Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2012

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

---

Doctor Who (series 5)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote this article to FL status. I'm working on a GA topic of this series and have been adding to this main article while waiting for some to be reviewed. I've never done a FL before, so I am listing this for some tips. However, I've noticed that some season articles are FL while others are GA, and I was wondering if the GA articles were just a step below the FL or if they were for the articles that were less of a list. I do know that I have to add alt text which I have never done before but may give it a try in a day or so, and one link is dead. The dead link in question is not retrievable through the Wayback Machine and contains information that I cannot find in a RS, so I was wondering if I should just remove it.

Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 03:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Images now contain alt text. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Update: Please see the talk page concerning the episode summaries; I wrote them all by myself, all original, but they were removed because the suddenly turned up in a blog post in 2010...we are discussing this. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm confused by the series number, as I'm sure many other readers would be. Perhaps an explanation that this is the fifth series since the series was reinstated in 2005? A note for the lead would be handy.
• Avoid bold links (e.g. Doctor Who)
• I sometimes get confused as well, the DVD cover says "The complete fifth series", the infobox title is Doctor Who series 5, the article is Doctor Who (series 5), the lead says it's referred to on DVD and Blu-Ray as "Series 5"...
• Tables should comply with WP:MOS, most notably MOS:DTT to assist screen readers.
• What's BARB?
• "simulcast BBC HD ratings in brackets" I don't see that.
• Could easily make these tables more useful by making the sortable (so to easily find out what the most popular episode was, for instance).
• Any reason the episode names are in bold?
• soothsayer is a dab link.
• " differently than how " differently from how.
• "Although the two actresses did not meet until the set of the show, Gillan recommended Blackwood for the role, although Blackwood had to undergo rigorous auditions first." although ... although, a little repetitive.
• Just use ref 36 and ref 37 once at the end of all those guest stars.
• Stephen Moore is a dab link.
• Caption, typically see "(left)" and "(right)" in italics.
• Any reason to keep reiterating the "Eleventh" Doctor?
• "sales had rise 94%" -> "sales had risen by 94 per cent".
• "had a lot of input into" -> "had substantial input"
• '70s -> 1970s.
• "BBC Programme listings[53] the BBC iPlayer" - comma before [53]. And probably worth calling it BBC iPlayer in the lead, not just iPlayer.
• "Showrunner Steven Moffat (pictured) " not sure you need (pictured), it's pretty obvious, but if you insist, we normally see it italicised.
• Consider linking Dalek, non experts may not know the significance!
• "which Moffat was a fan of" -> of which Moffat was a fan.
• St John's Ambulance is actually just St John Ambulance.
• Similar WP:ACCESS comments apply to the Filming table.
• "Promotional touring for the series began on 29 March and ended the 31st" "ended two days later" (to avoid "the 31st").
• It seems normal for broadcast times to be appended with the timezone, e.g. UTC, GMT, BST whatever.
• "Region 1 one day" -> "Region one the following day" to avoid the one one thing.
• "10.08 million viewers" table said 10.085m, so to two dp, that should be 10.09 million, right?
• " 0.9 in" 0.9 million in...
• " 25-54 " en-dash required.
• Is there any reason why I should care about what someone from "Den of Geek" (never heard of it) has to say?
• "was released 2 " released on 2
• "did die...it ploughed" can we check WP:ELLIPSIS for spacing around this ellipsis? Check others...
• "terrific episodes - the beautifully" en-dash required.
• "A 2-disc soundtrack" -> A two-disk soundtrack.
• David Llewellyn is a dab link.
• "released 5 June 2010," on 5 June..
• Replace hyphens with spaced en-dashes in ref titles per WP:DASH.
• Tool showing a couple of issues.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing. I will work on fixing these issues. As for the comments about the episode table, that is the same table which is used in all season articles and normally includes a summary of the episode (see talk page for why it has been temporarily removed). Glimmer721 ^talk 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem. Do bear in mind that if you bring this to WP:FLC at some time in the future, the same comments about the table will be raised if they haven't been addressed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    

---

Dromedary

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have formatted it and added more content. I think if I get more suggestions to improve this article it will be good.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I've left a bunch of initial comments at your PR for the Scimitar Oryx, suggest you check those out and apply any which may be relevant here, although this seems to be in a slightly better shape (technically).
• "The Dromedary..." dromedary isn't a proper noun so it shouldn't be capitalised.
• "provincial animal (unofficial)" if it's unofficial, is it of any use to mention it?
• Avoid relinking, e.g. Bactrian camel in the lead is linked twice.
• Consider using the {{convert}} template for your measurements.
• Image captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't use full stops.
• Several dab links, including lifespan, diurnal, vocalisations, sandstorms, breeding, Indian and carcass.
• See also is well over-populated. Only include articles which you haven't already linked in the main article.
• References should not mix date formats and should be comprehensively populated, including things like access dates where appropriate, publisher, author name (last, first) and date of publication.
• The Uses section has a number of maintenance tags (like [citation needed] and [by whom?]) which need to be resolved.

I've reviewed only about a third of the article, but given the number of comments on your other PR, I think you have enough to be going on with right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Rose Cleveland

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know If I have included enough information on the subject. In addition this article is listed for peer review in order to expand on a assignment for a His218 assignment.

Thanks, Jscanlon66 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I'll review it from a technical perspective in order for it to be elevated to (say) B-class or nearer to GA status.

• Lead is way too short, please review WP:LEAD for some detail on this – it should adequately summarise the content of the article. (For example, it was news to me (a Brit) that the sister of an unmarried President is the "First Lady"..., you can expand on that, and her subsequent lesbian activities for instance).
• Use spaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen in the date range (see WP:DASH for details).
• Two dabs - episcopal and Frances Willard.
• on June 14th, 1846 -> June 14, 1846.
• Two refs for all of the biography section seems very weak.
• And isn't this all her biography? Perhaps you need an Early life section before the White House and Later life sections.
• "from the New York Times about" -> "from The New York Times about"
• "can help provide an understanding on what she believed and stood for." not really what we're here to do. This is an encyclopaedic article, not something to advocate what she did.
• "Miss Cleveland, Wore a dress " no comma needed, no W for wore.
• Works section: " a novel (1886).[1], " odd punctuation and why is that ref just there? What references the rest of the section?
• Is this really still a stub?
• Template says she was an "acting" First Lady. If so, this should be reflected in the article where "acting" isn't mentioned once.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Scimitar Oryx

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I thought the article is complete after i put so much effort into it. If there are still any suggestions. they are welcome.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is way too short, have a look at WP:LEAD for guidance. It's intended to summarise the major topics of the article.
• "Adult in the Taronga Zoo" in the infobox, usually Taronga Zoo isn't preceded with "the".
• Before you use an abbreviation of IUCN, you should expand it.
• "its magnificent horns[3], " magnificent is your opinion, and refs should go after punctuation, not before, wherever possible. Check the rest of the article.
• Bags of over linking. To start with, we don't link individual dates or years. Next you should use sue common sense, would a reader of this article know what a "sheep" is? More than likely so there's no need to link it. You should check the rest of the article, I'll do my best to point out the clear ones.
• German would be best linked to German people rather than Germany, ditto for England, but consider, is it relevant to link these in this type of article?
• "the name leucoryx failed" how does a name "fail"?
• Two dab links, migration and roots.
• "is just over a meter" all of them? At what point in their life is that measured?
• Number ranges should use the en-dash, not the hyphen.
• "a meter to a meter and a quarter " -> 1.00 m to 1.25 m
• Don't relink things in the same paragraph (as a minimum), e.g. horns.
• The female has 4 nipples. See WP:MOSNUM, normally this would be written as "four". Check the rest of the article.
• Morning, evening, tree, shrub, all unnecessarily linked. Check the rest of the article.

That gets about half-way, there's a way to go, particularly dealing with the way-excessive linking going on. Would also consider a really good copyedit from someone who knows better than I. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to make the Cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channel page as clear and in depth as possible.

Thanks, Songforsunshine5

Comments (brief)

• Put the image at the top of the article.
• Don't link this article in the caption (i.e. it shouldn't be in bold) and remove the period, it's not a complete sentence.
• Consider restricting the table of contents to just one level, it's very long at the moment, use {{TOC limit}} for this.
• You do need to address the maintenance tags, i.e. it doesn't have any categories and it is quite technical.
• chimeras is a dab link, needs specifying.
• No need to capitalise Subunit in the headings (see WP:HEAD).
• Is it P loop or P-loop?
• The Binding Event -> Binding event.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Emma Willard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for my U.S. Women's History class and would appreciate any suggestions or comments because I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to make sure that there are no grammatical errors, formatting issues and that overall the article is sufficient.

Thanks, Kaliwhitney (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is a little short, take a look at WP:LEAD for advice on how long it should be and what it should contain (e.g. a summary of the major points of the article).
• No images at all you could include?
• Probably more logical to link women's rights activism than American.
• Link Troy Female Seminary first time.
• Section headings should follow WP:HEAD, so things like "Early Life" should be "Early life".
• Is there a good link for New York Legislature? Yes, there is but you should link it the first time you use it rather than later on.
• Last para of Career section is entirely unreferenced.
• Last part of Marriage and Family (should be family) is unreferenced.
• " in 1839.[8] [4]" order them numerically and remove the space between them.
• No need to link Europe, most of our readers will know what that means without a link.
• A lot of Later Life (should be Later life) is unreferenced.
• Bare URLs in the references need to be fixed.
• Ref 7, page range needs to use an en-dash (see WP:DASH).
• Same for ref 11.
• Last "External link" is really an external link as it doesn't link to anything.

