assam, which was created by adding present day Bangladesh to Assam province. In 1912, when these changes were reverted, Bengal province contained only present day West Bengal and Bangladesh. In 1947, this Bengal province was partitioned.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, are you talking about what the divisions contained before 1947? Seeking similar info for subdivisions, which are parts of a district, would be too much to handle :) I'll give up if you meant that.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  1. The map should look like Image:India-states-numbered.svg
  • I tried changing the map. But, it does not seem to work out. Problem 1: it was based on West Bengal locator map, which uses an object for region outside India. But this object is not sharp and does not focus on the border of India. When color is changed and stroke is used, it shows up badly in a few places. Plus for Sikkim a separate object was used in locator map too; marking international border and interstate border differently on that is a problem. This is also the part of the second problem, distinguishing between these two types of borders. For solution, that object of locator map which holds the region outside India must be corrected and also, an outline map of India would be needed, where international boundaries and interstate boundaries are demarcated clearly. It does not seem to me that I'll be able to handle this.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two more ponits to ponder on the map. List of counties article for many US states are FL, none of them show what lies on the border except water bodies (like the article for Michigan counties show the Great Lakes). So, why do we need to show all that here? It seems that a simple outline map showing the state and its districts may be sufficient for this subject matter. Secondly, this 1st map was shown in West Bengal article also, which is FA. Apparently, there was no issue regarding this. What do you think? --GDibyendu (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (re to subdivisions before 1947): My query was were these districts drawn up in 1947, or before that?
  1. (1905 partition) --> Was the 1947 partition on Bengal done with the same boundaries as in 1905?
  2. Try adding the following information in the text: police breakup: eg does an IG of police handle a district? RTO information (List of RTO districts in India#WB — West Bengal), court-related information (are there district courts in each Dist. HQ? --Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead should summarise the content, so you can also add historical information. You need not add all the district in the Ganges: one or two will do Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Add the internal and external boundaries of West Bengal in the lead. Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to FLC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Closing this peer review. Please feel free to raise any concerns/suggestions in article talk page or FLC page, which I am about to start.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2005 UEFA Champions League Final

edit
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 after a couple of days improving the article I think it is close to achieving good article as the lack of images and the need for a proper copyedit mean it is not near featured standard yet. Hopefully any glaring discrepancies can be fixed and the article can improve. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably not enough experience to do a very good peer review and I'm not a native speaker either. But I will make some suggestions anyway:
  • Some links are still missing. In the first paragraph England has a wikilink, but Italy not so; links to tactics later, when discussing formations.
  • On other occasions the placement of links appears to be somewhat random (no offense). I don't understand, when you added a link to Clarence Seedorf and when not for example.
  • "goals coming courtesy of ...". It is probably not PoV but sounds very prosaic, too much for my linking. Probably it's just me being non-native.
  • Still some copyediting is required: In 'Route to the final "Third" is capitalized an the score of Milan vs. Inter has the wrong hyphen, etc. There are many similar smallish mistakes. (match summary, 5th para: "in three years he final")
  • References missing: Who expected Milan to field 4-4-2? Also Liverpool seems to have been expected to field a 4-5-1 according to the UEFA ref.
  • The match report is not using time consistently: Present here, past there, back and forth...
  • Would "post match" not be more appropriately be titled as "aftermath"?
As a conclusion I like to say that the PoV issues mentioned in the previous PR seem to have been mostly resolved. Copyediting is still an issue, though. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in speculative fiction

edit
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 passed it's GA, and i've added 60 more references from unique sources since. The are no more general sources i'm planning to check ,so i think it is comprehensive enough for FA. But i need the wrtiing and flow checking, so that the writing sounds good enough.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I will be pleased to check the prose. The other aspects of the article will need someone else's comments, as I have no expert knowledge. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some general comments, and some specific points on prose in the first few sections.

  • General points
    • My overall impression from reading the first few sections is that the prose is written in a style which is likely to be inaccessible to the general reader. I suspect it will very hard work for people who are not post-graduates in literature with a specialism in this genre. Is it possible to make it a little more reader-friendly?
Hmmm, i have no degrees in literature, and i wrote it. But i guess i am over-educated :-). I'll try to make the lead more approachable.
Anything you can do within reason. I'm not suggesting a dumbing down, just a nod in the direction of WP:Accessibility. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the purpose of the infobox, beyond providing links? The unexplained diagram looks like another mark of exclusivity.
Just links, based on making the articles in them linked enough for a featured topic. They also recommend use of a free image to identify the topic. I used the infobox template, but it more proerly a navbox in purpose, similar to other topic navboxes in featured articles. I don't understand the exclusivity part - it is a free image used for the "Sex in SF" topic, the template only has the lead position as there is no image that would be better in it's place (i tried other free images, but they were too specific.) I based it one navboxes like the one in Renewable energy in Scotland featured article, which have a user-generated image and links. (Nb. I've made the image and box as small as possible while keeping the links on one line).
OK I now understand the function of the box, diagram and all, so disegard my earlier comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people think that SF stands for "science fiction", yet from the word go you have appropriated it, without explanation, for the broader category of speculative fiction. This is vaguely unsettling to the reader, who has not really had the term "speculative fiction" explained.
SF can mean either, according to their articles, although science fiction is more common. I used it for spec fic here so i could write SF to include everything throughout, and specified science fiction when the source did so. I added a note to further explain that it is being used in this way. Otherwise i could write "speculative fiction" every time, but it is used much more often and is longer (my poor abused fingers were that was the basis of my reasoning :-). Speculative fiction is linked, and it's use is explained in the first sentence (which i just expanded a bit) Should i write more? I thought that people who wanted to learn about speculative fiction beyond the definition given would click the link. Or i could rename the article to "homosexuality in science fiction, fantasy, horror, and related genres" but i was hoping to avoid that, as people might also question the homosexuality part, so hat might have to be unpacked in the title too. I wonder if i could get the FA with the longest title? "Homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality in science fiction, fantasy, horror, and related genres" would be quite a mouthful :-). That's what she said! Hahahah :-D.
I like the footnote explaining your use of "SF", but I think it is in the wrong place. "Homosexuality in speculative fiction" is the article's title, and MOS requires this to be bolded and unlinked in the first line of the article. Linking "homosexuality" is surely unnecessary, anyway - everyone knows the meaning. So the article should begin: "Homosexuality in speculative fiction refers to..." Then, in the middle of the second paragraph you could use "speculative fiction (SF)[1]" in place of the present "SF". That would preserve the titling convention and give you an unobtrusive explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it, but it has gone back and forth already. I thought the MOS says not to bold descriptive terms as titles. Eg History of Radio should not be bolded/delinked.
    • MoS issue: Date ranges should include endashes, not hyphens, e.g. "1920–30s", not "1920-1930s"
Will change.
  • Lead
    • "...they can be more restrained" would read better as "they are often more restrained"
You mean the contrained part? I changed one to restricted. I think one was already "often" and that got changed to "can be" during the GA review. I'll fiddle some more while simplifying.
I think I got a bit muddled here, but it reads OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead is too long, needs splitting. Suggest full stop after "controversy", then: "This lack..." etc
Will do.
  • Critical analysis
    • First paragraph follows very closely wording used in the lead, and gives the reader the immediate though: "I've just read this. "Can the wording be rephrased a little differently?
That's how i always contsruct leads - literally copying sentences from the main text, and letting editor drift carry them away. I'll rewrite when simplifying the language.
    • What is the "science fiction community" - Does this refer generally to people who read it, or to people who write it, or is it a description of science fiction buffs or enthusiasts?
all of the above! :-). SF community is like the LGBT community, is just a vague term meaning people associted with science fiction. Should i link it? (fandom is the closest term we have an article on). Science fiction community is the term used in the sources - i could define it if the link is not enough, although cannot promise that the definition i cite is the same one they are using in the other sources.
Just a suggestion, but if you referred first time to the "broad science fiction community" I would get a better sense of the term as inclusing readers, writers and fans, without a need for links or further explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The construction "Gay-" and "lesbian science fiction" looks awkward and would read better as "Gay" and "lesbian" science fiction.
Took out quotes anyway. But hyphen is to show that the source used gay science fiction and lesbian science fiction, not "gay and lesbian science fiction". Removing made it ambiguous i thought?
Down to you, really. I was just saying that I found the construction awkward, but others might not. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph reads like a book promo, and looks out of place. Who says it's "authoritative", anyway?
The sources say :-). I can add more - it is essentially the only book of its type, so has no competition, and is referenced by everyone. I've moved it to the time period it was produced, and will expand on its importance, instead of the current description.
  • Proto-SF: en-dash required in AD date range
will change
  • The pulp era, 1920–30s
    • En dash irequired n date range
will change
    • Who defined this as the "pulp era", within this date range?
I'll add a source defining pulp era.
    • Re the term "famously prudish", does the source use this phrase. Even if it does, the phrase should be in quotes - it's the source's description, not a hard fact.
will remove anyway - think example is not needed here (unless someone asks for one).
  • Golden Age - again, the date range in the section title needs an en dash, and again, we need to know who defined this era as a "golden age".
Will add a source. I assumed the link would be enough, or i'll be sourcing every single word to a disctionary! :-).

It's a long article, and it is likely that my comments will come in segments. Meanwhile, perhaps you would respond to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, next two sections:

  • New Wave era: Same comments as above about the naming of this era, and the need for an en dash in the dates range.
Will add cite.
    • The section begins with a series of assertive statements, none of which appear to be cited. If the citations are to the references after the 5th sentence, I don't think this is adequate; the strong statements need to be more specifically cited.
OK. Should i reduplicate the citation for every sentence there? I thought it was overkill, but don't mind pointing out at FAC that an univolved editor wanted cites.
What you have done should be enough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was publicly gay since 1968" "Was" and "since" don't go together, try "had been" for "was"
    • "this came out" sounds a bit clumsy. "This was reflected...", perhaps?
    • "mosaic novel" term needs explaining
    • Overall, my feeling is that this section has rather too many examples; the picture would be clear with half the number, and I would seriously consider cutting the section back.
The reason it has so many examples compared to previous sections is that almost every important work or author is from this time. Beofre there was little, and after they were so commonplace as to be not noteworthy. For this 10-20 years all the boundaries were broken. I only used examples that has something specifically written about the portrayal of homosexuality in a source, so none were chosen by me.
  • New wave era
    • "depictions of unrealistic lesbians" - not sure about "unrealistic". Maybe "fantasy", or "fantasized"?
Fantasy would be confusing in this context, as it sould be "lesbians in the fantasy genre".
    • I'm unsure about the use of "resurgence" in the sentence beginning "In the 1990s..." Resurgence suggests that something existed before, died down and was then revived - a new surge. This doesn't square with your narrative, so is resurgence the best word?
    • Plase check name "Meliassa". Is it "Melissa"?
whoops, typo.
    • I don't understand this sentence: "Scott has reported that reviewers called some of these works 'too gay' for mixing cyberpunk with political themes". Perhaps a comma is needed after "too gay", but even so, why is this mixture too gay?
Too gay for enjoyment maybe? I don't know how anything can be too gay, but that's what they said. (or what she said they said). I'll try to re-arrange.
Source said "some reviewers who said that about Trouble and Her Friends, that it's too gay, these kind of cool cyberpunks where you just drop in all this weird politics", so i don't know which part they found too gay, just that the mixture was. I could say "Scott has reported that reviewers called some of these works 'too gay', disliking the inclusion of political themes in a cyberpunk narrative", if you don't think that crosses into OR. And it still doesn't explain how they got from there to too gay.
Your suggested sentence works fine for me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning: "Many of Scott's other SF works..." is too long; there are probably three sentences here.
Will split and shorten.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments so far! I've now read so many books on this, it is difficult to remember that some of these terms might never have been heard by non-SF readers.Yobmod (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more:-

  • LGBT SF and the sci-fi community
    • 5th line something missing - "...and aided the in the publication..."
    • 2nd para: should "such meeting" be "such meetings"?
    • 3rd para: Single sentence paras are frowned on at FAC! This one could easily be attached to the previous para.
  • Awards: A very small point, but shouldn't the awards be listed in order of age, i.e. the Lambda first? (No date given for inception of the Tiptree award)
  • Comics and manga: in the last sentence I suggest the phrasing should be "which generates criticism" rather than "and generate criticism".
  • Marvel (and subsequent subsection headings: Why are all these level 4 rather than level 3 headings?
Level 4 as i limited the TOC to not show them.

That's all for the moment, will finish off tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few final thoughts on the Film & TV section:

  • You need a source for the statement that the Hays Cod was written by a Jesuit priest. I can't see anything in the references that supports this. Unless it can be reliably sourced, the statement should be withdrawn.
Will source, i know i read it.
  • "10–15%" needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Likewise, after "slash fiction", though this could be an emdash.
  • Second paragraph: two late sentences each begin "The series..." I've lost sight of which series you mean, so can this be clarified?
  • The term "minor canon character is slightly confusing, since a minor canon is also an Anglican Church dignitary. Could you rephrase to "a minor character from the canon"?

That's me done now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly! Will be gradually working through all the comments, so it was a great help.Yobmod (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie - comments

  • "SF has also depicted a plethora of alien methods of reproduction and sex, some of which can be viewed as homo- or bisexual through a human binary-gender lens." The second half of the sentence isn't very clear. I can guess at a couple of possible meanings; can you clarify?
For example, the hermaphordites in Left Hand of Darkness are not male or female, and hence cannot be gay or lesbian. And yet the book is considered to be ground-breaking for gay SF, because readers naturally associate 2 characters of none-opposite genders as being gay. But a society without gender cannot have homosexuality, therefore is only the readers preconceptions that gender must be binary that makes it of interest as LGBT lit. I thought i'd already linked Gender binary, would it help if i did?
Example from source: "Queer theory emphasises fluidity and liminality, not fixed binaries or alternatives....given the coincidence between the history of SF and the history of modern sexuality, SF can hardly escape the influence of a culture in which epistomologies of sexuality have become so naturalised as to be invisible".
which i think means people cannot stop thinking in terms of gender, therefore SF works that don't use human (ie. binary) genders still get forced into that framework in the readers mind, and are precieved as "gay". So the sentence needs to say something about how the imaginary sex methods in SF are regarded as gay due to readers preconceptions that "normal" means having 2 complimentary genders.
  • "not contradict mainstream societies assumptions": do you mean "societies'" or "society's"? Either way, it's missing an apostrophe.
Probalby the second. I'll read and decide.
  • I agree with Brian that "famously prudish" would be good to put in quotes. Beyond that, if you're going to mention Tarrant, I think it's misleading to call her an editor -- her duties, as far as authors were concerned, were only those of a copyeditor. (And I wouldn't bother to redlink her either, but that's your call.)
I think i'll take her out altogether, leaving general sentence. Hopefully no-one at FAC will then ask for an example .-)
  • "but also suffers from the affront that the relationship creates to his own morals": who suffers -- John, or the boy?
  • The Golden Age section has two consecutive sentences with a "however".
  • "attempts at portraying homosexuals sympathetically or non-stereotypically were met with hostility": the mention of "hostility" is quite an interesting point. Does the source give examples? The only example I can think of offhand is Campbell's reaction to "The World Well Lost", and you mention that further down. It might be better to move the paragraph on Sturgeon up to second, to connect the mention of hostility with that anecdote.
The source says "often...hostility", and then move directly to discussion the Sturgeon story. So i moved that paragraph up as suggested.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. as usual. What do you think about the "too many examples in New Wave" point above? Shortening that section would make me want to shorten all the others to keep due weight. I could still split a "History in Lit" sub article out, but had decided to only do that if the whole article got too big.Yobmod (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach chapters

edit
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 advices on possible grammar advices as well as the structure of the list.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • The chapter and volume titles should use proper casing, rather than keeping all uppers or all lowers, per usual naming/style conventions
  • Japanese words that are not common words should be italicized, such as katana, kanji, furigana, and tankōbon (and they should italicized in all instances)
  • Mentioned on the talk page already, but for chapters with two names, use the volume name as it is how the list is organized; either note in a parenthetical or in footnotes that it had a different title when serialized (and I'm inclined to think that those should be sourced to the magazine issue it appeared in.
  • It is something of a bone of contention at the moment, but I personally think the items listed under Chapters not yet in tankōbon format should be sourced to the specific issues of the magazine they appeared in. Otherwise, how do we know they are accurate? The individual chapters within a tankōbon are implicitly sourced to that volume, but individual chapters in serialization do not have that type of sourcing; sourcing all looks good otherwise
That sure would be hard. Could it be explained in a more general way?Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably one reason its not currently done (and it probably isn't required for FL passing, since D.Gray-man doesn't have it). My thinking, though, is if the chapters have been serialized and we have the title, it should be possible to source that title to the issue of WSJ it appeared in using {{cite journal}} rather than just presuming all are correct. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some copyediting is needed, as I spotted a few mild grammar issues in the lead and while quickly glancing at some early volume summaries; I didn't check all of them to avoid spoilers past the English releases :-)

Hope that helps some. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • "They have been published in the Japanese-language magazine Weekly Shōnen Jump from Shueisha since 2001." Perhaps change it to: "In Japan, they are published in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump magazine since 2001."
  • "However, he alsoHe encounters former Soul Reaper Sōsuke Aizen"
  • "The distributing company Viz Media has been serializing the individual chapters in Shonen Jump since November 2007 in the United States."
  • "The individual chapters are collected by Shueisha in a series of tankōbon volumes, which also include a poem by the cover character."
  • "The first volume was released on January 5, 2002, with. The latest volume is the thirty-sixth, volume 36 released on December 4, 2008."
  • "Viz released the first volume on June 1, 2004, and volume 24 the twenty-fourth on September 2, 2008."
  • "A hardcover "collector's edition" of volume 1 the first volume with a dust jacket was released on August 5, 2008."