For someone who is new to Wikipedia, well done, just some technical details you need to fix. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Genome-wide association study

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I just did a major update to the genome-wide association study article. This included an almost complete rewrite plus a major expansion. I would like to make sure that others agree with these changes. Perhaps even agree with as a step towards featured article status.

Thanks, LasseFolkersen (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead comments from Cryptic C62

• "(GWA study, or GWAS)" and "(WGA study, or WGAS)" I would prefer to see one convention used throughout the entire article to avoid confusion. Use "GWA study" or "GWAS", but not both.
• "The first GWA study was from 2005" The phrase "from 2005" implies that the study began in 2005, but a much more relevant piece of information would be when the study was published.
• "Today, hundreds or thousands of individuals are tested." First, avoid "today" and similar words, such as "now" and "recently". These are examples of imprecise language.
• "Surprisingly," Avoid this and other such words per MOS:OPED.
• Unless I've missed it, the lead doesn't seem to mention anything from the Limitations section. Ideally, the lead should summarize every major section in the body of the article.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - on some of the opening sections

• We don't need "Figure 1" in the lead caption, that's not how we caption things here.
• Caption also doesn't need a full stop.
• Other lead comments are captured nicely above by Cryptic C62.
• Would be tempted to expand DNA before using the abbreviation and to link it.
• Instead of just saying (SNPs) perhaps say (referred to as Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs))?
• Last part of the Background section is unreferenced.
• "higher than 1," perhaps I'm old-fashioned but we used to say "higher than unity"...
• "manhattan plot (see figure 1)" perhaps move the graph to a more relevant location, i.e. here?!
• "that 80-90% of height" en-dash per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Glee (season 2)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A lot of work has been put into this article, particularly by the likes of Frickative and BlueMoonset, amongst others. The Glee task force would like to see it meet the criteria for becoming a featured list. I would like some feedback on the current state of the article, and I will do my best to correct and improve the quality of it.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (no where near reviewing the whole article as I haven't the experience; I've got a season article up for PR for FL criteria now anyway) instead of using two DVD covers for each volume, what about just one of the whole season? (Like this) Glimmer721 ^talk 02:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the point about using the cover for the Complete Season DVD rather than the separate volumes. If a fair-use image is allowed in a FL, that's probably what we'll do. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox image caption doesn't need a period.

•  Done BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would also say "Volumes One and Two" there as well.

•  Done BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Billboard Hot 100 " normally represented as "Billboard Hot 100" and consider linking.

•  Done Very true, and we typically do both. Linked and italics. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• " It is being accompanied by " I don't really follow this, the previous sentence was talking about awards and nominations...

•  Done Sentence opening rewritten to make this a new idea; let me know if it works better now. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "juvie" - not clear to me what this is, a bit colloquial.

•  Done They use the phrase "juvie" on the show, so we don't know exactly what it's actually called. I've gone with "juvenile detention center", and modified the link. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Consider linking mash-up for non expert readers.

•  Done I discovered that it should really link to "mash-up (music)", since "mash-up" goes to a disambiguation page, which I don't remember being the case. I see many more edits in my future... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "from season one returned for season two" -> "from the first season returned for the second" (just reads a little less clunky to me).

•  Done Much cleaner your way. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question: is cancelled USEng or BritEng or both?

• Answer: both "cancelled" and "canceled" are valid uses in USEng (according to Websters), which is what we use for Glee articles since it's a US show. It's "cancelled" in BritEng. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Teenage Dream" is a dab link. In both uses.

•  Done And different dab links besides. Both are now fixed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "its 13x Platinum" not keen on 13x in prose, nor the use of an x, I believe we have a "times" symbol if you insist on using this prose.

•  Done I was just following the ARIA designation without much thought about prose vs. tables. Let me know how you like "thirteen-times" in place of "13x". The phrase "double platinum" is used earlier in the section, but wouldn't work with thirteen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "after the Superbowl:" I thought it was Super Bowl?

•  Done It is. Fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Over 26.8 million viewers watched it, with an initial peak of 39.5 million. The 18–49 rating/share was 11.1/29.[108]" consider merging the two short sentences.

•  Done BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Refs 83 and 87 both Billboard magazine links but formatted differently with different publisher info.

•  Done (?) I believe I've standardized all the Billboard citations: all use "cite news" rather than some "cite news" and some "cite web", and all use "Prometheus Global Media", which bought up "Nielsen Business Media Inc." at some point during the show's run. Any thoughts about the "location" field? Not all articles specify an origination location (generally Los Angeles or N.Y. for Billboard), and I was wondering how useful it was in the first place.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Refs 111, 112, 133 to 143 (for instance) should use an en-dash in the title.

•  Done I got all of those, and have noted a few more that I'm about to fix as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! One of us will get to the remainding items later today or tomorrow. One question: are non-Commons images allowed on Featured Lists, even ones that aren't available any other way? Was wondering if—regardless of whether it's the two separate volumes or the complete season volume as recommended by Glimmer721 above—using a fair use image would turn out to be a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I think I've addressed them all. Let me know if there's more to do. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seems that fiar use non-free images are permitted for all the other DVD covers/posters on almost all other season FL articles. Also, I noticed that the episode summaries seem slight compared to Glee's season 1 article. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Immunomics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a brand new article for Wikipedia and I know I have only captured a few insights about the field of immunomics. Specifically, I'm hoping the peer review will provide two things: 1) Check for accuracy of the provided topics 2) Contributions of new material

Thanks, Mfrick1 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment - someone will review this in a few days at most, but be aware that peer reviewers are not generally content experts in any given field they review (be it immunomics or the works of Selena the tejano superstar). Reviews tend to focus on prose, references or lack thereof, and Manual of Style issues. Organization and flow are also things I look at. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Ruhrfisch. Your top post indicates that you want a subject matter expert to validate the technical accuracy of the material (and perhaps add some more). Most editors that perform peer reviews are adept at style and quality issues, but not validating the content itself. Maybe you'd be better off posting a query at a project talk page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology ... that is where subject matter experts are more likely to be found. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I do not have the qualifications to review this article, but I have some concerns about the reference style as of this version. References 8-12 have the links before the text instead of after it, reference 14's date "(2006)" is in a different position in the text, and references 17 and 18 are just titled links. – Allen4names 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine that may be useful models.
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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 analyzing the systematic variation of gene expression can relate these patterns with specific diseases and gene networks important for immune functions seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections and subsections are not in the current lead. For example, Lymphochip, ELISPOT, and activation are not in the lead as it now stands.
• If possible, having an image in the lead is strongly encouraged by the WP:MOS
• WP:HEAD says not to repeat the title of the article in headers or subheaders if at all possible. So "Foundational Studies in Immunomics" could just be "Foundational studies", or "Technologies Used for Immunomic Research" could just be "Technologies used" or even just "Technologies" - please also note capitalization needs to follow WP:HEAD
• Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references. For example the first paragraph in Foundational Studies in Immunomics has no refs, but has a direct quotation.
• 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
• The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections and so has pretty choppy flow. Wherever possible these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• I would also avoid bullet point lists wherever possible, such as the Mapping tools available and Immunomic Databases sections.
• I think it would help to have more background at the start to explain some of the basics of the immune system.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Premier League Manager of the Season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's close to being a WP:FLC. I created this very article five years ago last August, yet never had the time to put my full attention to it; I have done now. The main concern with this is prose.

Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - nice job, I seem to recall contributing a little to this too, but never quite following it to FLC.

• Refs 3 and 5 have same publisher but not same format. Added
• No mention in the lead of Ferguson being the most recent recipient. Added
• Wenger's caption doesn't need a full stop. Changed
• BBC Sport a work or a publisher?
  • I assume BBC is the publisher and BBC Sport is the work?
• I don't see where in ref 9 I can see Fergie's wins.
  • There must have been a server error on the website yesterday as I too couldn't get access to any manager profiles, it just redirected to a blank page. I checked this morning and it works now. — Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that this is listed as a good article, I wonder how close it is to featured status.

Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I gave this article a lengthy peer review in February. Your response was zero, not even an acknowledgement. I hope you will treat your reviewer a little more courteously this time. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I must've forgotten to comment. Your peer review helped me get the article to GA, if that's any consolation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• There appears to be a common trend at FAC to not cite the info in the lead at all. After all, it should all appear in the main body and be expanded upon, so that's the best place to reference things.
• " at the National Mall in Washington, D.C.." avoid those double periods...
• "New York Magazine", it's actually called New York and is a magazine.
• Mythbusters are MythBusters.
• Reddit is called reddit these days.
• "The rally was produced by Stewart's Busboy Productions." ref?
• "Colbert followed by announcing the "March to Keep Fear Alive" on the subsequent episode of The Colbert Report." ref?
• "Stephen Colbert also" no need to repeat his first name this far in.
• "reached 69,000 on Facebook" does ref 4 or ref 18 back this up?
• "The rally spawned ..." just before you refer to a different rally, just be clear which rally you're referring to.
• Don't link Facebook on the second occasion.
• Wall Street Journal has The as part of its name.
• "As of October 31, 2010," just a day after the rally. It's now over a year later. Update?
• "been 6 billion" six.
• Where is first para of "Setting" referenced?
• "Thereafter, Colbert challenged Stewart point by point, usually claiming victory." ref?
• Really do we need to link "faith"?
• In general, there are many very short paragraphs, almost bordering on bullet point trivia lists.
• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
• Some of your online links have access dates, others don't, be consistent.
• Avoid spaced hyphens in the link titles, use an en-dash per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for those comments. I'll be getting to them in the new year. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Have a pleasant holiday period. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  

---

W. E. B. Du Bois

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on submitting the article for Featured Article recognition. I'd appreciate it if the reviewer were someone familiar with the FAC process, and who will scrutinize the article with FA criteria in mind. I believe all the "mechanical" FA criteria are met (images, links, etc), so the review should focus on prose, wording, and flow. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

I'll take a look a bit later today - just in the middle of a few things. One thing, have you been pointed to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing? I strongly recommend having a look as it is one of the best things I have learnt from since editing here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read "How to improve your writing", and endeavored to apply it to W. E. B. Du Bois ... but I've gotten to that point where I'm starting to lose objectivity and need a second pair of eyes  :-) I'll read it again to make sure I absorbed it fully. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

... also, I should mention that I've been following the FAC discussions for the past few weeks and gleaning the typical shortcomings of candidates, and checking to make sure that W. E. B. Du Bois does not suffer from the same issues. --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Du Bois was a prolific author, producing essays, editorials, novels, autobiographies, academic studies, and books on history and sociology. - given you mention some of these in the following few sentennces, I'd maybe just say, "wrote prolifically" here or avoid duplicating somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.

Over 700,000 blacks enlisted on the first day of the draft, but were subject to racist conditions which prompted vocal protests from Du Bois - I'd use "discriminatory" rather than "racist" here I think as the latter has an assumption that would need clarifying I think.

Done.

...and assailed Garvey as fraudulent and reckless - you want to avoid mentioning a name twice in a sentence if you can - "him" here is ok as it is pretty clear who we are referring to. "Assailed" strikes me as an odd word as I'd use it for physical attack rather than verbal...maybe just "described" hmmm...need to think on this one.

I've tried twice to improve the wording ... still not there yet. I'll see if I can come up with something better, unless you beat me to it.

Here is the text as it stands now: "Du Bois initially supported the concept of Garvey's Black Star Line, a shipping company that was intended to facilitate commerce within the African diaspora. But Du Bois later became concerned that Garvey was threatening the NAACP's efforts, leading Du Bois to describe him as fraudulent and reckless." Still room for improvement. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall, prose is looking pretty good so far. More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Noleander (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Magicpiano

The article looks pretty good from a prose perspective to me (but then, writing is what I've struggled with the most at FAC). I'd like to poke primarily at some content-related things.

• what was Du Bois' personality? Did he have many friends? Outside political and academic circles? Black and white? (The article is long on his political and academic work, which is probably good, but a little more, err, color, on the man himself would be good.)

Done. Added some detail into "Personal Life" section. Have not yet done singing or tennis.

• according to Wolters, Du Bois deliberately avoided establishing connections with the white student population (citing Southern experience)
• same source, Harvard admitted him as junior after his Fisk BA, a view he saw as justified

The two items above seem to be rather minor anecdotes/facts. Perhaps the way to incorporate that material would be if those incidents were part of a larger pattern: then the pattern might be significant enough for inclusion. But, so far, I don't see a significant pattern. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• same source, Du Bois proud of his singing ability (no it's not political, but it's part of his character)

Done.

• "the first scientific sociological study in the U.S." if this claim is true, his role as a groundbreaking sociologist should be given mention in the lead (at least mentioning that he broke ground in that and other things)

Done.

• "Archibald H. Grimke, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Kelly Miller, James Weldon Johnson, and Paul Dunbar" - Dunbar repeated

Done.

• is it "Atlanta compromise" or "Atlanta Compromise" (both seen)?

Done. Most sources use upper case.

• "but most executive offices were occupied by whites, including Mary Ovington, Charles Edward Russell, William English Walling, and its first president Moorfield Storey" - strange names those offices have :) - I would split this sentence. "occupied by whites. Major white office holders included ..."

Done.

More to come. Magic♪piano 05:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I'll take care of those issues tomorrow. --Noleander (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Meclee

Just a minor note: I see the quote on the side ("Of Alexander Crummell") uses hyphens with spaces " - " instead of em-dashes "—" without spaces in the text. Meclee (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding that. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Burger King advertising

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring it to GA status and complete the set of articles to bring the subject to good topic status. A fresh pair of eyes would help substantially.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - a vast article so I'll probably give comments from a top level and re-review if requested.

• If you insist on referring to the company as BK, at least put (BK) after the first time you mention Burger King.
• Infobox has spaced hyphens, it should use spaced en-dashes (per WP:DASH).
• This is the case throughout the article as well, I'll try to pick up some of the as I go.
• infobox, Fast Food is not a proper noun, Fast food is fine.
• "ad agencies" -> "advertising agencies"
• " flop Where's Herb?." avoid double period.
• "1970s/1980s " 1970s and 80s.
• "Where is your God now?." avoid double period.
• "the 18-35 demographic" needs an en-dash.
• From the TOC, what's going on with the section headings? Looks like something needs to be fixed here.
• Also not sure why you're only allowing level 1 headings, at least allow level 2.
• You link Star Wars twice to different articles, perhaps consider the second link being Star Wars series or something.
• "The relationship with George Lucas' Lucasfilm, LTD." don't think you need George Lucas' here...
• "in which Gellar stated that" in which she stated..
• "of a whopper" shouldn't whopper be capitalised here?
• There is also an article on it.
• Images, like the Van Eede one, should be either just thumb for landscape or thumb|upright for portrait images. Don't force images any bigger/smaller in the main article.
• General Market -> General market.
• "1958–68 - Hume" should be an en-dash before Hume (see others).
• "2001–2002" should be "2001–02" to be consistent.
• Heading - Modern Campaigns -> Modern campaigns (per WP:HEAD).
• "One of it major" its.
• Rewrite "Other media" section so it's prose rather than bullet points.
• "May 1, 1969-April 30, 1994" spaced en-dash needed here.
• circular is a dab link.
• You use HJ without explanation.
• Is it worth a minor note explaining why Hungry Jacks is used instead of Burger King in certain locations?
• Is the Children's logo section a different format to the others? The text is smaller. Be consistent.
• What does QSR mean?
• Second para of Non-product oriented advertising is unreferenced.
• Children's advertising section is woefully lacking in references.
• A lot of detail on the individual members of the Kid's Club characters, probably a little over the top.
• Media Tie-ins -> tie-ins.
• "McDonald's\Ty Beanie Babies" odd angled slash, surely /?
• Don't mix date formats in the references.
• Ensure online references are comprehensive, i.e. have publisher info, access dates, etc. (e.g. look at ref 69, it has nothing)
• Publications like Time should be in italics.
• Many external links appear unnecessary for this specific article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I thank you greatly for the review, Ill hopefull get back to this after I return from the Christmas break. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Have a good Christmas. Feel free to ping me in the future when you get back to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

---

List of India ODI cricketers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have edited and updated this list up to 4 December 2011. It wasn't updated in last 3 years. I also want everyone to know that this list was featured list previously. But it lost that status due to lack of updates as this list changes every week. I hope at least some of you guys reply.

Thanks, Vyom25 (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments (quick ones)

• Don't start with "This is a list of... ", see some recently promoted sports FLs to see what I mean. Done
• Would be nice to have an image or two. Done
• Link the ICC. Done
• No need to relink and re-abbreviate ODI in the second para of the lead. Done
• "winning 62 Man of the Match awards most by any player" grammatically incorrect. Done
• Why is this list not up to date (the last Indian ODI was 8 December, this says updated 4 December 2011). Done
• See WP:DASH - the year ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Done
• Names normally sort by surname (using the {{sortname}} template) but perhaps that's not the case with Indian names...
• Checking the sorting (e.g. NO - 54 sorts between 6 and 5) on all numeric columns.
• Use consistent number of decimal places, e.g. 1.00 instead of 1 for Ojha's average. Done
• Captains section, seems like a list of trivia to me. Done
• Don't mix up refs and notes, e.g. Ref [21] is a note and not a ref. Done
• Check the references, there are template problems, missing accessdates, etc. Done

Overall, a way to go before you should submit at WP:FLC, happy to provide further advice once this lot is addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed some and doing the rest. Why Captains section look like list of trivia? please clarify.--Vyom25 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of nine bullet point "facts". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reformatted it, have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Better, but the grammar needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Name sorting is done both way in case of Indian names so if it is better to sort by surname then I can do that. But problem is only with South Indian names such as Ravichandran Ashwin where surname is not mentioned Ashwin is name and Ravichandran is a patronymic.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm not an expert with regard to Indian names, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Suggest you have a word at WT:CRIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok done--Vyom25 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