Well, the list needs copy-editing, preferably from someone more competent than myself. Consider tagging the list with the copy-edit article-issue template. It might catch someone's attention. Otherwise, good work. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musculoskeletal system

edit
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 seeking advice from experienced wikipedia editors to advise me on formatting and information content. I would like information on bettering my article.

Thanks, Dondevoy01 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

My comments are necessarily of a limited kind; someone else will have to check the article's accuracy, as I have no medical knowledge. However, I find this a good example of WP:summary style, and was pleasantly surprised by its general accessibility, something which doesn't apply to a number of medical/scientific articles.

  • I have done the odd punctuation fix.
  • The following are technical/medical terms which should be wikilnked: synapse; sarcolemma; synovial joint; paresis; ataxia; median nerve
  • What does "innervated" mean?
  • Are synovial joints the same as synarthroses? If so, I think this should be made clear.
  • Two problem sentences in the "Diseases and disorders" section. Both are oddly constructed and need clarification. The second is long, and could be improved by splitting:-
    • Diseases of the musculoskeletal system mostly encompass functional disorders or motion discrepancies; the level of impairment depends specifically on the problem and its severity and articular (of or pertaining to the joints) disorders are the most common.
    • Although, primary muscular diseases, neurologic (related to the medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it) deficits, toxins, endocrine abnormalities, metabolic disorders, infectious diseases, blood and vascular disorders, and nutritional imbalances are diagnosed as well.

And that's about it, for me. I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JimmyButler

  • In several locations their is implication that this combined system is specific to humans; yet there is additional notations referencing hydrostatic muscular - skeleton systems. I suggest deleting any references specific to "the human body" and be more general in your application.
  • What is your bases for deciding what information to include in this enormously broad topic. Specifically in your references to diseases of these combined systems. Surely there are 100's of disorders - what is the bases for your selections.
  • The challenge of such a topic is determining what is essential in understanding the article versus what is best farmed out to articles with a more narrow focus. Consider an article entitled "The Human Body". It is likely to be stub simply because the detailed articles are written on the specific components of the human body. Any attempt and full expansion of such a heading would easily become a book or an encyclopedia of its own. Although this topic is not as extreme of an example; I still sense that you are faced with similar concerns. You are heading toward an eclectic and random assortment of facts regarding both muscles and skeletons. Encyclopedia articles need to be more "focused" than that. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteochondritis dissecans

edit
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 in the hopes that I may nominate it as a Feature Article Candidate. While well-referenced with the information presented, I am sure it could use some elaboration on section such as "Prognosis." Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, FoodPuma 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The "Bibliography" textbooks don't have many citations in the article. It would be preferable to use in-line book citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • For a layperson, the lead is very technical and intimidating. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - can it be made a bit more accessible? My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but treatment and epidemiology seem not to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Also try to avoid or explain medical jargon as well as provide context for the reader. For example "subchondral bone" is not explained until the Pathophysiology section (nor is it linked). Or what is the Talar dome in Epidemiology? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
  • There are several bullet point and numbered lists in the article that might read and flow better if converted to prose
  • There are also several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even sections that would flow better if combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • The Infobox image has no arrow(s) to point out the symptoms and does nothing for me - I also note it is a knee as are the other two human images, should the lead say it is especially common in knees?
  • Since you already say dogs, I would just link German Shepherd Dog as German Shepherd
  • I would put the History section much earlier in the article, as well as a general description of what is going on

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petals of Blood

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've created this page, and have done a lot of work to it over the past week. I'm wondering where to go with it now, and how to expand it better. I feel that I've given the article a good basis, but would like suggestions on which direction to take it so that I may expand it in a useful way, give welcome and helpful information, and avoid any waffle.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Adasta     15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Here are some comments on the first couple of sections.

  • Lead
    • en dashes, not hyphens, are required

**spelling error - "opression" --> "oppression"

Done. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**"with one another" at the end of the lead is redundant; this is implicit in "sharing a common history".

  • Background
Done. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**The map is rather old (from 1911 Britannia) and not at all clear. I am not sure of its value, and its positioning here seems pointless anyway. I'd recommend losing it.

Done. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both parts of the first sentence are a bit problematic. The first part is oddly phrased; I assume it means it was Ngugi's first novel after completing his further education. If so, this should be clarified. It would be interesting to include where these studies took place, and what he was studying. The second part of the sentence is also odd. "Instead" is wrong here; just say it was written over a five year period.
Done. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid "whilst" (a WP-disapproved word). Use "while" instead.
Whilst is an acceptable word in BE. I know there's some debate about "while", but I'm not going to change it. The OED writes:

'2. conj. = WHILE conj. 1' and that's good enough for me!--80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC) **Second sentence - more grammatical problems. The subject of the first clause is the novel ("Initially begun..." etc), but in the rest of the sentence the subject is the author. This needs to be rewritten along the lines: "He began it while teaching at North Western University, and continued to work on it after his return..." etc[reply]

I think this has been done (although not by me!). --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Try to avoid too many repetitions of the word "novel", if you can.

Changed a few words. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**"...to be written first in English." I think "first" is redundant - the book was "written in English"

It's actually a significant point, but I don't think I clarified it enough. Hopefully this revision makes its relevance more explicit.--80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Presumably, Government interference began after the publication of his first work in Gikuyu, not after he merely decided to write in the language?

Cleared that up, I think.--80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Ngugi "wrote and began work"? Needs rephrasing.

Done.--80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more comments later, but the above points give you something to work on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary: I had a lot of problems with this section. It does not flow smoothly and is rather disjointed, and I had no sense at the end of what the book was really about. Here are examples of some of the difficulties I found:-

  • Karega is supposedly one of the main characters, but we are not told who he is, as we are with the other main characters.

*Wanja, we are told, is the "daughter of the town's oldest and most revered lady", which seems unlikely given that she is apparently herself a young woman. In the list of characters Wanja is said to be this old lady's granddaughter, not daughter. Need to clarify.

An oversight which has been corrected. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Nyakinua is not identified in your summary as the old lady, Wanja's grandmother, so I had to try and guess who she was.

Corrected. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In paragraph 3 you don't explain Wanja's sudden return to the story. What was she doing in Nairobi?

*You have the group arriving in Nairobi twice in this paragraph - line 2 and line 5

Clarified. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the boy Joseph?

*The plot summary should stick to the main points of the narrative rather than including what seem to be side issues. For example, the sentence about Karaega corresponding with a lawyer "about his education" seems divorced from the main plot and appears in the middle of a passage about the rains coming. Again, the air-crash that kills a donkey seems to have little to do with the main plot.

Removed extraneous details.--80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*What is "Thang'eta"? Presumably some sort of drug, but this needs explaining.

Clarified. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Abdulla seems to fade out of the story apart from being the owner of the killed donkey, though he is mentioned without explanation as Wanja's main love.

Revised. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Who were "the other men Wanja invited", that died in the fire?

Fixed. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Some sentences are puzzling, e.g. "This is the first time Munira hears the story" - what story?

Clarified

*"Munira is sentenced with arson"; arson is the crime, the sentence is the punishment. You can't be sentenced to arson. You need to clarify.

Clarified. --80.5.207.41 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, more care needed with punctuation.
  • More attention needed to grammar and sentence construction: "...who Munira falls in love with" should be "with whom Munira falls in love", "Wanja grows disillusioned" should be "Wanja becomes disillusioned", with a comma after "disillusioned".

I will leave it to you to act on or respond to these points, and the earlier ones. I'll continue with the review when I have your responses. Please leave a message on my talkpage Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird Al" Yankovic (album)

edit
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 pleased and satisfied with its state now, and would like to take it on to the next step. I've never taken an article past GA before, and would like to see what I can manage with this particular article.

My two concerns: (a) the article isn't very long and I don't know how that will affect it's reception, and (b) while I specifically like the two-columned track listing, it is non-standard and I don't know how that will affect it.

Thanks, — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An enjoyable read. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music. Kid A is one example of a FA album.
  • I think the article and lead need to be expanded. 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. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think there should be a background section - briefly explain how Weird Al got his start as a musician and parodist (his biography article is also a FA and should have good sources). See model articles
  • There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections in the article, which hinder the flow. I would combine them with others or perhaps expand them.
  • Any idea how well it sold (how many copies)? It did well enough to launch his career.
  • The song descriptions in the track listing need references.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award

edit
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 interested in listing this as an FLC, but was advised to get some more feedback as it only just meets the unwritten 10 item minimum rule for lists.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

SRX 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It has been awarded to four Britains, with the five of the other six winners being European. - remove the   Done
  • so the then St Helens captain Paul Sculthorpe collected on his behalf. - comma in between Paul's name.   Done
  • The most recent award was presented in 2008 to David Brailsford, for coaching the British Olympic cycling team to eight gold medals at the 2008 Olympic Games. - no need for a comma.   Done
  • In the lead, what I meant was add a little more to summarize the list.   Done
  • So the notes works as "Rationale for..."? right?
    • Yes, is this wrong? I adopted a style similar to that used in this recent FL.
  • Some of the notes have quotations, others dont, fixing?
    • Some of the reasons are given explicitly, others have their achievements described. The ones given explicitly are quoted, the others are summaries of the achievements stated on the BBC website. Does your fixing? comment mean that I might be running in to WP:NOR problems? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was quotation marks. Sorry.--SRX 23:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, but I recommend using an alternative template for flags, the one which uses the abbreviation for the country's name, because I do not even know some of those flags.--SRX 16:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure that is necessary, as if you are unsure what a flag represents, you can find out by hovering your mouse over the flag. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most reviewers bring that up at FLC's, but if you want to keep it, be my guest.--SRX 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, however the flags are also accompanied by there full names in the section below, so this hopefull shouldn't be a problem. I'll give it a shot at FLC at least. As it is the only way to really know. Thanks once again for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of India

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was original promoted to FA status in 2005 due to the efforts of User:Nichalp but demoted in 2007. With him, I am working on improving the article so that it can regain FA status. After some deliberation, the section on climate was integrated with the rest of the article by stating climate next to the relevant region - for more details, we simply defer to Climate of India. The issues I think still need to be worked on are:

  • Copyediting and grammar checks
  • Writing a good, succinct lead
  • Having enough citations for the important facts (I'd like to know what other facts need citations)

Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Kensplanet

  • No all CAPS as in Citation 1
  • Images should be oriented properly for best visual effect. Check the FA Mangalore.
  • Please review atleast one article listed at WP:PR, if you want more comments from people.
  • REF1 is a deadlink.
  • All facts need to be cited irrespective of whether it's important or no. Most of the facts deal with figures. Citations are recommended.
  • References need to be exquisitely refined by a copyeditor. For example, pg should be p.
  • Wikilinks for Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal missing in the Lead.
  • REF7 (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rowley/Rowley/Collision_Age_files/J%20Geol%202005%20Zhu.pdf) is used to cite The Indian Plate was originally a part of the ancient continent of Gondwanaland from which it split off, eventually becoming a major plate. In the late Cretaceous Period about 90 million years ago, subsequent to the splitting off from Gondwanaland of conjoined Madagascar and India, the Indian Plate split from Madagascar. It began moving north at about 15 cm/yr (6 in/yr)
    • I checked the entire PDF. These facts are not mentioned in the PDF. Please be careful. Recheck all REFS. It may be a painstaking research. But do it.

More comments as the review proceeds. KensplanetTalkContributions 09:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GDibyendu

Comments from User:Redtigerxyz

  • Highest point - K2: "India officially regards K2, located in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as its highest peak." The neutrality of this statement is going to be questioned in a FAC. The other highest point, according to a non-Indian source, may be mentioned in the infobox.
  • IMO, a separate climate section with temperatures table may be needed.
  • A map with locations of lakes will be a nice addition.
  • I am not so sure if "International agreements" fits in the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from User:Nichalp

Good work. I had a preliminary glance at it.

  • To answer you query on citations, almost every statement needs a citation since these are hard facts. It's going to be a task. These facts have numbers: The great plains are sometimes classified into four divisions: 7-15 km -- all these need a cite.
  • Bullets should be converted to prose
  • Remove the maps I made: Rivers, hilly regions, geology
  • Remove international agreements – it used to be a prose section but it now needs a separate article.
  • Islands should be expanded: coral islands, freshwater islands,
  • Ignore the lead and prose for now. That is reviewed at the last step
  • Check the precision of the convert templates: Values such as these: 900 km (559 mi) do not need such a high precision value. Set the precision value to negative.
  • Check the usage of dashes WP:DASH. I think you are using the mdash incorrectly.
  • History section seems rather sparse
  • Right align the Indo-gangetic plains image. Notice how left alignment hampers the alignment of bulleted text? It's much neater if left aligned images do not obstruct section headers or bullets; also avoid placing a left-aligned image at the beginning of a section.
  • 3 reefs and 5 --> spell out numbers less than 10
  • Give more importance to the Sunderbans and Rann of Kutch. Also the backwaters of Kerala and Kuttanad can be incorporated
  • Poach information from Climate of India into this article to augment instances where geography plays a crucial role in the climate of a state or region.
  • Focus on how the river system is crucial to agriculture, wildlife and the Indian economy. It's too full of facts.
  • shrink into rivulets -- not necessarily.
  • Mention why Thar is a desert. Climate of India might have some answers

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from P.Marlow: Something that could really improve the article would be a "Climate" section contains a short summary and a link to the main article Climate of India (as a hatnote). The summary would simply describe the climate as a whole and would introduce a reader to the climate and conditions of the the country in general. Such a section would compliment the others' descriptions of each region, as within the main article there is a detailed description of all their climates. I, myself, will also try and help to develop it.