---

List of James Bond novels and stories

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new, un-reviewed and un-assessed list; it is also an important list as it is the lead for the Fleming's Bond stories. The aim is for this list to achieve Featured list status.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Golden Domes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to raise the article to GA standards. Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "for ladies is " for women.
• coherence is a dab link.
• "eight hours there." -> "eight hours at the domes."
• "A TM website says" I think you need to state why this particular website is worthy of inclusion here. There are a lot of websites spouting rubbish out there...
• "Eight hundred did so right away, and thousands came later" I'm not keen on this. I know what you're saying, and it's reasonably clear but it doesn't seem like elegant prose to me.
• "was done in the " -> "was performed" or "was carried out"?
• "is a couple of hundred yards (meters)" unencyclopedic (a couple of hundred) and a yard isn't the same as a meter.
• "It was completed in 1981" why not merge that back into the previous sentence, "The ladies dome, completed in 1980, ..."
• "Aerial photograph showing the Golden Domes. The Men's Dome is the southern one on the left and the Ladies' Dome is the northern one on the right." -> "Aerial photograph showing the Golden Domes, the Men's (left) to the south and the Ladies' (right) to the north."
• "20–25,000" you mean 20,000–25,000? i.e. not 20 square feet?
• Actually, "They are each 20–25,000 square feet (1900–2300 m2) in area, about 150–200 feet (46–61 m) in diameter, and about 35 feet (11 m) high.[1][2][26][27]" is odd since there are only two domes, presumably their dimensions are well known, so we don't need these ranges or the "about" guesses.
• 1900 etc, -> 1,900 for internal consistency.
• "Photographs show flagpoles outside the domes flying the flags of the United States and of the Global Country of World Peace" if this is a tourist attraction, why isn't it just reported that these flags are flown rather than a nebulous "photos show..." (a bit like "photos show the development of a nuclear reactor in ...", you get me?)
• "a space for doing asanas" again, avoid "doing", maybe "performing"
• "seven and a half feet (2.9 m) tall and five feet (1.5 m) wide" 7.5 ft ... 5 ft.
• alum - do you mean alumnus?
• "Hundreds, or over a thousand TM-Sidhi practitioners" which is it?
• "An office building across the highway from the domes is said to be "just a few seconds from the Golden Domes by car".[64]" what is the relevance of this? And why is this a quote? Surely it'll be obvious if it's across the highway that it's close? Do you mean it advertises itself that way? If so, make it clear.
• " Fees for a couple were about US$150" -> The fee for a couple was approximately $150.
• "See also: Other notable assemblies" does that really link to what you want?
• Events section is a little choppy, many short paras.
• flutist->flautist.
• You have dozens and dozens of "References", a lot are very specific (i.e. down to a page number), these would be better off as footnotes as presumably such precise references cite precise facts. If not, this is a WAY over the top list of external links masquerading as so-called References, and is entirely unnecessary. Especially considering you have a citation almost every sentence which you call footnotes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Brampton Walk of Fame

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Failed GA, was polished by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, now I'm wanting to see if it's now ready for GA again. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

For such a short article, five paragraphs in the lead seem too much, see WP:LEAD for guidance.

Right, good point. I was developing the article as one section with a list, but it works better as sections.

"is a honours system", firstly I would say "an" and secondly, "honours system" could use a link because, for people like me (Brit) it's not clear what that means.

I think the term’s unfamiliarity is less a national thing, and more a case of it just not being a common term. Linked.

Mildly confused, it says "to be located " and then goes on to talk about its unveiling and inductees. It is located....

Well, you’re not alone in confusion. That’s actually why I started this article in the first place, to try and sort out the tidbits of information, scattered across multiple sources, as a result of any official source. The walk was announced, a few days later cardboard versions of the plaques were unveiled, inductees present. To date, they have not laid any of the plaques. In the summer, they said Russell Peters would be inducted in the fall. He wasn’t. He was to officially be the “first” inductee, despite the others being inducted before him.

" not yet "official"." I'm not sure what that means, official according to what criteria?

I’ve changed it to “the walk of fame is not yet "official" with the City, according to media reports.” Basically, City Council didn’t get a chance to even get the walk of fame on council agenda before the event, and hasn’t discussed it since. They did mention it during a council meeting, but there was no vote or discussion held.

"Rose Theatre Brampton." -> "Rose Theatre Brampton" (no full stop).

Fixed.

"was established last year." this will age quickly, be specific about what year last year was.

Fixed.

Why isn't Peters linked in the lead?

Whoops. That reference, now in the history section, is linked.

"despite the three summer inductions" who were...?

I’ve done a bit of monkeying around with that section, to provide a bit more context for the event, as well as mention the inductees there, too.

"by Mississauga, Ontario" what is this, an organisation?

Whoops, sorry, that’s Brampton southern neighbour. I guess I shouldn’t assume anyone reading this article would be familiar with local geography.

"This isn't the first "walk of fame"" avoid contractions and you could actually link the "walk of fame" here.

While avoiding both “isn’t” and “is not”, I ended up rewording that sentence to the point where walk of fame isn’t actually mentioned.

"induction ceremonies for Canadian comedian" more than one induction ceremony for one guy?

Whoops.

"RDB" what's that? You should use the full title before the abbreviation.

I’m going to skip this suggestion. The band is regularly only referred to as RDB. It’s only really in their Wikipedia article that the definition of the band’s name is mentioned. Sort of like S Club 7, N*SYNC, there’s no real obvious meaning to the name.

"a high level donor " add "is" in front of a here.

Fixed.

"and 2011" -> "and is a 2011"…

Fixed.

What's IIFA?

Added earlier in the article, in a new reference to the event surrounding the induction.

Why is Basu's choice of clothing relevant to this article?

Believe me, I find it trivial too. But much of the coverage of Basu in Brampton was centred around her appearance and apparel.

Looks like a couple of sources have been tagged as possibly unreliable.

@mohitsmovies is indeed the film critic’s own Twitter account. Unfortunately, there’s really no other source to say he and Lisa Ray hosted. There’s amateur video of the ceremonies, but I don’t believe they show the duo introducing themselves. I would like to include their names, is there any way around this? As for the second possibly unreliable tweet, it is just the tweet of nobody in particular. But it’s the only source I can find to prove that the event was indeed private. Some of the South Asian media in Canada did interview from within the event, but there is nothing explicitly saying that the populous was excluded from participating in the invitation-only event.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss anything? I’m doing these edits offline in Notepad. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Brian Halligan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get into shape for a featured article nomination.

Thanks, Woz2 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments (to be honest, I'm mildly troubled that this was passed by a native Polish speaker who believes we use a "Grand Article" name here, not sure this really is GA quality)...

• Quite short for a featured article at first glance, however if it's completely comprehensive then perhaps that'll still swing at WP:FAC.
• "a Cambridge, MA-based" expand MA for the non-US readers. After all, some of us actually have an MA from the original Cambridge so I wouldn't want people to be confused...!
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "in the newer sense of getting found by customers" I don't like this construction at all. What does "in the newer sense" mean? and who (or what) is "getting found by customers"?
  • How is it now? Woz2 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Consider getting that image cropped so it features only Halligan. The rest of the image is a little distracting right now.
  • I looked for an image of the subject alone before, but couldn't find a free one. I'll look again. I'm not comfortable cropping somebody else's composition. Is this a show stopper? Woz2 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You have a decent image, and the licence agreement means you can crop etc as long as you attribute it. No problem. As for show stopper, this is just PR, not FAC, I'm just here to provide advice. What happens at FAC may be entirely different (it often is) from here! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! (BTW I meant uncomfortable artistically, not legally. Cropping will cut Jerry Garcia's face (in the background) in half). And yes, I was pondering about what would happen at FAC if I left it... Woz2 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Nah, you can cut it so you only get a few pixels of Garcia's face. Do a thin portrait crop, job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I couldn't sleep at night knowing I'd butchered such a lovely composition. :-) Woz2 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, well you could give it a go. It's not for me to go on about this, when you hit WP:FAC, perhaps other opinions will be heard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you're right. It's just that I'm sure I can find a free head shot image for the info box, and then I'll move the present one down to the para about the second book. Woz2 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done! Woz2 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The first is about getting found by customers at the moment they are searching" badly constructed as well, and what searching are we talking about? Is this about SEO?
  • Better? Woz2 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Two single-sentence paras in the Education and career section makes the section choppy.
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "House of Possibilities (HOPe)" - is this supposed to mean something to me?
  • Expanded Woz2 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• What's a BSEE?
  • Expanded Woz2 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Halligan has published two books:" odd that this leads onto two separate (and big) paragraphs. Would suggest you make this a more introductory sentence, like "two books, Book A and Book B. In Book A ...."
  • How is it now? Woz2 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "is by creating remarkable content such a blog articles and social media " is this a quote (i.e. the "remarkable" bit)? Otherwise it reads hyperbolically.
  • Yes, it's a quote. Added clarification. Woz2 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "On page xxii of the book Halligan notes that he's seen ..." just "In the book, Halligan notes that he has" (avoiding contractions too)
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• " The authors admire the bands many" grammar fail. (band's).
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year 2011 - New England Region" en-dash required, not a spaced hyphen.
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Any reason why not all of the online refs have access dates?
  • Laziness? :-) Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Author names in ref usually use the first= and last= parameters.
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• "New York Times" should be "The New York Times".
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Way too many external links, almost as if you're trying to advertise his work?
  • I was trying to be comprehensive, but if you let me know what a reasonable number is, I'd be happy trim it down to the n most important ones. Woz2 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Just be careful to include links which are purely specific to this bio. If there are other links which you could incorporate as references by expanding the content of the main article, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. Should I roll them into a section beginning 'Being an advocate of publishing on-line, Brian is very active in this medium himself...'? Woz2 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it would appear like you're advertising his publications. I think a note to say he has multiple publications online is sufficient. Don't forget, this is his bio, not a list of links of things he's written. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it now? Publishing on-line is a big part of his ideology, so I'm thinking it's important to mention he practices what he preaches? Woz2 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • But don't forget we're not here to provide him with a free advertising platform. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I could mention "he blogs, tweets" but not link to the blog, Twitter stream, but that seems odd, given that ISBNs link to a page saying "Buy this book on Amazon." I read WP:ELNO and it seems to says that blogs by "recognized authorities" are OK. It says that notability is necessary for "recognized authority." But it's mute on what is sufficient for "recognized authority." I'm confused. Woz2 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Red linked category needs to go.
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Public speakers as a category is redundant (you have two more specific public speaking categories already).
  • Fixed! Woz2 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I've touched them all. How is it now? Woz2 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Keri Hilson discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FL. But firstly, I would like some feedback on the article for any improvements.

Thanks, Oz ^talk 00:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "singer-songwriter Keri Hilson, consists of " no need for the comma. Done
• "with T.I.." try to avoid the double full stop. Done
• "number 11 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and number seven " 11->eleven (allowed by MOS and preferable not to mix the formats in a single sentence). Done
• Where is "Make Love" referenced? – Which section are you talking about? Oz ^talk 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the "As lead artist" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Theres a link to the song article. Oz ^talk 13:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Its existence should be referenced here, not by virtue of the fact there's an article (quality of which is unknown). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Done
• Same question for "She Don't Wanna Man" – Do you mean the Featured singles table? Oz ^talk 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Done
• Joseph Khan -> Kahn. Done
• Laurie Ann Gibson -> Laurieann Done

Otherwise this will make a very suitable candidate at WP:FLC. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments from Michael Jester

• How come the Soundtrack appearances, guest appearances, and music video tables do not have ! scope="row" |? I think that's a part of WP:ACCESS. Fixed
• For the bottom of the tables (Idk if there's a specific word for it or not), I'm pretty sure there should there not be a comma before "or". Done
• How come you have multiple references in the table columns for some (Example US R&B peaks for lead artist singles) and some have only one?
  • Because not all chart peaks are mentioned in one reference for those columns with multiple references. Oz ^talk 03:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • So why can't you do something like ref #2, #15, #27? Done
• I see under-linking in the reference section.
  • I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term "under-linking" lol. Which part? Oz ^talk 03:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It may be called something else, I'm not sure. Anyway, in the references section, things should be wikilinked on every occasion (except when multiple citations are used in a single reference [e.g. #2, #15]).
      • We can't add repeated links per WP:OVERLINK. Oz ^talk 11:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
        • That's for the article itself, not the references. It makes sense because a reader wants to learn more about something, they have to look through many references just to find it. J Milburn explains it better when I nominated K-Ci & JoJo for FL.
          —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Done
• Why is iMDB in the EL section? I thought that was for movies? Removed
• Other than that, I think the article looks great.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• One dead link
• In general, too many commas - for example, "Hilson co-wrote songs for artists such as, Mary J. Blige" doesn't need one
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in footnotes. I see that the reviewer above recommended wikilinking on every occasion - you can if you wish, but if so, it must be every time (except for the exception mentioned above). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  

---

List of best-selling music artists

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because another editor, User:Harout72, and myself feel it is close to being nominated to be a featured list. We would like any advise and suggestions for improving the article further before nominating it for WP:FLC.

Thanks, Mattg82 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick Comment

• Enrique Iglesias sales figures according to this list is 55 million and his page says 100 million so if you have covered only English versions of his songs then it is not mentioned. By the way A. R. Rahman started his music career in 1980. Look into this and best of luck for FL.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we have come up with a system which requires the sales figures to be supported by certain percentage of certified sales to avoid inflates sales figures (see the requirements posted within the 2nd box from above here), the 55 million for Iglesias is all we can use based on his available certified sales. As for A. R. Rahman, he and some others have not been added to the list due to not having any or not enough certified sales. At the top of the list, his name is included among those others who have not been included.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified percentage requirements. All artists need at least 15% certified sales including A. R. Rahman, not just artists before 1975 which I believe you were referring to Vyom. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah thats what I was referring to. By the way reference provided on Enrique Iglesias page isn't that reliable. So your figure is more accurate.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't start "... lists...", we don't do that at WP:FLC any more.
  • I've replaced the "lists" with "includes", is it OK?--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Any pictures to brighten this mammoth list up with?
  • I've added images of the top certified artists for each section.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tool is showing some dubious links.
  • Seems like NVPI's IFPI.nl server has been switched off but fixed the others. I'm not sure how to fix Redirect preserves id number problems, the links don't redirect to a different url unless I've misunderstood. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tables will need to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more help on that, but it includes using row and col scopes for screen readers.
  • Added scope="col" no sure what else needs doing here.
• Who's decision was "at least 15% certified sales"? Seems somewhat arbitrary to me.
  • This was initially my idea (see discussion here) which I discussed with other editors including Mattg82. I came up with this to minimize inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• " figures of total certified sales within" no need for this bold.
  • Done.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• For the abbreviations used in total certified sales, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style‎ about whether we should really use the abbreviation of the certifying body rather than the country of the organisation.
  • Should we leave them as is for now as there doesn't seem to be a final decision yet?
• " on Retail Value each" is there a reason why Retail Value is capitalised and in italics?
  • I've capitalized it mainly to emphasize that the order is based on "retail value" rather than "units" markets generate.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Claimed sales column sorts oddly for me, i.e. 1 billion, then some 300 m, then 750 m....
  • The sales figures being published by news organizations are not consistent. We've had numerous unproductive deputes over using the sales figures (often the lowest ones) that are close to certified sales. Therefore, we decided to include those that are supported by the available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Wondering if it's best to split this into artists who have sold more than 100 million units and the rest, that way you have more manageable lists, and a title which clearly defines the inclusion criteria.
  • In my honest opinion, even if we split it, we would still have too many artists on each split page. We have some 56 artists in the top five tables combined, and some 84 artists in the bottom three tables combined. I mean it would still require a lot of up/down scrolling.
• Where are the release years and active periods cited?
  • I've provided sources for the columns of Period active and Release-year of first charted record.
• Do you make it clear somewhere that the "claimed" sales is the original order of the tables?
  • Yes, at the top: The artists in the following tables are listed with both their claimed and certified sales figures and are ranked in descending order, with the highest claimed sales at the top. Artists with the same claimed sales are then ranked by certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Don't mix date formats in the refs (see ref 184 for instance).
  • Fixed. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ensure all refs are full formatted (see refs 92, 197 for instance).
  • Still missing article authors if known, on a few refs I think. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ensure foreign language refs use the language parameter.
  • All foreign refs use language code. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent with defining something as a work or a publisher and how they're written out (e.g. BBC News, see refs 105, 200, 205, 208 - all different).
  • Fixed BBC refs. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Accessdates would be nice too.
  • Fixed. Mattg82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment One major issue is the genre column. First, you use genres incosistently, eg sometimes "Hard Rock", sometimes "Hard rock"; and second, they are unsourced, so it could be defined as original research. For example, I could say Nat King Cole did Tradition Pop music and Jump Blues (what is actually true). Or Black Sabbath also did Progressive rock, stoner rock and hard rock.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And you need to link genres on the first occassion and only once.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done, all genres are now consistent, linked only once and I provided sources for them. Thanks for bringing it up.--Harout72 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  

---

S&M (song)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this articles NEEDS to pass its fifth FAC. Yes, it has failed 4! Please list any faults you can see. Has just been copyedited by someone from the GOCE. *I'd like someone/people to comment who are very familiar with the FAC process*.

Thanks, Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Per request I'm offering a few comments about things to improve in this article, but this list is not comprehensive and I'm not any kind of expert in pop-music articles; if possible you should try to find someone who is to comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• "When speaking about the lyrical meaning behind the song, Rihanna explained that listeners should not take it too seriously, saying that she does not interpret the song as being sexual, instead saying that it more metaphorically" - unclear sentence, and the last clause in particular is not grammatically correct
• A 25-second sample from a 4:04 track is pushing it on the <10% fair-use rule

  Doing. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Don't italicize quotes
• File:Ester_Dean_in_"Pitch_Perfect"_movie_set.jpg is nominated for deletion, and based on current vote-count is likely to be deleted
• "The song was written by Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen under their stage name Stargate, Corey Jackson Carter, Sandy Wilhelm under her stage name Sandy Vee, and Ester Dean" - suggest reformulating to put people without stage names first, if possible. Also, not sure if "stage name" is the correct term. Perhaps "pseudonym" would be better?
• "overt use of sexual lyrics" -> "overtly sexual lyrics"?
• "stand-out track" is a bit colloquial unless it's a direct quote - suggest quoting or rephrasing
• "Rihanna's response to her critics whom she considered had been disparaging" - "Rihanna's response to critics that she considered to have been disparaging"?
• "night time television" -> "night-time television" or "nighttime television", depending on hyphenation standard used. There are a few other spots where hyphens should be added or subtracted
• "after she was allegedly assaulted by her ex-boyfriend" - were they dating at the time of the alleged assault? If so, suggest "then-boyfriend"
• "digital music sheet" -> "digital sheet music"?