I don't think having a section on climate is useful. Rather, I have suggested that we meld climate-information as to how a geographical feature of each place affects the climate of the region. So, we can say how the Thar desert is in the leeward side of the Aravalli mountain range, or the coastal regions of western India get more rain because of orthographic rainfall. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had written in the climate details exactly as Nichalp suggests, and I support that way. However, I restored the Climate section since Redtigerxyz and P. Marlow called for it. I also see that the only other FA of this kind, Geography of Ireland, has a climate section. An argument supporting a climate section would be that having the data in one place is easier to read and understand. Shiva (Visnu) 18:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the geography of India should be limited to physical geography. Yes, I did base the FA on Geography of Ireland, but since we do have a dedicated and mature article on the climate, I feel having a sections on climate and geology is an overkill. We can link to these articles in the =see also= section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Climate" section integrated into the relevant sections. Shiva (Visnu) 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Nichalp's point on a section on climate being overkill, and indeed the existing article is of a good quality and is more than sufficient to tackle the subject on Wikipedia, but I am not proposing a huge section or a replacement for the existing article. Essentially my idea is to have a short introduction paragraph to the subject and link to the main article, which would then deal with the topic properly. Indeed it doesn't have to be anything more than a context or aspect as in the beginning of a standard article.
However, I would very much argue against his view that The Geography of India should be limited solely to physical geography. An article that titles itself as addressing the geography of a given area as a whole, must actually do so. The term is not limited to physical geography and and applies to many other areas, (for example human geography and climate). Of course this article should not be attempting deal with everything geography related, (there should be separate articles dealing with each subject in depth), but rather as a collation and aggregate which gathers together all the information that the reader might need.
Geography is a very loose term, which is why most people wanting to find out about the climate of India might well type in geography instead. An article that doesn't address things like this makes for a very two-dimensional article on a narrow subject matter. This is why Geography of Ireland is effective enough to be a FA, and why we need to follow in its footsteps.--P.Marlow (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't the integration of climate details into the paras on the relevant geographic areas satisfy the need to have climate introduced and briefly discussed? Shiva (Visnu) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, and I think that the brief introductions that you've included have helped to improve the relevant sections, however I don't think that they can work as a preamble or an antecedent for the main article Climate of India. Unless we have a "See Also" there is no way of easily linking the the other article-certainly not as a hatnote. Furthermore a casual reader looking to find out more about the climate of India as a whole, or even someone searching for specific climate related information, would look for a section clearly labelled "Climate", and would not browse through each region-related section looking for data that might relate to the whole country. Of course the small section introducing the reader to the climate of the country that I've got in mind wouldn't actually contain with all the information the reader could be looking for, but it would serve as a easier way to link the Climate of India to Geography of India, and so would serve the reader regardless. Having climate info incorporated into the article sections doesn't address the need for a "Climate" section as the that information still remains difficult to navigate and to utilise. After all, the point of having this section is to make the article more balanced and make it easier for the reader to find what he's looking for.--P.Marlow (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the "Climate" section and agree with your points. It is simpler to have small section to introduce the subject with specific relevance to geographic areas. Shiva (Visnu) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of University of Santo Tomas

edit
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… Wait, I just don't know if I'm doing this correctly. But anyway.. Here it goes. I've listed this article for peer review because… it already attained much credibility through various sources in and out of the net - such as published books, publications, and first hand information. The History article takes account of a private University in the Philippines nearing its 400 years. A review/assessment, I believe, will help researchers and students alike in acquiring credible information. Thanks, Pampi1010 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article, while it is clear a lot of work has been done, more work is needed - very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • 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, but the lead is only about the founding. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The oldest European universities are from 1000 or earlier - see University. This is 600 or more years younger than those - you can not say "It is also one of the oldest in the Modern World.[1]"
  • In the peer review comment above you write "first hand information" is used as a source for the article, but that does not meet WP:RS and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. Also do not sandwich text between images.
  • The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baltimore Ravens head coaches

edit
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 receive suggestions on how to improve this fairly short list. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches

edit
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 receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Right over the previous three or so days I have tried to improve this article to the best of my ability and ironed most of the issues I could see, hopefully there are only tedious problems that exist as I believe the article is the closest to Featured Article standard than it has ever been. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try and do a full PR on this article at some point, but one point that springs to mind (probably because I remember watching it as a kid) - LFC featured very prominently in Scully (TV series) in the 1980s, if you can find a reliable source mentioning this, it's probably worth including in the "in popular culture" section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

edit
Lead
  • "They have won a record 18 First Division titles, and seven FA Cups. Liverpool have won five European Cups, which is an English record. They have also won the League Cup a record seven times." I think that gives the impression the seven FA Cups is also a record. I know the FA Cup is more important than the League Cup, but it might be worth swapping them round. It certainly needs a slight reword.
Swapped them NapHit (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most notable of these is their fierce rivalry with Manchester United," fierce is POV unless you can find a quote to back it up
  • "They also have a big rivalry with city neighbours Everton," Ditto with big.
Just left rivalry on both NapHit (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "The club won the Lancashire League in its first season." I corrected the typo to "its". But you continue to refer Liverpool as "they", which is equally as correct, so I would suggest use "their first season".
done NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earning promotion to the Second Division," This is incorrect. There was no promotion between the Football League and other leagues. I suspect there was a vote and Liverpool won more votes than a team in the league.
rectified NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club won the Lancashire League in its first season, earning promotion to the Second Division, they subsequently won the league to move into the First Division." Two main verbs. Either reword or put a semi-colon after "Second Division".
re-worded NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large parts look unreferenced. Even if you're using the same reference, I would add a citation at the end of at least every paragraph and anything which looks a bit contentious.
  • "Liverpool floundered until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager in 1959, he released 24 players during his first season and began to reshape the squad." Again two main verbs.
split into two sentences NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again League title followed in 1965–66, after winning their first FA Cup the previous season." Needs a copy-edit.
fixed NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the season after won the League again setting a domestic record of 68 points," See above. This definitely needs a reference.
  • "Anfield Boot Room" Is there a link to this?
  • "becoming the first English side to win three trophies in a season." Needs a reference.
referenced NapHit (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fagan resigned following the disaster" Did he resign as a direct result of the disaster? Again I think if so this needs a reference.
referenced NapHit (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans fared little, a League Cup victory in 1995 was his only trophy." Needs rewording or something adding.
re-worded NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his second season in charge Houllier won a unique "Treble" of FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup,[11] the following season Liverpool finished second behind Arsenal, with Houllier undergoing major heart surgery part way through." Two main verbs again.
split into two sentences NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the club's search for investment came to an end when American businessmen George Gillett and Tom Hicks became the owners of Liverpool F.C." Why Liverpool F.C.? You've referred to them as Liverpool since the start
removed F.C. NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this time losing 2–1 to Milan." Should either be "but this time lost" or simply "this time losing"
changed to lost NapHit (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colours
  • "The away kit was then grey until the centenary season of 1991–92," "Then" is redundant.
fixed NapHit (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stadia
  • "They left the ground in 1892 over a dispute about rent with the owner of Anfield; John Houlding, who decided to form a new club to play at the ground." I think the semi-colon should be changed to a comma.
changed to comma NapHit (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hill was the site of the Battle of Spion Kop in the Second Boer War, where over 300 men of the Lancashire Regiment died, many of whom were from Liverpool." Needs a reference.
  • "The Anfield Road stand is positioned at the opposite end to the Kop, and houses the away-fans." Not sure away fans needs to be hyphenated.
removed hyphen NapHit (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters
  • "The Merseyside derby is usually a sell out fixture and tends to be a scrappy affair;" scrappy affair certainly needs a reference.
  • "Liverpool fans have been involved in a human tragedy, during an FA Cup semi-final in 1989 between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, 96 Liverpool fans died due to overcrowding in what became known as the Hillsborough Disaster."
you haven't said what needs changing NapHit (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Two main verbs again. Peanut4 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Popular culture
  • "The rap was the club's FA Cup anthem for the final with Wimbledon, it featured John Barnes performing a rap with other members of the squad participating." Two main verbs.
fixed NapHit (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Records
  • "Liverpool's biggest ever victory was 11–0 against Strømsgodset IF in 1974," Ever is redundant. And the tense should be "is".
done NapHit (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work overall. Hope this all helps. Peanut4 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow gold

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was translated from the Spanish version, a featured article. With some feedback and corrections, and whatever suggestions the community might find appropriate, this article might be within reach of attaining featured article status. Possibly among the parts most needing reviewing are clarifications of certain phrases or sentences, general structure regarding quotations and citations, sections that may seem confusing... I don't think the coverage of the article is lacking in any way, but additions are always welcomed. In short, absolutely anything that you see that it is missing in any way, please mention.

Thanks, CarlosPatiño (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from P.Marlow: CarlosPatiño Asked me to review this article, and here are my opinions of it. In terms of information the article seems to be quite good, but there are some things relating to style and a few translation errors that need to be sorted out. Really, it is minor issues for the most part, but if they are addressed this article will very much have the potential to be a FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Some sentences seem to follow a very convoluted and confusing style; for example "This episode in Spanish history has been since the 1970s the topic of numerous works of literature and essays based on official documents and records of the time.". This could be re-written as "Since the 1970s this episode of Spanish history has been the focus of many works of literature and essays, many of which relying on information from official documents and records of the time."
    • As I revise this article, I try to correct any such sentences. A proof-read by another editor could really help. -CarlosPatiño
  • The structure of the article is very confusing and makes the information difficult to navigate. Currently the article seems to be divided into two very large main sections, which in turn divide into topic areas, (basically splitting the article into how the episode affected Spain, and how it affected the Cold War struggle). This doesn't seem to follow any manual of style available on Wikipedia. Instead I suggest you divide the article into more general topic headings, that don't relate to particular parties but to things like History or Economic Consequences. A place to start would be create a Historical Background section, (which you could divide into International and National contexts), and write a summary of the events that led to the Moscow Gold incident within it.
    • On it. Fixed most of the main section, the Cold War section will be re-organized shortly. -CarlosPatiño
  • Some sections really need to be incorporated into others, i.e. The global communist revolution and the Moscow Gold. This particular section is also titled badly and uses poor formatting, (italics and inconsistent capitalization). The use of italics in title should be avoided as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Many related issues are addressed in the automated review.
  • Some sections such as The Paris Gold should be developed into their own articles- they are too large and often full of irrelevant to the main article information.
    • The Paris Gold is necessary to discuss the Moscow Gold. There's too little to say about it on its own to develop it into a different article I think. - CarlosPatiño
  • Text from written sources. Really block quotes should be used for this, particularly as the quotes are often very large sections of text. {{quote box2}} seems to be used often to quote text that is not directly referred to in the passage; these really need to be incorporated or at least used in the the main text somehow.

All in all this is one of the better translations that I have seen. However, before it can reach FA status the style issues must be addressed; they are the thing that really brings down the quality of the article. Additionally the automated review suggestions should be responded to as they are, for the most part, quite basic things that the article is lacking in. I don't want to be overly critical but these are problems that, if left unaddressed, will prevent the article from ever reaching FA status.

Canning Dam

edit
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…

Its really past stub status, would like some tips for improvements (my first article)

Thanks,--Mdavies 965 (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeepestGreen comments: Before I started this review I did a bit of a copyedit on the lead and the history section. The article would benefit from further copyediting. Briefly, here are some other suggestions for improvement.

  • A map locating the dam and the reservoir would be good.
  • Perhaps the dam and reservoir could also be put into the context of the other dams in the North Darling Range, as well as in the context of supplying water to Perth.
  • History section:
Is there a source for the report that first proposed the dam?(not the actual report but a reference cites it--Mdavies 965 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)) What was it about the site that made it so suitable for a dam and reservoir?[reply]
I wonder whether the last two paragraphs in this section really belong in the history section.
  • Construction section:
More detail on the design of the dam and the geological conditions would be useful, as well as any difficulties that were overcome during its construction.
  • Are there any issues with the structure of the dam today? Concrete dams of this type often have problems with an alkali-aggregate

reaction (AAR) that causes expansion and cracking.

  • Is the reservoir used as any other kind of amenity? Water sports perhaps?
  • Wildlife problems
I think this section needs renaming, as it includes details about excessive nutrients. Perhaps Environmental Issues would be better. [S]tudies of fish and fish habitats... needs a source. This section could also be expanded as it is likely that there will be much more information on this topic. Dams have huge environmental impact on their locality and are often the subject of academic studies.

Well done on your first article, you can certainly remove the stub tag, and I hope these suggestions are of some help. If you need any help please don't hesitate to ask. DeepestGreen[talk] 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock (season 3)

edit
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 add it to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of 30 Rock, but as this season of 30 Rock is stil on the air, the article is ineligible for FL.

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. Well, there is not many concerns about this list. I only have some minor tidbits to report :

  • I realize the series is still on air, but do we already know when the last episode is scheduled ? If yes, mention it in the lead.
  • What does TGS actually mean ? Write it in full form the first time you mention it, after that TGS will do.
  • I've never seen the series, but was there any change in the cast or production personal since last season that we need to know of ?
  • What is Kenneth Parcell's job in the team ? Please add it in the text.
  • Has Jonathan a surname ? If yes, mention it.
  • Cast section : the prose needs to be revised, you use always the same sentence. Try to vary a bit if you don't want the casual reader to be bored before the end of the paragraph. I have modified a sentence already.
  • What are the sources of the episode list ? Where do titles, directors, writers, etc. come from ?
  • And lastly, in, say, two years or so, you might want to add a DVD release section ;D If there are plans to do so already, mention it.

I hope you find this useful. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Keewatin

edit
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 coucil of Keewatin is a really obscure topic. It was a short lived legislative body, for a short lived territory in the 19th century. I have done extensive research, spending hours digging through 19th century newspapers to dig out information. I would like to try and get this featured if possible. I need help with prose as I am not an english major, I belive it is well referenced and covers everything important.

Thanks, Cloveious (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2008(UTC)

  • second sentence currently says, "The Government of Canada allowed to contain the small pox crisis afflicting Keewatin" which doesn't make sense in context.
fixed --Cloveious (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • under Formation, the article currently says, "...the affairs of the District of Keewatin should be administered from Winnipeg as the Northwest Territories was until November 7, 1876." The phrasing after "Winnipeg" doesn't seem to make sense in context. PKT(alk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should mention all the main topics in the article. The fur trade for example is not mentioned.
  • In the first sentence defunct should probably be replaced by now-defunct, as the territory wasn't defunct at the time. Also in District of Keewatin territory, territory is probably redundant.
I included that in to avoid confusion with the Keewatin Regional Council that managed the District after it was ceded back to the Northwest Territories. --Cloveious (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox it would be better to give the end date for Morris's appointment, rather than saying since 1876; this implies that he still holds the office!
Unfortunately at the moment I am stuck with the limitations of the Infobox. I will try and find something more suitable.
  • It is a bit unclear why the council was set up. From the Formation section it looks like Morris just asked it he could. It might be better to move the first paragraph from the Smallpox section to the beginning of the Formation one.
  • Should state where Morris was Lieutenant-Governor of. Also a map showing the location of the territory would be useful.
  • Should perhaps mention that Ottawa is the federal capital, for the benefit of non-Canadian readers.
  • The Council is referred to once as the Legislative Council and once as the Executive Council. Which is the proper name? Or are these two separate Councils?
I believe, I have clarified this. --Cloveious (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throne speech should be linked to (and possibly rephrased as) Speech from the throne.
  • Fort Garry should be linked.
  • Was William Smith's position chairman, or speaker, or both?
Fixed, the source did not clearly specify a title --Cloveious (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by the Act regarding smallpox was "the centre piece of the council"?
  • I think smallpox, rather than Small Pox is the normal usage.
Long before I linked the "Smallpox" All the sources I have from the 1870's styled it as "Small Pox". I will change all instances to reflect modern usage --Cloveious (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in Image:Keewatingovernment.PNG is not explained/expanded on in the text.
  • Why was the Board of Health "powerful"?
  • In the references section there are mixed date formats, e.g. November 25, 1876 vs 2006-10-19. You can use the |accessdaymonth= |accessyear= parameters in {{cite web}} to get consistency.
  • The whole article needs a copyedit with regard to the prose. There are a number of places where the prose is repetitive, e.g. first and only throne speech. In his throne speech ... The throne speech ... in successive sentences. There are a few grammatical errors/typos, e.g. territories creation, predominate, and The Act and also offered advice. There is slight overuse of effectively. There are a number of other places where the prose could be tightened up.