  I don't think that sounds right. Read both out loud. The first sounds better. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• You might consider using the {{sic}} template instead of writing it in manually
• What do gold and platinum certifications signify?
• Why "on November 29, 2010, upon the release" but "on December 4, 2010 upon the album's release"? Use consistent punctuation
• ""S&M"...became the artist with the most number one songs" - I don't think that's what you meant to say
• "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, "S&M" sold 293,000 downloads" - this reads rather awkwardly
• "becoming Rihanna's' tenth US number one single" - missing a hyphen, have an extra apostrophe. In general, check punctuation in this paragraph.

  Done all, with two replies.

Stopping in-depth commentary at the bottom of the Chart performance section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

Well well well, I'm not familiar with the FAC but its always nice to get as much reviews/opinions from users who are not familiar with the topic (though I know who Rihanna is). So this is just a few comments from me and someone else will review it.

• The second para on the lead reads ""S&M" debuted at number fifty-three on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart upon the album's release", however, per WP:ORDINAL (As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals).

• This sentence (same para) With the release of the remix, needs some clarification, I believe you do mean "remix version" of this single, though I'm not sure if changing it to "remix version" would help the prose at all. Maybe the next reviewer can help with this one.

• This part in the "Background and composition" section reads "S&M" is an up-tempo, why isn't up-tempo wikilinked? In many (or even most) FA song articles, tempo is always wikilinked in the composition section once, though, here it isn't.

• File:Rihanna - S&M.ogg needs a better (rather a further reasoning) rational then currently presented. Here are some examples File:Set Fire to Rain.ogg and File:Selena-DreamingOfYou-wiki.ogg, and a discussion about the "further reasoning" for music samples hopping to seek FA status.

  Doing. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

   Not done I don't see a "further rational" section. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Hence why I said "doing", not "done"... Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• FN#3 Publisher/label? Also, a catalog number (publisherid) and page numbers are recommended
• FN#10 why is musicnotes.com italicized?
• FN#12 I was told that Slant Magazine is never italicized because it is a web site, not a printed publication
• FN#16 publisher?

  That is the publisher. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• FN#46, FN#47, FN#51, FN#67, FN#72, FN#82, FN#83, FN#115, FN#127, FN#129, FN#130 and FN#131 is not being consistent with FN#7, FN#45, FN#116, FN#117 and FN#118

  How is FN45 not consistent with 46, 47, 51, 67, 72, 82, or 82? Can you elaborate. FN116, 117 and 118 and pre-coded, I can't help the linking.

  Because some Billboard sources you wikilink the magazine and publisher, however, with some you don't. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yeahhhhhhh, pre-coded means you can't change it! Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  lolz thanks for telling me :-) Well everyone isn't perfect. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• FN#70 is not being consistent with the way you present authors. For example, for FN#66 you wrote "White, Belinda" however for FN#70 you wrote "Jody Thompson".

I hope these pointers help :-) Happy holidays, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Have done all apart from those with replies. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Tennessee Celeste Claflin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was an assignment in my Women's History class. Though class ends today I want feedback on how I did as it might entice me to do more Wiki writing in the future.

Thanks, Blizzardbaby (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - it looks really good for a first article and I hope you stay and contribute more. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many Featured Articles which are biographies - perhaps Mary Shelley would be a useful model? Another feminist who knew the famous of her day
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded. 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 no mention of Vanderbilt is made in the current lead, for example. There is also no mention of her work as a medium / clairvoyant
• Reading the article it is good to see it using sources, but I am afraid it uses too many direct quotations. The relevant policy and guidelines here are WP:NFCC and WP:COPYVIO. The important thing is to use the sources, but to put most of the material into your own words. As it stands, using too many quotes violates copyright (as the article becomes almost a copy and paste job, sometimes called a "quote farm")
• Please note that it is OK to keep some quotes - I try to pick the ones that are most colorful / useful / memorable and parphrase the rest of the material.
• The article needs to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Where did she meet Vanderbilt? When? Although he is linked, giving a sentence or two on his background would help to give context too. I also do not understand the whole Vanderbilt will aspect - what would she have testified about and how would it have changed things for the probate of the will?
• Or when did she marry the first time? Ialso think it helps to give ages sometimes - she was almost 40 years old when she became Mrs Cook
• Seems odd that her inheritance from a British nobleman is given in US dollars
• In general it helps to tell a story in chronological order - this seems jumbled
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• Books should give the author, title, publisher, date, and page numbers. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I would try to find out more about the images for use in the captions - can the approximate year be given, for example?
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

David Meerman Scott

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it into shape for a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, Woz2 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, first of all, I'm sorry for not giving a more in-depth and specific review at the moment, but after a short checking of the article it appears that it needs quite a bit of work before an FAC is in oder. There is very little substantive material on Scott's life, whereas the book and product lists make up a majority of the article and the text reads more like a summary of things Scott said about himself (somewhat like a press release) than a biography that relies on high quality sources. Maybe those are not easily found with a salesman, but using primary sources like YouTube videos and his Twitter and Google profiles to source his activity on those pages in a list does not make for a good read and reminds me of an advertisement (in tone, too, especially in the lead). Also, the image is problematic as it lacks a proper author identification and was transferred by another user from the English Wikipedia to the Commons without good information - it looks like a promotional photo that lacks proper permission and should be sorted out in any case. It's always a good idea to be unafraid of adapting the style and structure of articles on similar subjects that are already featured to the article to be improved - I'm sure the article can greatly improve in quality with some work. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... sorry you feel that way... I'm concerned you're using the pejorative epithet 'salesman' unfairly. I felt the cites to reliable sources like Wiley, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur, The New York Times, and Advertizing Age Magazine made the article quite good... looks like there's more works to do... Woz2 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I found a bunch more reliable sources. Would the citation of these help?
    • http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119562605316100411-3vp9vZ4VywZwU_7mlFSmc4KNUcw_20071225.html
    • http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/social-media-gets-job-done-work
    • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120526706660828097.html
    • http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/04/26/increasingly_marketing_isnt_just_one_way_street/
    • http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/small-business-marketing-ent-sales-cx_mf_0929innovativemarketing.html
    • http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080701/28-a-skimmers-guide-to-the-latest-business-books-tuned-in.html

Woz2 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I took a brief look at the article just now nad have some comments to add - agree that it is not ready for FAC.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. One possible FA model is Madman Muntz a bio on a business man - other FA biographies can be found at Category:FA-Class biography articles
• I would include a hat note to David Scott (disambiguation) at the top of the article
• One dead link - see here (Kadient board of directors)
• The article depends rather heavily on sources from the subject (Mr Scott) - as much as possible it is best to use third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• MOS says to avoid bullet point and other lists wherever possible - this article has several. I think most of them would be better off converted into straight prose
• Looking at his books - there are 10 in the bullet point list, plus five he has written forwards for, plus and unspecified number of ebooks (which I suspect duplicates his bullet point 10 books, in part at least). Only two of these 15 or more books have any sort of crutucal commentary (i.e. anything other than the title and what Scott himself says about them). Of these critical comments, one is really about how the book came to be written Scott Kirsner, reviewing the book in the Boston Globe,[21] mentions that the authors say they were inspired in part by an article in the Atlantic by Joshua Green.[22] and only one is actually about the book itself (and that more about the format it is published in) Nick Morgan of Forbes notes that Scott and his publisher, Wiley, "point the way forward" by publishing this book only in electronic formats.[17] What do critics say about his books and his work and his ideas?
• I doubt the covers of the books would pass as fair use for this article at FAC - how does seeing the covers increase the reader's understanding of Mr Scott? See WP:NFCC
• References are a mess - per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Article needs more references, for example some of the book material is uncited as is his serving on the board of NewsWatch (acquired by Yahoo! Japan).
• 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
• Add dates / years to put things in context - when did he get married? When was their daughter born? Or add a year to boards he serves on (as of 2012) as this kind of info can become out of date pretty quickly.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Liverpool F.C. in European football

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently failed at FAC. I would like this peer review to addresss any issues that exist with the article so that it is ready for another shot at FAC. Cheers, NapHit (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club that is Britain's most successful in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions. " not keen, maybe "Liverpool Football Club, an English professional football club, is Britain's most successful team in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions. "

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lead image caption needs a full stop.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, wondering if we could think about an infobox (there are quite a few of these European articles for English clubs), could include wins in trophies, last win, most recent win etc, what do you think of that bad boy idea?

Had a go at creating an infobox, but not sure I've done it right. NapHit (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "are related to a " or do they have clear qualification criteria every season? (related to just sounds a bit woolly).

changed should read better NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Liverpool" appears ten times in twelve sentences in the lead. Would suggest you mix it up a bit, be creative with "the club" etc, so this isn't a problem.

Changed a few to they and the club. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "see Uefa#UEFA_competitions." would pipe-link it so you don't have the horrible hash/underscore.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• " It is the most prestigious European competition " qualify it as a football competition, and you may need more than just one paper source to claim it as the "most prestigious".
• Fairs Cup sentence sort of breaks the flow about LFC being in the second division.
• "there have been more competitions inaugurated" -> "more competitions have been inaugurated"

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The first was the UEFA Super Cup, which was a competition for the winners of the European Cup and Cup Winners' Cup" not really a "competition", more a match and would say, "The first, the UEFA Super Cup, was a ..."