Hope these comments are useful. Dr pda (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, I will work on these suggestions.

Flag of Singapore

edit
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, despite passing GA a short time ago, I feel like this article needs a check on the English grammar and also put into a summary style.

Thanks, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • I changed two or three passive-voice sentences to active, and you might look for others. For example, "The national flag is sometimes flown by Singapore-registered vessels... " would be stronger as "Singapore-registered vessels sometimes fly the national flag... ".
  • I'd suggest adding at least a mention of the main ideas in the "Use of the national flag" section to the lead. The lead ideally is an abstract or summary of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Numbers and units such as "8,667 volunteers" need to be held together with nbsp codes to prevent separation by line-break on computer monitors. Please see WP:NBSP.
  • Abbreviations like SARS should be spelled out on first use with the abbreviation in parentheses. I changed the first instance of Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA).

"Dimensions and colour":

  • Millimetres should also be given in inches in the sentence: "MICA recommends the sizes 915 by 1370 millimetres, 1220 by 1830 mm and 1830 by 2740 mm".

"In culture":

  • The sentence "The MDA's reaction to these comments was not available at press time" seems out of place. "At press time" is what the source, a newspaper, said, but the encyclopedia doesn't have a fixed press time. You might just delete this sentence or, better, you might add what happened later, if that is known.
  • It would be good to add what happened in the Loof case, if known. Loof either recalled the ad or did not. The state either punished Loof or did not. Readers will be curious to know what came next.
  • Most of the dates in the citations are in the yyyy-mm-dd format. The Manual of Style suggests making them consistent throughout the citations. I'd recommend changing the few d-m-y dates in the citations to yyyy-mm-dd. The dates in the main text look OK since they are consistently d-m-y. Please see the date-formatting section of WP:MOSNUM.
  • Direct quotations such as "I know as a citizen that we are not allowed to do it, but this is art and I am an artist" need a citation directly after the quotation.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth is a really good copyeditor, but WP:NBSP asks for a hard space where "figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space". So, we want "8,667 volunteers", but "8,667 km". That's been stable for months, so I think that rule is going to stick for a while. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Dan, I note that WP:NBSP lists three sets of examples of how hard spaces are used in Wikipedia. I'm relying on the third set, which includes the phrase "in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader" as my basis for nailing things like "45 cats" together. I've encountered objections to not nailing them together, but I can't find examples this morning to support this memory. On the other hand, no one has said to me that it causes harm to nail them together, although it's time-consuming and, I admit, might be slightly goofy. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did everything but the changing of the one or two references into the YYYY-DD-MM format and the hard space thing. I got the command to do it, but just haven't found time to place them in there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo International Airport

edit
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 the third time) to see where I can bring it from GA, and whether or not I should forward it for a second shot at WP:FAC. I've been doing a few changes here and there with respect to the prose, and I'm actively trying to collate information to make it more up-to-date. All comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • The hardest FA criterion for most articles to achieve is a professional level of English, and I think this needs some copyedits to smooth things out. For example, this sentence It opened its doors to commercial traffic on June 14, 2007 after a decade of planning and construction, replacing Mandurriao Airport in Iloilo City proper which had been in service for over seventy years, inheriting its IATA and ICAO airport codes, as well as its position as the fourth-busiest airport in the Philippines, from the former.[1] just seems too long and convoluted for one sentence.
  • I think the article could really use a locator map (red dot on a map of the Phillipines) as many people will not know where Iloilo is located within the country.
  • Avoid non-specific dates, so change is the largest airport to be constructed in the Philippines in the last decade. to something like is the largest airport to be constructed in the Philippines in since 1998. In a year or two, "in the last decade" will not mean the same thing as it does now.
  • The first paragraph in Name needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • "Passenger terminal" and "Cargo terminal" as subsections of "Terminals" seems to go against WP:HEAD (repeats the section name in a subsection header). Since the Cargo terminal section is only one short paragraph, would it make sense to just the Terminals section (no subsections here)?
  • Also need to avoid currently in Currently, no airline is operating international routes to and from Iloilo. (As of December 2008....)
  • I think I would put the Rail section last in the "Access and transportation" section - I would put the transport people actually use first, and the possible rail service last.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response
Thanks for the comments! Anyway, here's a bunch of things that I have done with respect to these comments:
  • I switched the rail and road sections around. This means that rail is below road, so future transport comes last.
  • I merged the first two paragraphs in the Name subsection so I use the references only once. Previous PRs have mentioned how the article is over-cited.
  • I changed "currently" to "as of December 2008" in the first paragraph of the Airlines and destinations section
  • I broke the sentence pertaining to the airport's opening into two separate sentences
I have an ongoing request for an airport diagram map, and I'll see what I can do with the other bullets. As far as I know, in a previous PR, it was suggested that the passenger and cargo terminals be separate so that they wouldn't be confused with one another. Hope these help. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Paducah, Kentucky

edit
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 its the main List article I've worked on, and I would like to know what thoughts more experienced list editors have on improving it as a whole for future list ventures.

Thanks, Hooper (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

I've worked on a mayoral list for Erie, Pennsylvania so I might be able help. Some things I noticed to could improve the article were:

  • Adding a "Notes" column to the table for any miscellaneous info, such as:
    • Did any of the mayors do anything particularly famous (or infamous)?
    • Did any of them die in office or resign from office?
  • Standardizing the polictical party shading of the table using {{Party shading}}.
  • When did the change from 2 year terms to 4 happen?
  • Possibly working the subject of the article into the first sentence and bolding it per WP:BOLDTITLE.
  • Were there any leaders of Paducah before it became a city?

Also, try looking at other city's mayoral lists to give you additional ideas of what to do for this list. If you would like additional comments, don't hesitate to ask. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 04:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucy poems

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Feedback needed at this stage. All comments welcome.

Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

edit

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks.

  • The lead should have an image, generally in the upper right corner
Done, after much discussion. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead should either have references like the rest of the article, or it should have none except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims, because it is a summary and the refs will be in the article body. The current lead cites things inconsistently - there are some unreferenced direct quotes that seem to need refs per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD, some sentences with refs and some without.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background section - I would give a bit more biographical information about Wordsworth and Coleridge here - perhaps a sentence on each. The average reader will not know much about them and this starts pretty much in media res
Done, expanded. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in the Background section has no ref - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • This is a direct quote and needs a ref: Wordsworth's aim when composing his contributions to the collection was to arrive at a "selection of the language really spoken by men".
Cited. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As does They first appeared in a letter from Wordsworth to Coleridge, in which he wrote that "She dwelt..." and "Strange Fits..." were "little Rhyme poems which I hope will amuse you". see WP:MOSQUOTE again
Cited. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are only these five called the Lucy poems if The character of Lucy further appears in Wordsworth's "Lucy Gray" and his "The Glow-worm".[6]? Should this be expalined in the article better?
This is explained better now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block quote at the end of the Background section is not explained or put into context, but needs to be. Who said this? When? Why?
Quote was removed. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Wordsworth go to Goslar?
Explained now. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Dorothy? She is mentioned in the lead and again separation without being put into context (Wordsworth's wife? That nice girl from Kansas?) Also shouldn't references to Wordsworth be consistent (Wordworth or William)? Aha - she was his sister!
Explained more clearly now. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's a start for you, so here are some general points now:
  • Two of the captions are quite long and do not seem to meet WP:CAPTION, especially being succinct
All the captions were shortned after discussion. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the full text of the poems be added to Wikisource and linked?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to state that the poems included under "Lucy" is discussed in "The poems" section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 64 DS

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been meaning to clean this article up for GAN, but it's been a while since I've played the game. Any comments and suggestions to improve the article's grammar and accessibility would be appreciated. Thanks, (Guyinblack25 talk 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by Monowi: I've have a few suggestions that may help you out:

  1. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead section begins, "Development was again handled..." That wording doesn't make much sense, because it hasn't been previously established in this article that Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development produced the original Super Mario 64. I suggested rewording the sentence to something like, "Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development, who produced the original version of the game, first displayed the game as a multiplayer demonstration at the 2004 E3 titled Super Mario 64 x4."
  2. I'd also suggest re-wording the sentence that currently reads, "Super Mario 64 DS centers around the same plot as the original, rescue Princess Peach from Bowser, with slight changes to accommodate the additional characters." My suggestion for a better sentence would be to have it read, "As with the original title, the plot of Super Mario 64 DS centers on rescue of Princess Peach from Bowser, with slight changes to accommodate the additional characters."
  3. Just as in the Wikipedia article for Super Mario 64, this article could benefit from a citation at the end of sentence to back up the claim that it was "critically and commercially successful." Just re-citing one of the sources used later in the article should be fine for now. If you haven't before, I'd also suggest taking an in-depth look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a few pointers before the GAN nomination, particularly as it concerns this part of the lead. Try to integrate concrete facts and figures more. For example, if it was the one of the top ten selling DS games of 2004 or 2005, info like that would be a great thing to mention in the lead to back up its claims of success.

Kudos on having the article fairly well referenced too. If I see anything else in the way of copyediting or general suggestions I'll be sure to add it here later. Cheers, Monowi (talk)

Thanks for the comments. Any other suggestions would be appreciated as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama

edit
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 get feedback on any weaknesses before it is nominated for Featured List status.

Thanks, Altairisfartalk 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class A

edit

It is my opinion upon reviewing your list and the criteria set forth at WP:FL? that this article meets all of them. I will not nominate this article for featured list status. I leave that up to you. However I will rank this list as class A. I really truly cannot see what could be changed that would be an improvement. Barring some historic place that I don't know about off the list. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for the feedback! It is very much appreciated. Altairisfartalk 08:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree it looks good, but have a few quibbles.

  • I am not sure why the titles of the NHLs are all in bold, per Wikipedia:MOS#Italics "Emphasis Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose)."
  • In the cite web templates, I think the National Park Service should be the publisher, NOT the work
  • The inclusion of the three Historic areas in the United States National Park System may cause trouble at FLC - I think this is the main reason why the NHLs in NY list was not featured.
  • Any chance for a brief introductory summary - how many counties in AL and how many couties have (or do not have) NHLs? How many NHLs are churches? military? That sort of thing.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tritter

edit
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 get it to FAc sometime soon. However, I feel the "storyline" section is too long and I would like some input on how to slim it down. Also, every minor edit, tip, hint, extra information, whatever is welcome because there are always ways to improve an article.

Thanks, --Music26/11 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. You're right, the Storyline section is too long indeed, and the article lacks a Characterization/Characteristics/Character description section. So what you could do is split the Storyline into Storyline and Character sections. Basically the Storyline section is about what the character does, and the Character section is about what the character is. In the Storyline section you say things like "In "Words and Deeds", Tritter brings House to the court, etc." and in the Character section, you say things like "Tritter demonstrates stubborness and obsessive behaviour, etc."

  • Lead : the lead is supposed a summary of the article. There should be a mention of who is Tritter: policeman and having a feud with House and why; some words about his personality would be good too. Bear in mind that you don't have to reference what you say in the lead if it's already referenced in the article.
  • "somebody who could go toe-to-toe..." "the story seemed to drag on a bit..." "the exchange of words goes downhill from there..." are rather colloquial; try to avoid it and reword your sentences : "the dialog increases in intensity until..."
  • Check your links so that they point to the right article; for example STD, put sexually transmitted disease instead and check if there are others things to disambiguate
  • "House then talks to Wilson, who tells House that he told Tritter that he prescribes House's vicodin" : who told whom to prescribe what ? :D This sentence is confusing, it should be reworded
  • "Cuddy says that if this is true that it should be handled by doctors" : "Cuddy says that if this is true, (then) it should be handled by doctors"
  • "Tritter replies that the doctors at Plainsboro aren't dealing with it, they're covering it up" : Remove all contractions that are not quoted : "the doctors are not dealing with it, they are covering it up"
  • "2006, actor David Morse was contacted by David Shore, Morse and Shore had previously worked together on Hack.[18][2]": "In 2006, actor David Morse..." Did Shore contact Morse because they had worked together previously ? Make it clear, and put the references in order : [2][18]
  • "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but an apology will do. However, House refuses to apologize." Shorten your sentences to avoid redundancy: "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but House refuses to apologize."
  • Character development : the information should be organized by subject, i.e. A) How did they design the character, what was he intended for ? (annoy House) B) Who did they cast (Morse) and why ? C) Did Morse influence his character ? To which extend ? Did Tritter evolve after the casting or even the airing of episode ? D) Did Tritter leave a legacy ? Will he be remembered for something ? Did he make the series evolve? Is he referred to in other series or works of popular culture ?

Otherwise the article is well referenced with a wide variety of sources. You might also want to take a look at Khan Noonien Singh, a recent FA, to get more ideas. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the review, I've fixed almost all of your points, note that the character has no legacy, it seems that most House viewers were just happy he left the show. One other thing that I didn't do is the "Storyline" section, it's really hard to slim it down any further, because almost all the information is necessary, I would really like input on this. Thanks. --Music26/11 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly was happy he left, as well ;D Other thoughts:

  • The lead has improved, but you've reached the other end of the spectrum and the first paragraph is now too detailed. All these details about their feud should be in the body of the article. Keep the thermometer bit because it's what everyone remembers, but summarize the rest. Remove "butt" at any cost. The third season was in 2006-2007; put it in the lead. Tritter got mixed reviews, what about Morse ?
  • Storyline section : Clearly say from which episode the stuff comes. Actually, he only appears in six episodes, right ? You can enumerate them at the beginning (you might add the airdate of the first and last episode). Then in the section you can say, "In "Fools For Love", Tritter does this and that..." Now you just tell the story as if it was real, which looks like in-universe writing. You'll get teared apart at FAC if you leave it like that. Keep an outside perspective. On the bright side, I think the section has the right length now. You did a good job at summarizing it.
  • The Character development section is only about Morse, is there more info about how Tritter was conceived ? And mention that Tritter was intended to be as smart and nasty as House, because that's what the character is about in the first place. (Don't forget : State the obvious.)
  • The Reception section is extremely well-referenced, but a bit confusing; one gets the impression that you just put one review after the other in the order you found them. Maybe you can make a paragraph with the opinions about Morse and another paragraph with the opinions about Tritter ?
  • Don't forget the copyedit if it's not already done.

Okay, that's all I can think of. The references can stand a good punch, the image has a tag, it's fine ;D FAC is sure a long way to go, so good luck with it. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because per WP:GT requirements, this has to be peer reviewed per bla bla bla. Read it here at criterion 3.c. This coincides with the X-Men films Good topic candidacy. Wildroot (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions...

  • Trim "Starring" in the infobox to the first three names. I don't think we know at this point the extent of the other actors' involvement in the film.
  • In the "Cast" section, may I suggest removing the bold formatting? I know that the formatting has been commonplace in many film articles, a review of MOS:BOLD seems to suggest that bolding anything like the names of the actors and roles is not part of its limited scope. (Nevermind for now... trying to verify whether or not bold formatting is okay in cast lists.)
  • The trailer information in "Marketing" seems ancillary per MOS:FILM#Marketing. I suggest removing it and retitling the section "Video game" for the time being.
  • Make sure that there are non-breaking spaces for the dates in the article. For example, insert one in "May 1".
  • I agree with Matthewedwards about consistency in the citations. May I also suggest writing out the full dates since without the auto-formatting that existed before, we only see ISO formatting? Clean up like this, for example.

I am not sure what else there is to cover. There will definitely be more content as the film's release gets closer. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballon d'Or

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After some intensive cleanup work over the past two days I believe this list is close to Featured standard. I think there are one or two issues that need to be addressed, otherwise I think it's fairly good overall. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Fair Use image of Stanley Matthews does not have a Fair Use Rationale for this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would suggest that you target FA status for this article, rather than FL status. Although the list portion of the article is obviously quite prominent at the moment, I'm sure you could write a substantial history of the award, given a few sources. – PeeJay 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm when I get back from uni I'll have a look in a few of my books but I'm not convinced I could write a substantial history, and seeing as awards are generally Featured List material I think it should be nominated there. NapHit (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Cruyff's caption is a complete sentence so give it a full stop.
    • Be consistent with diacritics - Sivori doesn't have one but his article does... check the others.
    • Platini's caption is complete (add a full stop) and doesn't need that comma after his name, in my opinion.
    • And isn't the plural of Ballon d'Or Ballons d'Or rather than Ballon d'Or's ?
    • Not keen on "By country" and "By player" etc as headings - they're rather incomplete in describing the section - you could subsection them under a general "Winners" heading or make them "Winners by country".... etc?
  • The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys in Red accident

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed a GA nomination and I feel that this article has the potential for a FA though it needs some further work. This is my first article I've really worked on so I think some feedback from some more veteran editors could help me develop this article further and maybe get it ready for a FAC. Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a generally clear account of a terrible local accident and its aftermath. It began as a news story, and it might be tough though not impossible to turn into an excellent encyclopedia article. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • I looked at the list of featured articles at WP:FA in hopes of finding a model for a local disaster or accident article. Aggie Bonfire comes close, and you might look at it to see how other editors handled a local disaster.
  • The numbered list in your "Recommendations" section is too long and echoes too much of the language of bureaucracy. I'd recommend translating it into straight prose and compressing the list into a single prose paragraph. For example, "Current guidelines 512-Student Activity Vehicles and 513-Transportation to and from Off-site School Related Activities, which contain suggested best practices for transporting students to a school-related extracurricular activity, should be strengthened through revisions and by making compliance mandatory through regulatory amendment" could be shortened to "Guidelines for transporting students to school-related extracurricular activities should be strengthened."
  • The article is short on images, and the images are relatively weak. Perhaps it would be possible to include an image of the kind of van that was involved in the accident. A photo of Highway 8 during bad weather and poor road conditions is another possibility. A photo of Bathurst High School might work. Of the three images that you've used, the cross and the flowers work as symbols of grief, but they don't convey much information. It might be more effective to include a photo of the basketball court where these kids played. A photograph of a multi-functional activity bus is another possibility.
  • More information about similar roll-overs anywhere in the world might be interesting. The accident itself has little or no history, but van roll-overs have a history. Some official statistics about roll-overs ought to be available from transportation departments or other government sources.
  • The negative effects of the rule changes get mentioned in the "Recommendations" section, but no positive effects are mentioned. Does anyone like the new rules? Has anyone reliable talked about them in terms of lives saved or injuries prevented, for example? If so, that information should be included.
  • Did Ford or anyone defend the vans or deny that 15-passenger vans were unsafe? Have the van manufacturers taken steps to make them safer or to remove them from the roads? Do they still make these vans and sell them? Did they ever advertise them as good transportation for teams?
  • When you quote someone directly as in "new restrictions on when kids can play, imposed on high school athletics by school districts across the province, have made it impossible for (our school) to host the event this year", you need to add a reference immediately after the quotation. It would be good to attribute this quote to a person or, if it was an anonymous official statement, to attribute it to the school publication in which it appeared.
  • I'd recommend deleting the opening paragraph of "Reaction" on grounds that the details such as the name of the restaurant and the details of the phone call seem out of place in an encyclopedia article.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks. When I get a bit more time I'll try peer reviewing another article. Also if you don't mind Im going to strike through your recommendations as I deal with them. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The negative effects of the rule changes get mentioned in the "Recommendations" section, but no positive effects are mentioned. Does anyone like the new rules? Has anyone reliable talked about them in terms of lives saved or injuries prevented, for example? If so, that information should be included."

I have done a fair amount of researching trying to make this article as neutral as possible. However all articles I can find involve schools and sports groups being critical of the new rules. Only the Department of Education and the NBIAA have stated that the new rules are entirely appropriate. I'll see If I can add a quote from the Education Minister. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Japanese Grand Prix

edit
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 it could (with a bit of work) be FA standard. The template I am following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is stylistically identical to 2008 Italian Grand Prix and 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which has been PR'ed here and here. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Apterygial 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's PR

Lead

  • "It was the 16th race of the 2008 Formula One season." - 16th and antepenultimate race? It's a rarely used word, but it's usage here is correct and helps identify that we've reached the 'business end' of the season (once the reader has looked up it's meaning!).
  • "Massa was penalised after an incident on lap two where he touched Hamilton's car and spun it around." - First we've heard of this Massa bloke, full name & WL etc. required.
  • "Bourdais was penalised, and demoted from sixth to tenth position." - Two things that may need to be mentioned here, a) Penalty applied post-race & b) Penalty was universally slammed by the media (and ex-drivers? no mention of what they thought later in the article)

Background

  • "launched their Make Cars Green campaign in Formula One at the Grand Prix." This reads a bit confusing - was it the launch of the campaign or launch of the F1 part of the campaign? Or is the campaign to make F1 cars green?

Practice & Quali

  • "Both Force Indias spent the majority of the session in their garage, suffering numerous mechanical problems." - "Force Indias" or "Force India cars"? I think you may be right here, but I'm not sure.
  • "Hamilton clinched his sixth pole position of the season with a late lap of 1:18.404." - Late lap? Aren't the pole laps usually the second run of Q3 (usually done right at the end of the session)? Was this exceptionally late?
  • "Coulthard bettered team-mate Webber when he qualified 11th; Piquet split the Red Bull drivers in 12th." There's a small assumption being made here - it is implied that DC and MW are the Red Bull drivers but it's not mentioned clearly anywhere. If you didn't know that fact, it takes a bit of thought to try and decipher the sentence so I suggest a reword.

Race

  • "bumping Räikkönen off the track" - Contact was made?
  • "emerging ahead of Kubica to take the provisional lead." - It was the lead I believe, not provisional lead, unless by that you mean there were cars ahead that were yet to stop. If so, then that's not how I read it, so you may need to reword it.
  • "Massa spun, but rejoined the track." - No mention made of stewards stating the incident was to be investigated after the race (we had a Race Control message saying such on the telecast if I recall correctly).
  • "The following lap, Kubica attempted to replicate the manoeuvre," - Which manoeuvre? I thought KR was trying to pass Kubica? If you mean replicate the block then a reword is needed.
  • "Kubica held the inside on the turn three left-hander" - inside > inside line. Not sure about using left-hander, could be seen as jargon.

Post-race

  • "Bourdais received a 25-second penalty for his collision with Massa on lap 50." - Could strech this sentance out a bit. When was he given the penalty (xx hours after the race had finished), "penalty from the race stewards for his collision" etc. Just thinking of the comprehensive requirement if you want to take this to FA.
  • "I did everything I could not to run into him...it's going to be an incident." - No quote marks for that in the article. Not sure if that's correct by the MOS, but it looks a bit weird to me.
  • "gambled with a kamikaze attempt to get past Räikkönen." - Not sure if the wikilink to kamikaze adds anything here. Really it's the slang usage meaning reckless that's the meaning being used here rather than Japanese suicide pilots, which is what the WP entry is about.

References

  • Reference 41 - L'Équipe.fr - Needs to have a |language=French bit in the Cite web
    • Added. I noticed you went through the Brazilian GP article and fixed the cites. I'll have to put aside a couple of hours to do that with this article and the Italian one. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It took me ~10 minutes to do - I'm quite happy to do it for any of the articles once they've gone through their PR. AlexJ (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well Italy has :). It looked like a lot of work. If you are happy to do that, I'm very pleased. The key thing is that I will remember to include it when I write the 2008 Chinese Grand Prix page (very boring race, I'm a little interested in how I'm going to write FM's pass - "KR's tyres started to wear and his team-mate passed him..."). Apterygial 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That pass was probably the highlight of the race! More seriously, it's probably the bit you can go into a little detail on, providing both sides of the story by contrasting the drivers responses in the press conference with the cynicism expressed by commentators and journalists. But more on that in a future PR... AlexJ (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't required for either FA or GA status, but as a precaution consider archiving the ITV-F1 webpages you reference using WebCite or similar. As they've lost the TV rights to the coverage, I suspect that their website may only be around for another year or so. The archive url you get from WebCite can be added to the Cite web template using the fields |archiveurl= and |archivedate
    • I've never done anything like that before. I'll see what I can do. My thinking now is that the BBC has maintained their site, maybe ITV will too... Apterygial
      • It's very simple to do, just go to http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and type in the URL of the page you want to archive, and your email address (they've never sent me any messages/spam other than one email with the archive url after each request). They'll then email you the address you need to add to the archiveurl= bit of {{cite web.
      • It is also perhaps worth explaining that the BBC and ITV sites operate very differently. The BBC site was launched in 1997 after the BBC had lost the rights for coverage. The BBC site covers most major sports, regardless of whether they hold rights to show the sport or not, and is more akin to a news site. ITV's site on the other hand is for their TV coverage arm, not their news arm (ITN) and has most of it's text content is provided by an independant (Haymarket, publisher of Autosport). I suspect when the current deal with Haymarket ends, ITV are not going to spend money renewing it. As I say, it's not a requirement for FAC, but it'd be annoying to come back in 18 months and potentially find lots of broken links. AlexJ (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much all I could spot. AlexJ (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a couple of reply questions in there. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point - was the reaction to the green-grooved tyres notable enough to warrant a mention in the article?--Diniz(talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it mainly because the pictures show green-grooved tyres, and I can imagine people asking why. Apterygial 23:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple more points:

4u1e's comments

Oops - late to the party :D

  • Should Hamilton's poor start be mentioned in the lead, since that's what got him into trouble in the first place? In the main description of the start, should we say that Hamilton was also quite rude with Kovalainen at the start? I seem to remember at least some commentators mentioning it.
    • It's probably not really important in the lead, what he did next probably has more bearing on a brief summary. With regards to Kovalainen, it's a fairly hard thing to source objectively. I had it in originally (no record exists, I excised it in the same edit). I don't know how important it would be. Apterygial 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, final para: "Kubica was able to" I suspect I've been infected by 'Tonyism', but I'd be inclined to delete this as relatively meaningless and leave the sentence as "Kubica held off a determined attack from Räikkönen in the closing laps..."
  • "Ferrari formed a seven point lead.." Seems like a slightly odd used of formed. "Ferrari extended their lead to seven points over McLaren..."?
  • Background: "McLaren were leading on 135 points having passed Ferrari at the previous race; their rivals now second on 134 points." I think I'm right in saying that each clause has to be a valid standalone sentence in this construction, which is not the case here. You could simply insert "were" after rivals, or go for something completely different like: "At the previous race, McLaren had reached 135 points in the constructors' championship and taken the lead from Ferrari by one point."
  • Background: I'd remove the lengthy description of Alonso's previous race and simply state that "he had benefitted from unusual race circumstances to win the race from 15th on the grid."
  • Background: Repetition of "environmentally friendly driving" in last para.
  • P&Q: "Hamilton managed only eleventh, though was better than Kovalainen and Raikkönen..." Slightly odd wording again. "Hamilton managed only eleventh, ahead of Kovalainen and Raikkönen..."?
  • Race: "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, the air temperature at 16 °C (61 °F) and the track temperature at 21 °C (70 °F)" I don't think this works does it? The second clause isn't really anything to do with the first one (since it's about temperature not dryness). Suggest you break them into two separate sentences.
  • Race: "bumping Raikkonen off the track". FWIW, after looking closely at the video after the race, my recollection is that it was clear that although Hamilton may have hit Raikkonen (and was certainly driving like a loon!) it was actually Kovelainen who pushed him off track. I've only looked quickly at the sources you've used, but I couldn't see a definite statement in any of them that Hamilton hit Raikkonen and bumped him off track. Can we re-word slightly to something more like: "Hamilton badly locked-up his front wheels while braking going into the first corner; both he and then his team-mate Kovalainen hit Raikkonen" followed by "Hamilton was penalised for forcing Raikkonen off track". I know this seems like a subtle difference, but we know for definite that that was what he was penalised for, but I'm not sure we know for definite that that was exactly what happened. (note: For the record, yes, I'm generally a Hamilton fan, but he drove like an idiot on that first lap and pretty much deserved what he got. I'm just not sure he actually forced Raikkonen off-track.)
    • Those are all good ideas. I've changed what I think you were referring to in there (you may still want to have a look). For the record, is there anyone who has contributed to this PR who isn't a Hamilton fan? Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Probabably. 4u1e (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Sorry I don't like antepenultimate. I'll leave it up to you, but I would prefer something along the lines "It was the 16th race of 18 of the ..."
  • "Fernando Alonso's victory at the Singapore Grand Prix was his first Formula One win since moving back to Renault after driving for McLaren in 2007." Does this mean Alonso moved back to Renault in 2007 or drove for McLaren in 2007?
  • "The first part of qualifying ran for 20 minutes and eliminated the cars that finished the session 16th or lower. The second part of qualifying lasted 15 minutes and eliminated cars that finished in positions 11 to 15." I don't think eliminated is the right word. When I read it, I thought the cars 16th and lower were eliminated from the race at this stage. But then the next sentence suggests I'm wrong.
  • "The top three finishers appeared on the podium and in the subsequent press conference." Doesn't this happen after every race?
  • Newspapers should be italicized.
    • I think I got them all.

Looks pretty good otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peanut. Good to get some outside eyes, and help us win the longest PR competition. Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies

edit
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 nominate it for FA status, but want to make sure it fits the standards according to other editors.

Thanks, Chef Tanner (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

  • "though British settlers had lived in Virginia, along the James River, since 1608" - seems redundant, the sentence already says that British has come before these particular British
  • a wikilink for "pease porridge" would be helpful
  • "almost daily dish in the Delaware Valley and cook books specialized in puddings and dumplings" - the sentence sounds like a run-on
    • I suggest: "almost daily dish in the Delaware Valley. Local cookbooks also specialized in puddings and dumplings." (I always thought "cookbook" was one word)
  • Overlinking of common terms
  • some of the images don't use the default thumbnail setting
  • the location of the "backcountry" is a little vague
  • "due to the vast amounts of ships and artillery entering the ocean waters" - Why did this cause a decline in lobster population?

Interesting article, I did always wondered where scrapple came from. I can add more comments, if they're needed. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German football champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi!

I've listed this article for peer review, because I like to submit it as a Feature List candidate again. The last time I did it failed and now I'd like to have some comments before submitting it again. The article has good substance, I think, and that was not really disputed when I nominated it the last time, but failed due to a lot of "minor" shortcomings you are probably not really familiar with, when submitting your first FLC. At least I obviously wasn't...