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Link Bill Shankly.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "was the first time that the club wore their all-red strip." ever? In europe? that year?

According to my books it was ever, so I will make this clearer. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Bill Shankly retired " no need to repeat Bill.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• " Hungarian side Ferencváros on the away goals rule. " ref?
• Paisley gateway image caption needs a full stop.

done 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Joe Fagan retired after the 1984–85 season and was succeeded by Kenny Dalglish " Fagan and Dalglish's first names not needed.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "accepted back" allowed to compete.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• UEFA cup image caption needs a full stop.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Amicizia means "friendship" in Italian" ditto.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• " tie was played, Roy Hodgson was" -Roy

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is ¤ something a screen-reader can say?

I've removed it and just left W and RU, without the symbols. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 73 needs an en-dash, check others.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Lemonade51

Just two minor quibbles, otherwise very legible...

• "Benítez left the club at the end of the 2009–10 season" - Would it be nessasary to add on what terms he left the club seeing as Rafa had a very good European record? He left by mutual consent so you could slip that into the sentence if you want.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Liverpool and Arsenal lining up before their match in the quarter-finals of the 2007–08 UEFA Champions League", maybe you could rephrase that? Something like, "Liverpool and Arsenal players line up prior to the UEFA Champions League quarter-final, first leg match at the Emirates Stadium in April 2008."

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

— Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Yule Marble

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It has been substantially rewritten, and could benefit from some experienced and schooled eyes taking a look and making recommendations. Thanks, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this very interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Oil shale is a Geology FA and Marcellus Formation and Touchet Formation are both GAs - all seem like they would be useful models.

None work for a model because of the very localized nature of the geology OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• 1 dab link that needs to be fixed.

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• 5 dead links that need to be fixed

Fixed except for the 2007 Senate bill about Tomb of the Unknowns OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Remaining deck link replaced with new source OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Use of bold face in the article does not follow WP:ITALIC

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lead needs to better follow WP:LEAD

 DoneOneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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 Quarried today at 9,300 feet above sea level... and At 99.5% pure calcite, it is one of the purest marbles ever quarried. seem to be only in the lead

 DoneOneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the headers are not mentioned at all in the lead

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Section headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - for one thing avoid repeating the name of the article in headers if at all possible (so the reader already knows this is about Yule Marble and "How Yule marble is quarried" could just be something like "How it is quarried" or just "Quarrying"

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per the MOS, units need to be in metric too - {{convert}} works well for this

done but not all with the convert function OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Article flow is choppy because there are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short (one or two paragraphs) sections. Where possible combine these, or perhaps expand them

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid needless repetition - the Background and Famous Landmarks sections do not both need to mention the Lincoln Memorial

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also avoid WP:OVERLINKing

Did not see any Wiki overlink. Extensive wiki links have been added (since the peer review) to the Geology section because of the numerous technical terms OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Article needs more references, for example the first four paragreaphs of the 1905 to 1916 section and many of the Structures with Yule marble structures have no refs and need them

The article section with the list of Yule structures does not need a reference for each structure for the list is cited from two published books on the subject. I also placed on Wiki commoms a jpeg of the McCollum list which has more structures than the "City of Stone" book OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• 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

 Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would split out the Yule marble structures as its own list

Do not know what is being recommended. There is a complete list of builds in the last section OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid vague time terms like "present" as these can become out of date quickly - use things like as of 2011 instead

Use of "present" in this specific article will remain valid longer than using 2011 OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I did not really get the tables in Configuration: 1905 to present - could the information be given as prose instead?

fixed by placing the data in image captions or in the prose OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The geologic timeline might also read better as straight prose - the whole clock time does not work without a better explanation either.

The time data does not lend itself to straight prose. Explination of what the table represents and the time features has been added OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

 Done All image files were created by a government source, Flickr, or the collection of the Marble Historical Society and I have the authority as the director of the museum to place the items in Wiki Commons (which I noted in with item). I did use verbatim text in some parts of "Development" subsection in "Geology" but the text is public doman for it came from a Federal government agency (US Geological Survey)and USGS is cited OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Kappa Kappa Psi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a series of major edits to the page and would like to see this as a featured article (if that is at all possible for a fraternity with so few third-party sources; I'm hoping that it at least can pass its current Good Article nomination) and I would love to get suggestions for improvement in as many areas as I can.

Thanks, LazySofa (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Review by User:GrapedApe

1. The lead is pretty good. One caution though: nothing should appear in the lead that is not discussed and cited elsewhere in the article. Hence, there shouldn't be a need for any references in the lead.
2. Consider turning "National Presidents of Kappa Kappa Psi" into prose--it would be stronger as prose.
3. References. Try to avoid having references in the middle of the sentence, unless there's a particular clause of the sentence that absolutely must be referenced separately.
4. "Notable members" could use a re-write to be more prose-y
5. This has some pretty good sources, but I think those sources can be better used. At
6. It would be helpful to reformat the references to match one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates. A number of the references are not in template form, which is not wrong, but it makes things more standardized if they are. Also, refs 5, 6, and 7 have multiple sources, which probably should be broken out into separate refs.
7. I think that the biggest weakness of the article is how it flows. The language can gets choppy at times--names and titles are used without context. Sometime facts are dropped into the middle of paragraphs. I reworked the first two paragraphs of the "Founding and expansion" section. Feel free to disagree, but I think that it flows better. Sometime detail must be sacraficed for clarity and flow. I also put inlinr questions in the paragraph that should probably be clarified.

Review by User:Cmadler

(A few thoughts, with a double disclaimer that I've edited this article in the past but not for a while and that I'm an alumnus of KKPsi.)

1. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I think it's unlikely for that to be the case with Joe Jameson Jr's 1971 master's thesis (cited here 7 times), which also appears to be unpublished (at least, the citation lacks any publication information). Those citations should be replaced with a better source.
2. A lot of this article is based on Kappa Kappa Psi publications and closely related publications (joint Kappa Kappa Psi/Tau Beta Sigma publications, Tau Beta Sigma publications). All such citations need to be closely evaluated against the five criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF. Points 1 ("the material is not unduly self-serving") and 5 ("the article is not based primarily on such sources") are the two I'm particularly concerned about here.
3. Stillwater Station should probably get a full sub-section under "National Programs". (For that matter, as an NRHP site, it could get its own article, but, with or without its own article, I think it merits more coverage here.)

1. What determines "significant scholarly influence" for the sake of SCHOLARSHIP? I would think that the only major research effort into the history of Kappa Kappa Psi is fairly significant, at least to the fraternity and therefore its article. Jameson's thesis is unpublished, as you surmised. I suppose I could find Podium/Baton/other fraternity publications for each citation of Jameson's thesis, but that goes right into ABOUTSELF.
2. Point 1 is one I have kept in mind in my revisions, by trying to present things matter-of-factly and not just fluff to make the fraternity sound good. If there's any NPOV, please point it out so I can fix it! Point 5 is hard to get around when there is so little third-party writing available for your topic. Most of the third-party writing I've found about Kappa Kappa Psi is either press releases describing local chapters' activities or about allegations of hazing. Except for Jameson Jr.'s thesis (which itself relies on the Podium, Baton, and other fraternity publications), there's not really a lot of considerable writing about the national organization.
3. Fair point—I'll see what sources I can pull together to make that happen. LazySofa (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Probably the most common way to measure "scholarly influence" is to look at the number of times a paper has been cited in other scholarly works. Secondary steps are to consider the significance or triviality of each mention/citation and to consider the scholarly influence of the works in which the citations appear. A work that has NEVER been cited probably has very little or no scholarly influence. Further, that citation needs to include publication information (according to WP:SOURCES, "unpublished materials are not considered reliable"). The problem you're running into on points 1 & 2 -- that there's not been much written about Kappa Kappa Psi by independent third parties -- suggest that maybe the article needs to be trimmed down. WP:NOTABILITY only applies to the subject as a whole, not the content within the article, but the lack of reliable independent sources is problematic as the article continues to grow. I'm going to play with it in my sandbox a little, to try to get a handle on just how much is really cited to non-independent sources. cmadler (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • After thinking it over a bit, here's my suggestion. In a sandbox, rip out all the non-independent citations except where they support quotations. (I've done this here -- ignore the name of that sandbox!) Then, for each uncited section or statement, consider 1) whether it might be possible to find an independent citation for that (for example, I'll guess that some independent citations might be found for NIB, NIMB, notable members, and HazingPrevention.org), 2) whether the information really needs to be in the article (statements that I might remove include the number of new chapters in the 21st century, some of the details about jewelry and symbols, and the list of all national presidents), and only then add the non-independent citations back in.