Thanks for your effort, OdinFK (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the East German info should be in separate tables to the main, West German stuff. That way you can get more information into both. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in a seperate article or just seperate tables? Seperate article has the obvious disadvantage that the info about the German football champions is not all in one article any more. If it is in the same article but different tables the chronological order cannot not be maintained. Suggestions? OdinFK (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate table. I don't think they need to be in chronological order together - they're separate, and don't particularly relate to each other on a year-by-year basis. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would make a separate article for the East German champions. Additionally, you should do some work on the sorting of the tables. They´re a mess. For example, 1. FC Kaiserslautern stands before Werder Bremen. You should sort the club names after the city names: Bremen, Dortmund, München, Schalke and so on. --Hullu poro (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've thought about this for some time I agree with ArtVandelay13, the info about East German clubs should be in a seperate table, but not in a seperate article. This article is about the history of the German football champions and that is what those clubs were at their time, the champions of East German football. If you want to give a consistent picture of German football you have to include both parts, because the GDR is not some kind of distant ancestor-relative to the present day Germany. It is an integral part of German history. The same is true for the history of German football. A reason for not including those championships could be, that these championships were not organized by the German football association (DFB), but then this article is not called DFB champions, but German football champions. Even the DFB honours the fact, that those clubs were German football champions, by allowing the East German football champions to wear a star on their kit, when not playing in one of the Bundesligas. Just as the clubs winning championships prior to the Bundesliga are allowed to wear a star on their kit when not playing in the Bundesliga. OdinFK (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Seeing as the tavle is sortable every mention of a club or player needs to be linked
Do they? I've seen it handled this way and that. I don't mean to question your judgment, just tell me where I find a guideline about that stuff, then I can look that up the next time I try to do a FL.
  • I would have a separate column for goals
For the top scorers you mean?
  • There is no need to include the full name of the club, just include the common name e.g. Bayern Munich instead of FC Bayern Munich
I thought about that, when finding out the actual names of the various GDR clubs as their names changed repeatedly. But it is problematic to use a common name. While being unnecessarily unprecise it is also ambigous for some clubs. Especially in the GDR several clubs have quite complicated heritage lines. To use the proper name of the time avoids some confusion I guess. In case of the Bundesliga, I sticked with the names of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Why? In most cases there will have been some discussion whether for example the Bayer Leverkusen article should be named Bayer Leverkusen, Bayer 04 Leverkusen, or TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen. I assume that the articles' names are the most common English names of the clubs as they should be. OdinFK (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now NapHit (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting top scorers

edit

I'm just wondering what is to be done about seasons in which there were two top scorers. I'm not really happy with having them both in one field and then sorting by the one who is first alphebetically, but I don't know how to do that better either.

OdinFK (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think having them in one field is fine - sorting is not hugely important in a chronological list like this, so this is a limitation that we can accept. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting needed?

edit

Could somebody please check whether this article needs copyediting. As a non-native speaker I'm okay with the text, but a native speaker would probably still find some text passages awkward.

Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate column for top scorer goals?

edit

Picking up the suggestion from NapHit I wonder whether a seperate column for the goals of the top scorer should be included. I think that it is not really necessary as that is not the main focus of the article anyway. Someone more interested will probably go to Bundesliga top scorers, though that article is not that amazing yet. I have added Bundesliga top scorers to 'External links' anyway. So do we need that extra column?? OdinFK (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses

edit
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 has been nearly three years since it was last reviewed. I think the article has improved tremendously and is balanced and informative.

Thanks, Sungmanitu (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article comes off more objective than subjective. The beliefs of the witnesses are followed by a counterpoint and the beliefs do not display thorough research into the "Why they believe such" or the "where they get their beliefs". It seems the thorough research went into looking at the criticism and that shows in the most commonly cited books. When you present their core beliefs it should be followed by an explanation of where they get such belief with cited reference preferably to their own publications instead of publications made to bring controversy but instead we get the presentation of beliefs as backed by a reference to a book not published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • The history, explanation of the organization, and beliefs are mostly backed and cited by books printed by critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those books should be cited and used in the controversy section.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so changeas one example religion's stance against military service has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service[13][14], and activities ...
  • Article needs more references, for example Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by Joseph Franklin Rutherford (also known as "Judge" Rutherford). has no ref. Most of the Publications section needs refs too. 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. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful, see refs 14, 25, 152, 153, etc. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The section on 1879-1916 seems very short

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key Sounds Label

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I put this article up for a peer review so as to get creative feedback on how to further improve the article. Seeing as I cannot find any FA-ranked record label articles, and this article is (to my knowledge) the only GA-rated record label article, I cannot use another example article as a template. I was also wondering if the history section should be split into subsections since it's kind of long, though I'm not sure if that matters or not. Thanks, 十八 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Discography section has no refs. Or there are several sentnces without refs such as A third anime music single, this time for the Clannad After Story anime TV series, was released in November 2008. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Can this be expanded / explained better Unlike typical record labels, Key Sounds Label does not license any of the artists featured on albums and singles released on the label. See WP:PCR
  • Seems like this needs more information - what kind of sales does the label / their individual albums have? Who are the executives / officers of the label?
  • Not sure if this would be a useful model article or not, but Elderly Instruments is a FA about a music related business and may give you some ideas.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mesons

edit
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 don't know how to improve it anymore.
  • I'm planning to submit it to FLC soon.

Thanks, Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks pretty good overall, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • 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 leptons are only in the lead and the information on baryons also seems to be here only. I think the overview might be clearer if it started out with a sentence or two on baryons, leptons, mesons and quarks.
I rewrote the lead. If you have some feedback on it, don't be shy in sharing.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of the two groups of mesons (pseudoscalar and vector) in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
I've tried to incorporate them as best I could. I tried giving an overview of what sort of properties mesons had, rather than list everyone of them. Things like pseudoscalar/vector are mentionned, but implicitely rather than explicitely. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be an image in the upper right corner of the lead too - do mesons leave tracks in cloud chambers? Perhaps an image of a particle accelerator used to investigate them?
Unfortunately there are no such images in the commons. I placed a kaon decay Feynman diagram instead.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs more references, for example only two of the four paragraphs in the Spin, orbital angular momentum, and total angular momentum section have refs (and one has a {{fact}} tag). Or both bullet points in the Note need refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Yeah I know, I'm ref hunting. I found some stuff for the parity and various symmetries so I've included them.
  • I would avoid external links in the table (decay modes) - is there any reason these cannot be converted to inline citations? As direct ELs, they are iternet refs that need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V.
The ref is C.Amsler et al. 2008, a 1340 page document (which is included and cited using {{cite journal}}). Sections are linked in the "Harvard style" section, but those in the tables are meant to quickly link to the decays rather than have readers click to 3-4 times. See List of baryons for a similarly formated table. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to make clearer in the tables which particles are still theorectical?
Well there are big "Unknown" or values in red indicating what is known or unknown. The only meson in those list not yet observed is the vector charmed B meson, indicated by a dagger.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to make this more accessible, but it is a pretty dense read. Can more context be provided for the reader? How are these mesons important? See WP:PCR
Well it's a pretty technical subject, condensing a lot of information. I gave some context in the lead for why mesons are studied, why they are important, etc.... Each sections links to "main articles" so readers can get more info on a particular thing like C-parity. Maybe it could be better, I'm editing with the idea that this is a list, but one whose parameters cannot be simply thrown out there, like in List of Battlestar Galactica episodes Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. This is a rather complicated subject to write about, so if you have any other comments I'd be glad to take them. I'll review some articles in the next weeks.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 319

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is something I want to make perfect before I bring it to FAC. The highway, if it passes FAC, will become the first decommissioned state touring route to become an FA, so I would like a really strong review.

Thanks, Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs some work before it meets the FA criteria. My main concerns are the quality of the language (this is usually the hardest for most articles), some apparent contradictions within the article itself, and some comprehensiveness issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • The article makes it clear that the route designation ended in July 1984, but the first sentence of the lead says New York State Route 319 (formerly and currently designated by the New York State Department of Transportation as NY 319)... The use of the word "currently" makes it sound as if the route is still officially in existence. I also think the whole phrase "formerly and currently designated by the New York State Department of Transportation as NY 319" is a bit too detailed for the lead sentence - the lead is a summary of the article, so why not just say something like "(also officially know as NY 319)"?
  • Shouldn't "Chenango county" be capitalized as "Chenango County"?
  • language terminated at an intersection with New York State Route 12 in the downtown regions. would read better as something like terminated at its downtown intersection with New York State Route 12. (region should be singular if it is kept in the sentence)
  • Problem sentence Route 319 had an influence on the history of turnpikes in the state of New York and the history of the towns it was located in—Norwich and Preston. First off the article doesn't really say that the turnpike influenced the history of turnpikes in New York, it more relates some of its history as a turnpike. So perhaps start it something like Route 319 began as a turnpike chartered by the state of New York in 1808 ... Second, since "town" has a very specific legal meaning in New York state, I would not refer to city as a town. Why not say something like this at the end instead and was important in the history of [the communities of] Norwich and Preston (not sure if you need the [the communities of] part).
  • ANother problem sentence. My understanding is that the layout and physical route / road are basically unchanged since 1984. What has changed is its designation as a state highway. So the use of the verb "replaced" in this sentence is unclear and seems to imply something else, plus the "it and was" makes no sense (typo?). When a nearby highway was constructed, the state turned over Route 319 to Chenango County it and was replaced by County Route 10A. So fix this as something like When a nearby highway was constructed, the state turned over Route 319 to Chenango County and its designation was changed to County Route 10A.

Route

  • Since Preston is officially a town, I would call it that (and not a hamlet), would also refer to the Norwich city limits (not town limits) as above.
  • What are "sharer turns"?

History

  • I would probably combine the history of the communities and the road. As it is the "History of Preston and Norwich" (the name goes against WP:HEAD by repeating History as a subsection of "History") goes all the way to 1930 then we go back to 1808 in the next section. Combining them would probably let you discuss how the road influenced the growth of the communities too.
  • In the "History of Preston and Norwich" section it first says that North Main Street became NY 319, then that West Main Street became NY 319. Which is it? If both, make this clearer.
  • My guess is that Norwich was settled and existed before its incorporation as a city, but reading now only that Norwich was incorporated in 1816, and that the turnpike etablished in 1808 was called the Norwich and Preston Turnpike seems a bit odd (how did they name it before Norwich existed?)
  • Criterion 1b is comprehensiveness - but we get no history of the turnpike between its founding in 1808 and its apparent conversion to a state highway in 1930. My guess is that it became a public road before 1930, but when? Just saying in 1931 that it was the formerly privately-maintained highway connecting the two locations doesn't say enough on the history and repeats things the article has already made very clear (the places at each end). There should be more history of the route (and places it served)
  • Problem sentence: turn it into what - the sentence does not say. The plan was to turn Route 319 (also state highways 598 and 598-a) upon the completion of a road near the Chenango-Cortland County border. I would also identify the new road being built more clearly (assume it is a state highway)
  • The block quote does not mention NY 319 by name - what is the reason for including it?
  • External link is dead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander: The Series (season 2)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because it will enter FLC as soon as this PR is finished. I would especially like reviewers to look at the prose because I'm not a native English speaker and report any other problem so that they can be fixed before FLC.

Thank you for your time, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a lot of FLs on television seasons, The O.C. (season 4) is the one of the newest FLs and may have some good ideas.
  • This article needs a copyedit to clean up and clarify the language - I think this is probably the biggest obstacle to its becoming a FL. Some examples
    • the household average for all dayparts scored 2.7/9, representing a 40-50% share increase among the key demographic rating groups.[25] I do not understand what "dayparts" are, it is not a word I know. I think that it should be either "40–50 percent increase" (spell out percent, use an n-dash per WP:DASH and a nonbreaking space per WP:NBSP) or perhaps even just "40 to 50 percent increase".
    • Or this MacLeod stabs Horton but Horton shots him dead. When MacLeod revives... I know he's immortal, but he can be killed, so dead does not seem the right word here.
      • When an Immortal is killed but not beheaded, it is admitted that for all intends and purposes, he is dead until he revives. This is not just me speaking like that; the producers use the words "dead" and killed" when talking about this kind of situation. They say things like "He was killed for the first time" and other characters ask immortals what it is like to be dead. This explanation has been accepted in the Season 1 FLC, so I hope it's okay if I leave it here. If you don't think so, please tell me. Rosenknospe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or this In early 1993, Rysher TPE were one of the few international co-producers of the show that had already aired the first series. could perhaps be better as In early 1993, Rysher TPE were one of the few international co-producers of the show, which had already aired the first series. if I understand the meaning
      • Reworded as In early 1993, Rysher TPE were one of the few international co-producers of the show to have already aired the first series. Does that sound better now ? Rosenknospe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the verb "aired" is what is confusing me - it generally means to transmit or broadcast and is what the television station does. Rysher TPE is a part of the production, not a part of the transmission, right? I am not really sure what the sentence means Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point. Indeed, usually the producer gives money for the filming and sells the rights to the networks. Highlander is quite unique in that the show was produced by those who would either air or distribute it. They got their investment back in advertising rights, if you like. But I got ahead of myself about Rysher, which was a distributor, not a network. I'll reword the sentence. Rosenknospe (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or MacLeod prevents Eli Jarmel (Tom Watson) to kill Drake, who has killed Eli's family years ago. could perhaps be clearer as MacLeod prevents Eli Jarmel (Tom Watson) from killing Drake, who killed Eli's family years ago.
    • You can ask for a copyediting help in the last section at WP:PRV
  • Some places could do a better job of providing context for the reader - for example the ratings above are not explained fully (how many million households did this represent, what rank was the show for the sweeps period?). See WP:PCR
    • I have provided the percentage equivalent for the ratings, but that's all I can do. Please note that this season is 15 years old, and that ratings are extremely difficult to find before the days of online instant news. This is also why I didn't provide figures for every episode; I don't have them. The value of the rating point is variable even during one single day, and I couldn't find the value for 1993, neither the rank of the show on my favorite news database. If you have any idea where I can search for them, I'll be grateful. Rosenknospe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Notes probably need references, especially the last two (alternate titles)
    • Modo's credit and the episode titles are self-referential, so don't need a reference, as far as I know and if this hasn't changed since my last FLC. Otherwise I'd probably have to remove them, but I feel the information is useful. Rosenknospe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps more information could be provided about the airing and reception of the show in countries other than the United States. Otherweise seems to risk WP:NPOV issues if focused on the US alone.

Hope this helps. Thank you for peer reviewing other articles at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Music2611
Hi there, I just finished reading the article, I agree with Ruhrfisch the article requires a bit more cleanup and copy-editing before going to FL. My comments are listed below.

  1. Maybe this is because I'm not a native speaker of English, but the word beheaded seems a bit unclear, I saw the first two Highlander films so I know it means decapetated, but couldn't you rather put that instead.
  1. In the production section, "In early 1993, Rysher TPE were one of the few international co-producers..." Should a company be refered to as multiple people, I think it should be "was" instead of "were".
  1. In the production section, "pre-production started in April.." what year, I assume 1993, but can you make it more clear, like "pre-production started in April 1993, and filming in June that same year".--Music26/11 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Still in the production section "Like the first season, the second one was...", "the second one?" sounds a bit... I don't know... un-encyclopedic. I'd suggest rephrasing it to "Like the first season, Highlander: The Series, Season 2 was..."
  1. Again in the production section. "The executive producers were Bill Panzer, Peter S. Davis, Christian Charret and Gaumont co-production executive Marla Ginsburg." needs a ref.
  1. "Filmline president Nicolas Clermont[6] became the only co-executive producer." why is the ref in the middle of the sentence.
  1. "There were no supervising producers anymore, and Ken Gord replaced Barry Rosen and Gary Goodman as the new producer." why were there no more supervising producers? it also needs a ref. Also, make it seperate sentences, Ken Gord, Barry Rosen and Gary Goodman have nothing to do with the supervising producers.
  1. "The head writer..", "The executive script editor..", "the regular directors..", "the opening theme was.." these are just a few examples of "the" being really repatative, try some variety, like "... served as executive producers" or "Regular Directors throughout the season were.."
  1. The image of the vancouver skylight makes the page a lot wider, I'd suggest using the {{Panorama simple}} template.
  • Are you using IE6 ? I know it has that effect, but IE7 and Mozilla are unaffected. Panorama simple doesn't work on Mozilla. It does work, but the bottom of the image is cropped for some reason. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the the panorama simple template myself, I hope you don't mind. I won't mind to much if it was to be removed, because I checked the article using Firefox where it was automatically cropped.  Y Check.--Music26/11 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the cast section "...Vandernoot returned to make a guest appearance as murderer Lisa Halle in the two-parter season finale "Counterfeit"." needs a ref.
  1. There's no such thing as a season pilot, I think, there's a season premiere though.
  1. In the reception section, IGN can be unitacalized since it's a website and per WP:ITALICS
  1. Still in the reception section, explain what Charret is, and who Abramowitz is.
  • They are mentioned in the production section above, Charret is executive producer and Abramowitz is creative consultant. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think you should refer to them with their full name (and wikilink them if possible) in each seperate section. But that's my opinion.

Furthermore the article looks fine, I hope my comments are usefull.--Music26/11 13:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments certainly were useful, and I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for reviewing this list, it is a great help. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, great job, the article used to be really awful.--Music26/11 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that twice. EEK! ;D Rosenknospe (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did a great job on the article, and I think it's about ready for FL candidatecy.--Music26/11 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to get this article to GA status. Any input would be appreciated. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Somno

Hi Gtstricky, here are some suggestions that I think will improve the article to meet GA requirements:

  • History:
    • Much more information is needed here. One paragraph is not sufficient for a company as large as Glock.
    • Why did Gaston Glock found the company and how did it become a success?
    • Why did they move from manufacturing curtain rods to weaponry?
    • How has the company grown over time? What has happened with their revenue, staffing levels, etc?
    • Why did they move to the US? Was a market apparent over there and Glock wanted to capitalise on it, or were they invited over there by the military? Did they have to change their staffing, recruitment, internal processes, marketing, etc once they became international?
    • Have there been any controversies or lawsuits against Glock, such as wrongful death, inadequate safety, etc?
  • Products:
    • Needs an introductory paragraph to tie the subheadings together.
    • No explanation of Glock's entrenching tools, which are mentioned in the lead.
    • Handguns:
      • This section is essentially unreferenced.
      • "Glock sidearms are common handguns among law enforcement agencies and military organizations" - include a source that backs up this statement and list some of the organisations.
      • "They are said to be very reliable" - by who? Needs citation.
      • "The simplicity of the Glock design contributes to this reliability" - says who? Needs citation.
      • "The polymer frame makes them lighter than typical steel or aluminum-framed handguns" - how much lighter? Is there a significant difference, because that's interesting to the reader.
      • "Glock pistols do not have any external controls such as levers, decockers, or manual safeties (stock)" - do most pistols have these, and if so, why doesn't a Glock? Link or explain these terms; don't assume everyone reading the article is a gun expert.
      • "The popularity of Glock pistols inspired other manufacturers to begin production of similar polymer-framed firearms" - needs citation.
      • "Glocks tend to be in the middle of the price range for quality pistols" - is this true world-wide? How does one define a "quality" pistol?
      • How many units have been sold? How much revenue generated?
    • Knives:
      • Needs expansion. Is anything different about a Glock knife, or is it just a standard knife?
      • What are they used for, where are they produced, where are they sold?
      • How many have been sold? Are they expensive?
  • Subsidiaries:
    • Incorporate into History section with dates and explanations.
  • References:
    • The article needs many more independent and reliable sources.
    • What makes GlockFAQ a reliable source?
  • Literature:
    • Are these books about the gun or books about the company? Try to access these books and include them as references. Otherwise, retitle this section "Further reading".
  • External links:
    • Glock Post and Glock Talk are forums, which contain a lot of information.

I hope this helps. Once you have expanded the article, expand the lead per WP:LEAD to match. If you want me to look at the article again at some stage, just leave me a note on my talk page. Regards, Somno (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to provide that insight. It is very appreciated. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang

Essentially I agree with Somno's opinions above, although I think GlockFAQ could have been considered reliable (listing its sources, and having recognized experts as its contributors), except that its disclaimer states, "the author and contributors assume no responsibility for errors or omissions", which is generally a big problem to considering it a reliable source (further minuses include contributors of unknown expertise and background). If possible, you could use it as a guide: find information on it and locate the original source that information came from, then cite the information back to the original source (verify it is in that source first). Other than that, the article also lacks information on the Glock factories. Are there one or many? Are any foreign? Is the labor required to be skilled before recruitment or simply trained? Does the company have a significant impact on the society (charity work, contributions to amenities improvement, etc)? Have there been any lawsuits brought against the company? Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carolina Panthers head coaches

edit
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. Gary King (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "They have only played in one Super Bowl, Super Bowl XXXVIII, but did not win."
  • "He is also the team's current coach, joining the team on January 26, 2002."
  • "George Seifert is the least winningest coach the Panthers have had in terms of winning percentage, with .333."-->George Seifert has the team's worst winning percentage (.333).
  • Image:JohnFox.jpg needs its information to be organized.
  • The key says Win%, but the column headers say W–L%. Use Win%.
  • Ref 5 needs to be formatted like the other Pro Football Reference citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas Cowboys head coaches

edit
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 wants to be peer reviewed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Wry statements notwithstanding, here are my comments:

  • "Three different coaches have won Super Bowls with the team" Different is understood in this context.
  • You need to put information about the head coaches' playoff winning percentage.
  • Ref 6 is not formatted like the rest of the Pro Football Reference citations.
  • Make all the citation dates look the same; right now, there are some in ISO format and some in American format. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches

edit
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 receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkBlue's comments
  • Lead
    • This sentence ---> "There have been two head coaches for the Jacksonville Jaguars of the National Football League (NFL)", seems to simple. Maybe taking an example from the List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches page might help.
    • Same section: You say that Jack Del Rio is the greatest Jaguars coach the franchise has ever seen, but then the next sentence says he is the current coach. Maybe if you take that sentence of him being the current coach and then adding he's the greatest coach in the teams franchise.

Overall, the article is good.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I copyedited the lead a bit further. Gary King (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

I moved them over. Gary King (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miami Dolphins head coaches

edit
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, as you can see. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Don Shula, who coached the Dolphins for 36 straight seasons" "straight"-->consecutive.
  • "Shula has also been named the United Press International (UPI) NFL Coach of the Year twice while a coach for the Dolphins."-->He was named the United Press International (UPI) NFL Coach of the Year twice during his tenure with the Dolphins.
  • "Sparano is the head coach of the Dolphins since 2008." "is"-->has been.
  • I think Image:Dolphin Stadium.jpg needs a better source. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches

edit
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 said so. Gary King (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There you go, put some style into it!

  • "The Minnesota Vikings are a professional American football team based in Minneapolis, Minneapolis." Spot the typo (look at the last word).
  • "The Vikings played their first game in the 1961 NFL season after the team's owners withdrew their membership from the American Football League and instead joined the NFL as an expansion team."
  • "A running total of the number of coaches of the Browns." Surely you meant the Vikings?
  • It should be Sports Reference LLC (my italics for emphasis) in the references.
  • Make reference dates consistent.
  • What is the difference between "Pro Football Hall of Fame" (ref 1) and "Pro Football Hall of Fame Official website"? Personally, I like the first one better, but in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grant's full coaching record with the Vikings is 259 regular season games coached with a record of 158–96–5 and a W–L percentage of .622." W–L-->winning.
  • "He is also 10–12 in 22 Playoff games." "Playoff" should not be capitalized.
  • Coaches who both spent entire NFL head coaching career with the team and were Hall-of-Famers should have a different color background (see List of New Jersey Nets head coaches). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle Seahawks head coaches

edit
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! Gary King (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "American Football Conference and NFC Championship Games." Add an (AFC) after "American Football Conference".
  • "Mike McCormack is the only Seahawks' coach who has been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame."-->Mike McCormack is the only Seahawks' coach to have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
  • Make the image caption more concise: "Mike Holmgren, the current Seahawks coach, has held the position since 1999."-->Mike Holmgren has been the Seahawks' coach since 1999. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches

edit
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. Gary King (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The least winningest coach in the Buccaneers' history is Leeman Bennett with a winning percentage of .125." Ungrammatical.
  • "They lost their first 26 games and had only one playoff win in its first 21 seasons before winning the Super Bowl in 2002."
  • Where's the summary in the lead about coaches' stats (best win%, number of games coached, etc.)?
  • Make the formatting of the citation dates the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Summaries are already there. I think I fixed the reference(s) you were referring to. Gary King (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Houston Texans head coaches

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this short, two-item list for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Just watched the Texans beat the Green Bay Packers...

  • "He is also the team's leader in games coached (64), won (18), loss (46), and has the highest winning percentage with .469."-->He is the team's leader in games coached (64), won (18), loss (46), and has the highest winning percentage (.469).
  • Add a note about each year in the table being linked to that particular NFL season (see List of New Orleans Saints head coaches).
  • Gary Kubiak needs an asterisk in the table. Also, only his name needs to be highlighted, not the whole row. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Monowi (talk · contribs)

  • The article may be short, but it formatted and referenced well; good job. That said, I can only think of two suggestions to offer;
  1. If you ever put this article up for featured list consideration, one thing to be mindful of is that you may be asked why you believe pro-football-reference.com is a reliable source. You might point out that the publisher of that source, Sports Reference LLC., is an accepted source on featured articles like Lee Smith (baseball).
  2. The third sentence of the lead section reads, "The Texans joined the NFL in 2002 as an expansion team and has always played at the Reliant Stadium." I understand that by using the word "has" as the verb tense instead of "have," you are indicating that the Texans are a single entity; I encountered the same thing while reviewing Sunderland A.F.C.. However, it is my personal opinion that the wording of the sentence is jarring to the reader; it doesn't flow well, it might potentially confuse some readers, and most of all it just sounds awkward. However, if you consider the Texans to consist of the players on the team, then using the verb tense "have" makes sense. You could also try to re-write the sentence to avoid the verb tense usage entirely.

Hope my suggestions help. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that; all done. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi foreign assistance

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to be able to improve this article significantly (the current version is what I came up with) with others' input. The ultimate goal is to nominate it for GA, but I think there is still some work that needs to be done.

Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be expanded so it is 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 Between 1975 to 1987, Saudi developmental aid amounted to US$48 billion ... is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the regions are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article has no images, there should at least be one in the upper right corner of the lead. If nothing else a Saudi Arabian map or flag might work.
  • Spell out abbreviations before their first use, so for example spell out ODA and GNP
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded if possible.
  • The article is unclear about dates in several places - the lead mentions 1975 to 1987, then the Saudi fund for development section only goes to 1979, but I think all of the explicit dates in the Regions and Views are from the 2000s.
  • There are also several things without dates that need them to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Roberts

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

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

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

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

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

Enter Sandman

edit
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 so you can help me bring to FA status. It's been over a year since I've worked hard on it and most of the issues raised at the time, including copy editing have been addressed. I believe the article has no major flaws and it has the potential to become a Featured Article, but I wanted to bring it to peer review before taking that step.

Thanks in advance, Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review by User:BuddingJournalist Hmm...I think there's plenty of work to be done on the prose side of things before this rises to FA level. Might want to a recruit a copy-editor to work with you on combing through the text (you'll probably have to be actively engaged with them though, if they don't know the material, as some of the problem sentences are rather ambiguous).
    • On Wikipedia (as in academia), it's common practice to combine citations; that is, if multiple sentences in a row come from the same source, one can put citation at the end of the last sentence. This then implies that this citation "covers" all of the previous sentences. Makes for much more readable text.
    • I don't understand the citation style for the Classic Albums DVD. Why are there multiple names given? Are these chapter titles? If so, they should be set apart in some fashion (quotation marks).
    • "Metallica's songwriting method involved lead guitarist..." Awkward, long sentence, especially with the "involved...'verb'ing" construct.
    • "in Ulrich's house in Berkeley, California" "at (Ulrich's house)" seems to work better here. Avoids the slightly ungainly repetition of "in" and emphasizes the locale rather than the physical location inside the house, which "in" does.
    • "The song was quickly finished," That's a bit contradictory to the latter half of the sentence. The "music", perhaps? Also, what does "quickly" mean?
    • "for a long time" Again, the more specific, the better.
    • "and the lyrics featured in the song are not the original" Could use some context here. What changed and why?
    • "For the first time in Metallica's history, however" This sets up a landmark action, but readers (or at least those unfamiliar with the band like myself) are left wondering why telling Hetfield this is so important. Is it because this is his first crack at writing a song? Also, the way the sentence is constructed, it seems as if the emphasis is placed on the rather specific act of telling Hetfield specific information, and would not necessitate such an important lead-in as "for the first time in Metallica's history". Moreover, what is the "however" doing here?
    • "Nevertheless, according to Ulrich, the song was..." Two things: again, another odd use of a contradictory connector (nevertheless)...what's being contradicted? Also, another confusing use of "song". "Music", perhaps?
    • The first paragraph of the Writing and recording doesn't mention when the writing of the song took place.
    • "According to engineer Randy Staub, close to 50 takes of the drums were recorded..." Three variations of "record" in the same sentence.
    • "Because it was difficult to get in one take the "intensity" that the band wanted," The use of "get" here and in the next sentence is rather informal.
    • "producing team" Isn't it "production team"? I could be wrong though.
    • "spent much time" Unspecific.
    • "Bob Rock had to create the sound for the entire album" What does "sound for the entire album" mean?
    • In the Music and lyrics section, musical terms are introduced without being linked (minor, flat, sharp, etc.)
    • P. J. Howorth <-- who is he?
    • "The song then follows a common structure, playing" Odd personification here. A song doesn't play. What exactly is the common structure? IN my opinion, "The song then launches into two iterations..." would be just fine.
    • "After the solo, the breakdown starts," Long, run-on sentence.
    • "Lyrically, the song is about" Wouldn't it be better to quote a band member instead about the song's meaning?
    • "The title is a reference to the sandman, a character from Western folklore who makes children sleep.[15]" Misleading citation here. There's no need to cite what the word sandman means. What you want is a citation backing up the first part of the sentence, "The title is a reference to the sandman".
    • I stopped here, but that should give you ample examples on what to look for in improving the prose. BuddingJournalist 10:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin

edit
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 planning on bringing this to FAC. Based on past peer reviews of other articles, I suspect it is the prose that needs the most work, but any comments are welcome!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just renamed the "Thought" section to "Theology" and I am going to rewrite it. For those peer reviewers, please ignore the Theology section for the moment. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new Theology section is almost done, so I have struck-through my comment. I will continue to copy-edit, though. I hope someone finds this article interesting enough to review. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the backlog list - someone should review it in a few days Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Legacy section. The article is now complete. More advice is welcome! --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

  • "Jean was particularly precocious". It is probably my poor English, but "precocious" probably means here intellectually developed for his age. Correct?
Yes, it means he was particularly advanced or mature for his age. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was converted to the reformed faith." If I am not wrong, there were many Reformation branches. Which one "attracted" him more? If my question is historically inaccurate, ignore it?
There is very little known about his conversion. At the time, the Reformation was just beginning (it was less than twenty years after the 95 theses). As Luther's publications were well-known, Calvin most likely heard about Luther first. There were other reformers that were Luther's contemporaries (e.g., Bucer and Zwingli) who had different points-of-view. He communicated with all the major reformers, but he ended up striking his own path. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unknown reformers posted placards in various cities attacking the mass and it provoked a violent backlash against the Protestants." "It" refers to what?
I changed "it" to "this" so that the understanding is the posting of the placards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was while in Strasbourg that Calvin's friends began to urge him to marry?" Why? Was there any theological significance?
The sources do hint at details on why his friends urged him. Cottret said, "Celibacy was hardly proper for a preacher of the gospel; it was important to set oneself apart from the old clergy by visibly embracing the life of ordinary men." Since this looked more like a historian analysis of the situation, I didn't put this in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a consistent preacher and his style changed very little over the years." Did he have any rhetoric charisma as an ecclesiastical speecher?
It is not evident from the description given by Parker. He did not excite the crowds like Knox did. Here is an indication from Parker: "Like many reserved persons, he could forget himself in the pulpit and speak from the heart as easily as in print." --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under torture, he confessed to several crimes. The civil court condemned him to death and he was beheaded." It was Calvin who initiated the tortures and the beheading?
This is an interesting question. The cited sources do not say that Calvin specifically asked for the tortures or the beheading. So I tried looking up other sources and found a small detail that the council appointed a commission to investigate. Another said that the magistrates beheaded Gruet with the consent of Calvin. I will add these in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Theology" you could maybe focus on the issues that made him oppose the Catholic Church, namely their theological differences.
I was careful not to delve into that because the comparisons can get lengthy, but I will add some of the differences on major issues. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I can understand reading the article, Calvin was not just a priest, but for a long time the strongest person in Geneva. Therefore, some comments or judgments of him as a political figure, and as a person who influenced politics in Switcherland (if he did so)?
He was very powerful within the church in Geneva. However, official church decisions were made by the Consistoire, so he did not have direct power. Calvin did not have any power in the civil area (politics). In fact, the politicians often clashed with the churchmen. It was only during his final nine years that he stood uncontested, but they were quiet years of mainly writing theological works and giving sermons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a compehensive and well-written article (as usual) and probably a well-deserved future FA article, which I am not, however, 100% sure that it sheds light to all the aspects of this complex personalities.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karanacs

Overall, this looks like a fairly comprehensive article.

  • I think the first sentence of the lead ought to stress that he was the central deeloper of Calvinism, and leave the French theologian part until later. His contribution to Calvinism is most important.
Rewritten a bit. Although he established the theology, Calvinism has moved on much further. So really he was simply a theologian rather than a "developer" of a system of theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Biography" really need to be a section, or would it make more sense to move all those subsections up to main section level?
This was the original existing hierarchy. I agree the top level section is unnecessary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is okay, but not quite at "brilliant" level. A bit of massaging is in order.
I know, this is my weakness as seen in all the other peer reviews that I've had. Physicist background unfortunately, i.e., all equations, no prose! I will go through the article again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His eighteen-month stay in Bourges had a decisive impact on his development as it was here where he learned Greek." - at this point, the reader doesn't understand why learning Greek is a "decisive impact on his development"
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in particular seems very awkward: Calvin would later update and produce new editions of the book, but in 1536, this was the first expression of his theology
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with his brother Antoine who was in the process of winding up their parents' affairs" - I assume this means that his father had recently died; since the mother died a long time before, should this instead be "their father's affairs"?
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Edict of Coucy which gave a limited six month period for heretics to reconcile with the Catholic faith, Calvin decided that there was no future for him in France" - is it important to note what the penalty for nonconversion would be after that?
This wasn't made explicit, but the intention was for heresy to be extirpated. Persecution of reformers occurred before and after the period of the edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that the Edict of coucy was a bit of a cease-fire, but then the next sentence mentions that Calvin had to detour to avoid troops; was he wanted in particular or were all protestants in danger?
The Edict was an internal French affair to deal with heretics. The troop movements were a military squabble between France and the Holy Roman Empire separate from the religious issue. The source just noted this was reason for the detour and gave no other details. I changed the wording a bit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly was Farel's cause? Reform in France? Reform in general?
Reform the church in Geneva. Changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • who voted in his election to pastor?
Parker said he was elected, but gave no details. Cottret provides a bit more info. Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what made Calvin and Farel's reputations suffer? just that they recommended the subscription requirement?....Wait, I see this addressed a little later....hmmm...wonder if that should be reordered at all?
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were three items that contributed: the subscription requirement, the rumours, and the unleavened bread argument. I separated the paragraph and changed the wording so hopefully it is clearer now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a bit melodramatic: "Farel and Calvin were refugees once again, homeless and penniless"
Removed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of phrasing along the lines of "it was there"..../"it was then".../"it was while"... Many times, this wording is redundant
Tried to catch most of these. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on Minister in Strasbourg, the text talks first about his time in Strasbourg and his relationship with Bucer, then discusses how this affected Geneva, before the reader ever learns that Calvin returned to Geneva. There are other minor organizational issues like this in the text too.
I think that's due to the paragraph on Bucer and Calvin which is on their relationship, not on the biography. I've temporarily taken it out. I'm not sure where I can introduce it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In analysing his sermons, Calvin was a consistent preacher and his style changed very little over the years" - this likely needs to be attributed to a scholar
It is from Parker and it is cited. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Yannis that it might be nice to see a bit of comparison between what he believed and what the Catholic Church taught at that time. It wouldn't hurt the article to stress a bit more just how radical some of Calvin's ideas were.
Done. I should point out that the opinion that many of Calvin's ideas were of an extreme nature is due to certain past biographers. In fact modern sources point out that his views were very much in common with the other major reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS. I'm not watching the page, so if you have any questions, please ping me on my talk.[reply]

User:Reywas92
  • Sorry, I was reading the article and the PR was closed! "(né Jean Cauvin)" First, isn't it née? And doesn't that mean formerly? It would be better to say that Jean Cauvin is the French name. It's not his former name, John Calvin is just Anglicised. Reywas92Talk 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you were not able to comment before the bot closed the PR; otherwise your comment would have extended the life for the PR for another two weeks. Né in French means "born" and née is the feminine form. The usage is accepted in English. The word is appropriate in that he was born Cauvin, but the latinised name Calvinus shortened to Calvin is the accepted name (in both French and English). I will address the unanswered comments in the PR before submitting the article to FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem discography

edit
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 bring the article to Featured List status after the unsuccessful FLC of a few months ago. I believe I have addressed all the issue that were brought up and fixed other problems, especially those regarding the reliability of the former sources and unnecessary large amount of charts. I would like comments on anything that can be improved, but especially comments regarding the lead and the "note system" at the bottom of the page are most welcome.

Thanks, — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
This is a partial assessment of layout, not yet seen the text.
  • All these types, on the entire table, per visual appeal should be in a consistent 'width' and same style.
  • Done
  • Overall, you should put the entire list as the others featured lists, look at my page, to see a modern days FL. Preference to see The Mars Volta and Iron Maiden discogs.
  • Now it looks more similar
  • Put all fonts in normal size (except bottom keys).
  • Done, with the exception for guest performers in the singles chart.
  • When you has more than 10 chart peaks, keep the 10 bests, as MOS:DISCOG suggests.
  • Done (all but the singles table have 10 charts)
  • Good Idea. Done

Regards, Cannibaloki 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All codes that I post here, should replace the ones used in the discography.
  • ! rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
    • Only on the first ocurrence, the following should be just Certifications (with no links).
  • Done
  • ! style="width:3em;font-size:75%;"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>The current references, of course.</ref> (for all similar entries)
  • Done
  • It would be nice if Worldwide, was shortened to WW, but this means World War, then forget it.
  • "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country.
  • "—" means that the album or song did not chart.
  • The Singles is a compilation album or a box set?
    • Should be moved for a Box sets section, and put a notes explain something as its content or other stuff.
  • You will find information about the Australian Top DVD charts at ARIA report (see MOS:DISCOG).
  • Done

***I will work on all of this once I come back home. Thanks 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Well, I guess I'm back. Anything I missed?— Do U(knome)? yes...or no 11:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

edit
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 this article for FAC before winter ends. The article is currently, GA but I know it could use some drastic trimming of information. I'm asking for any and all BLP and music editors to review this article, especially to help me remove any WP:FANCRUFT while preserving the subject's dignity. I'm not overly concerned with citations at the moment- once we've figured out what information to remove/replace, I'll pick a citation format for the article and adjust all the citations accordingly

Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "recording artist and entertainer". Why not singer? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The music video for "...Baby One More Time" and Spears's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine also established her as an international sex symbol, garnering controversy over the influence of her public image on teenage girls" seems out of place in the lead.
  • "Spears's personal life began to gain substantial media attention after her marriage to Kevin Federline . . ." Bit of a fallacy; I remember entertainment news covering her relationship with Justin Timberlake quite extensively.
  • In a narrative sense, it's odd to mention what her siblings do in the present in the paragraph talking about her birth.
  • Doesn't seem necessary to list her grandparents.
  • Spears' comments about "Baby One More Time"s success are unnecessary for the biography.
  • "The album of the same name debuted . . ." Avoid easter egg links. Just say the name of the album.
  • Combine the second paragraph about ...Baby One More Time with the first one.
  • The Entertainment News Wire quote is superfluous. It's not telling us anything we don't get prior to it in the article.
  • A bit odd to quote the Orlando Sentinel calling her "the Reigning Princess of Pop". Would be worth including if a more notable publication made the remark.
  • "The album's lead single of the same name broke . . ." Same deal as before. Just name the song outright.
  • I don't think it's notable to note that Britney supplanted Invincible at number one, since it only stayed there for a week and wasn't a strong seller in the first place. In contrast, Nevermind replacing Dangerous at number one in 1992 was a huge deal that drew commentary from every major news source.
  • Don't cite IMDB.com; it's not considered an appropriate source of info, since everything is user-submitted. also, merge Spears' comments about Bush together for cohesiveness.
  • Find a more notable reviewer to quote than Stylus for In the Zone.
  • Summarize the annulment statement, instead of quoting it; it's rather long.
  • Mention that K-Fed was her backup dancer or whatever it is he was. Mentioning his relationship with Shar Jackson is unnecessary for this article.
  • For "Spears's highly anticipated performance of "Gimme More" at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards was panned", it's better to find a single source that says it was panned instead of citing three sources that directly panned it.
  • "Despite the criticism on her performance,[132] the single has achieved worldwide success". This seems rather vague, and there's an awful lot of cites at the end of the sentence.
  • There's an awful lot of emphasis on that Kevin Johnson concert review. This needs to be balanced out in regards to the article as a whole.
  • The "Public image" section seems unnecessary, especially since it predominantly focuses on her current situations, while earlier remarks about her image years ago are in the bio section.

There needs to be a lot of in-depth prose work done, but taking care of these points should at least make the article more presentable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rushmore (film)

edit
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 put a lot of work into this article and, aside from beefing up the lead paragraph, I would welcome any comments and/or suggestions on how to improve it so that I can get to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit

OK, I will post some notes below. My time is limited at the moment but I am an anderson fan so thought I'd help out: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Max's cocksure attitude - maybe cocksure is a bit too vernacular for an encyclopedia...
  • Watch for over-repetition of words, eg "Max" in plot section. See if you can get rid of a few without losing meaning.
  • "One of the things that was most appealing to us was the initial idea of a 15-year-old kid and a 50-year-old man becoming friends and equals" - can be reworded not as direct quote. Should be easy to do, a bit jarring for flow as is. There are some others as well.

I saw the stuff on the talk page - it would be great to be able to source some of these. I am fascinated how influences go back and forth in pop culture. Also, if the DVD had alternate ending or deleted/alternative scenes, they would be good to discuss. Anderson is always so polished and detailed and thorough, even minor changes in his films are fascinating.

As it is, the article might pass GA, I think it is on the way to FA but needs some more 'depth' if there is any out there. Any more insights from reviewers on aspects, or legacy etc. reading it, it is very concise in some way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nachman of Breslov

edit
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 comprehensive, well-written and encyclopedic. It has also not been significantly edited over the past few years, leading me to believe that it is ready to be nominated for Featured Article status. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yoninah,

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


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

Barney Gumble

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering it for FA.

Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the article at first glance I could find nothing wrong with it. However upon review of the citations I found a couple which were problematic. Specifically (numbered in reference to how it is written on this date) Reference 2 and 20 are both a bit.... well... their not idiot proof. What I mean is for reference two one has to enter information into a search form. Some people who are not very savvy get nervous around those. We have to consider such people so for that reference a more direct link to a published RS which says Castellaneta won that award would be preferable. Perhaps in conjunction with the search form. Which I used and gives a direct conformation of that award. For reference 20 it just says Richmond and a year. How about a title, ISBN or something that could be used to verify the source.

Aside from those two little and easily rectifiable issues, and upon review of the criteria at WP:FA? IMHO your article is 98% of the way there. In my book 98% is an A. So congratulations you have an article that needs a bit of work but is class A none the less. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks much better than its last PR. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The "Role in The Simpsons" section ends with Barney still sober - since he resumed drinking in 2003, shouldn't that be mentioned here?
  • I also note the article on the episode I'm Spelling as Fast as I Can does not mention Barney at all, let alone his resuming drinking
  • Could more details on critical reception of the character be included? Didn't his sobriety and/or his return to drinking attract more comments?
  • Provide more context for the reader - I am not sure someone who is not a Simpsons fan would connect the Mr. Plow episode to The second, "Plow King Barney", was released in January 2003.[29]
  • The quote in Creation uses {{cquote}} but according to WP:MOSQUOTE, {{blockquote}} should be used. Even that is supposed to be for quotes of 4 lines or more, but the quote on my monitor is less than 2 complete lines of text.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UT

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Parikh07 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Hardman02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Barkley JM, Morales D, Hayman LA, Diaz-Marchan PJ (2006). "Static neuroimaging in the evaluation of TBI". In Zasler ND, Katz DI, Zafonte RD (eds.). Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice. Demos Medical Publishing. pp. 140–43. ISBN 1-888799-93-5.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Valadka04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference cdcfacts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Liu BC, Ivers R, Norton R, Boufous S, Blows S, Lo SK (2008). "Helmets for preventing injury in motorcycle riders". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD004333. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004333.pub3. PMID 18254047.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zink01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Park08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Maas08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cruz J, Minoja G, Okuchi K (October 2001). "Improving clinical outcomes from acute subdural hematomas with the emergency preoperative administration of high doses of mannitol: A randomized trial". Neurosurgery. 49 (4): 864–71. PMID 11564247.
  11. ^ Cruz J, Minoja G, Okuchi K (September 2002). "Major clinical and physiological benefits of early high doses of mannitol for intraparenchymal temporal lobe hemorrhages with abnormal pupillary widening: A randomized trial". Neurosurgery. 51 (3): 628–37, discussion 637–38. PMID 12188940.
  12. ^ Cruz J, Minoja G, Okuchi K, Facco E (March 2004). "Successful use of the new high-dose mannitol treatment in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 3 and bilateral abnormal pupillary widening: A randomized trial". Journal of Neurosurgery. 100 (3): 376–83. PMID 15035271.
  13. ^ Roberts I, Smith R, Evans S (February 2007). "Doubts over head injury studies". British Medical Journal. 334 (7590): 392–94. doi:10.1136/bmj.39118.480023.BE. PMC 1804156. PMID 17322250.
  14. ^ Morley EJ, Zehtabchi S (September 2008). "Mannitol for traumatic brain injury: Searching for the evidence". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 52 (3): 298–300. PMID 18763356.
  15. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TBI:HTR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Turner-Stokes L, Disler PB, Nair A, Wade DT (2005). "Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3): CD004170. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004170.pub2. PMID 16034923.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/December_2008&oldid=704354967"