Also, in going through the citations in more detail, I see that the non-independent sources vary in quality, from materials published by the national HQ (Guide to Membership, Podium, Baton, etc.) to items on chapter websites and listserv comments. I think we need to be extremely careful in evaluating these, and while there is room for nationally published materials (subject to the above-linked criteria), we should be very skeptical of citing chapter websites and listserv comments, unless they're given as a quote attributed directly to the writer. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Only two listserv posts are cited, one of which was from Alan Bonner and can also be cited from NewsNotes if necessary; the Word document I was citing was only attached to the listserv distribution of that issue, however. As for the chapter websites, all of the citations of the Alpha chapter website are citations of Baton/Podium documents that are included with some commentary from Steve Nelson. Those should be treated as Baton/Podium in terms of reliability. Should I just cite the Baton/Podium issue from which the material was taken? I was taught to cite what I have, not cite through to an original unless I found it there first. LazySofa (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The listserv item from Col. Bonner is only used to support some itinerary information for the NIMB ("The thirty-five member band performed at Le Suquet in Cannes, in Nice, and in front of the Prince's Palace of Monaco."), and I suggest that this information is not so critical that we should ignore Wikipedia's sourcing standard. I would just remove that statement from the article. That would leave, "In June and July 2002, Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma sponsored the first National Intercollegiate Marching Band, which traveled to the French Riviera, including the cities of Nice, Grasse, Aix-en-Provence, Cannes, Antibes, and the Principality of Monaco. After the inaugural trip, the program was dissolved by the joint national councils due to its high cost and low attendance, which was believed to be caused by a fear of traveling abroad after the September 11 attacks."

The other listserv item ("John Siirola to KKYTBS listserv, April 27, 1999") appears to support several statements about Neil Armstrong. ("Neil Armstrong was a member of the ROTC band at Purdue University in his sophomore year. Armstrong graduated in 1955 and was made an honorary member of the Gamma Pi chapter in spring 1956, shortly after the chapter's creation...") Most of that should be citable to better sources. In fact, the very next citation also covers all those points, though it says his honorary membership wasn't until 1965. So I think both listserv citations could be removed without really harming the article (and in fact, strengthening it by removing unsuitable sources).

For the history snippets, the better thing would be to get at copies of those old publications. It looks like someone here has some older publications, because there's a direct citation to a 1953 Podium, and the 1922 Baton is listed in the bibliography. (If the National HQ has copies, perhaps a Wikipedian in the Stillwater area could get over there to take a quick look and verify the content. In fact, since the 1922 Baton is in the public domain by virtue of its age, if someone can do a high-quality scan, I'll volunteer to get the whole thing added onto Wikisource.) The item about Raymond Shannon appears on the Alpha Chapter website with no sources indicated, and also doesn't quite say what the article says (our article says he "went on to join Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia after starting Kappa Kappa Psi", while the source says he was "also a member"; and since KKPsi wasn't founded until his junior year, it's entirely possible he was a Sinfonian first). cmadler (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Audrey Hepburn

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Although it has had a peer review in the past, this page has gone through radical changes in the last few months since it has been reviewed. There is a substantial amount of information that needs to be looked through and seeing as Audrey Hepburn is, you know, just a bit of a legend, I think it's vital that her Wikipedia article is one of the best around! Thanks, Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobo512 comments: Hi Stephen. I've noticed the work you've been doing on Audrey's page, and I think it's great that you are trying to improve it. Since this is well within my area of interest, I'm going to offer some comments.

The main thing that was said in both the last peer review and the (tellingly brief) GA review was that the article is lacking citations. You have improved this, but I still think it is under-cited. The whole "Final entertainment-related projects" section doesn't have a single one. And crucially, those sources that are used are pretty weak. Under the "Further reading" section there is a lovely list of of Audrey biographies that would be perfect for the article, but they are barely referenced at all. When there are so many books available about the subject, it is inexcusable to be relying solely on newspaper articles (to my mind). If you are serious about improving the article, I think you should buy a couple of these books (Amazon sells them dead cheap) and go through the article adding copious references to them (ideally, everything in the article should be verifiable). Using high quality sources like these will improve the page IMMENSELY. People won't be able to argue with it.

A few comments:

• "Although modest about her acting ability..." < I'm not a fan of this. It doesn't really add anything, I don't see the point of it.
• Be careful not to use WP:Peacock words. Even if they are accurate, wiki doesn't like them. Just try and tone down the praise, basically. The article is very laudatory right now.
• Also remove any journalistic comments, like "Peck was correct." Always keep in mind that this is meant to be an encyclopedic entry and keep the tone appropriate to that. We're not really meant to evoke any emotion, keep it very matter of fact (boring right?!)
• Words like "notwithstanding" and "unbeknownst" are rather ugly.
• Can we have some more detail about her appearance in Gigi? It was such an important role in her career. Also about how she came to be considered for Roman Holiday.
• The paragraph about My Fair Lady is massive...I think the stuff about the Julie Andrews rivalry could be trimmed.
• It would be nice to have some quotes from Audrey on why she withdrew from the industry.
• What was she like as a person? What were her hobbies outside of acting?
• I think the UNICEF section could quite easily be trimmed down. A lot of the quotes from her are essentially saying the same thing.
• "Hepburn has been considered a gay icon" > Needs expansion.
• It's a good idea to write a brief summary under the "Credits" and "Awards" sections so that they aren't completely blank.
• You'll have a tough time justifying the use of those non-free pictures (the one with the Oscar and the My Fair Lady one). Publicity stills and film trailers from the era are generally considered public domain, so there's lots of material available to use.

It's a good article - far better that most other classic actor biographies. But it does need polishing. I could maybe help out with a bit of copy-editing (once the sources have been improved, since i think inevitably stuff will change by doing that) but I am occupied with other articles that I hold in much higher priority (I like Audrey, but don't have much interest in her)...we'll see. I hope these comments are helpful: I'm still pretty new to WP, but I've learned a lot through writing the Katharine Hepburn article (yep, sorry, I prefer the other Hepburn haha) and I'm basically repeating what I've been told. Feel free to hit me back with any questions either here or on my talk page. I hope you will keep on at the article, like you said - she's a real cultural icon so should have a good page. Good luck! --Lobo512 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• One more thing: I recommend reading this: User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. It's very helpful to understanding the desired style/tone on WP. --Lobo512 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying with such pace! I agree completely: I need to invest in some biographies! That will definitely help this article's stability! Thanks for your supporting comments! I will consider looking through trailers to screencap some better photos! Thank you so much for your advice; I will work on it very soon! ;) Stephenjamesx (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Grounds for divorce (United States)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am trying to get the article to be good enough for GA status, but there are prose/grammar/style issues that are preventing it from getting there. I and the article's other editors have reached out to various people to help us copy-edit, but our GA reviewer felt that the page still needs work. I was hoping that someone here might have some suggestions for how we might improve the page further.

Thanks, Ntj2 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Section title "Irretrievable breakdown" - probably should be "irreconcilable differences" ... latter seems much more common.
• Lead - maybe list some major states that are "fault" states, and list some that are "no fault"
• Wording - ".. the acquisition of no-fault divorce." Acquisition doesnt seem right: re-structure sentence: maybe "... provides for divorces to be granted without assigning fault .." or similar.
• "Marriage partners who are living apart have grounds for no-fault divorce...." is that all states? or just some states?
• "Like Louisiana, various states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time" - this needs to be re-worded. Maybe: "Many states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time before a no-fault divorce can be granted"
• "Every state within the United States accepts some form of no-fault divorce" - "accepts" doesnt seem right. Try "provides for" or "accomodates" or 'has provisions for"
• Two duplicate sentences: "A fault divorce is a divorce which is granted after the party asking for the divorce sufficiently proves that the other party did something wrong that justifies ending the marriage.[7] The party filling for the divorce must prove that the other party has done something to justify ending the union." Those 2 sentences are nearly identical: combine into 1 sentence.
• Money: "Another benefit of a fault divorce is the monetary gain." - This is critical, and needs to be elaborated upon. In Community property states, the property division is always 50-50 regardless of fault vs no-fault. But in non-Community property states, what is the $$ consequence of fault vs no-fault. Does the aggrieved spouse get a windfall?
• Section title: "Other/unusual grounds" - dont use slashes in titles (or in the prose body either). Try "Other grounds".

... I'll come back and do more later.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments thus far, Noleander; we'll be making these changes shortly. Ntj2 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Stanley Donen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a thorough and complete article that is ready for a peer review and I would like the opinion of a good contributor on how to improve it.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

This is great article that has had substantial work done to it over the last couple of months. It draws on a number of high-quality sources and a number of bad ones too.

• • Thank you very much for your review, lots of great tips.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

General

• There is a lot of overlinking - people, places and films only need wikilinking once.
  • Will take care of this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• In the infobox, you have "Partner: Elaine May (????–present)". The ???? looks clumsy. If the date is unknown/unpublished, then just omit a date range altogether.
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem, if I can ever find the dates I will ad them as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Early life and stage career

• The first sentence should begin with Dolen's full name, as the body of the article is separate from the lead. Filmreference.com is not a reliable source so should be replaced.
  • Yea, most of the websites used as references were present before I started working on it, and many of them can be removed. I did add a few, but will just get rid of all the unnecessary ones. One problem is the information of Donen's three sons comes from these sources...I'll see what I can do there but it would be a shame to exclude that info.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Film career

• The year ranges in the subheadings of this section should have en dashes, not hyphens.
  • No problem.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1943-49

• What specific "rights" to Best Foot Forward did Freed buy?
  • Film rights, easy fix.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The film made Gene Kelly a star and is considered to be an important and innovative musical." Considered by whom?
  • This is covered in more detail in the Legacy section, but I can certainly ad a reference here as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1949

• "Kelly, Sinatra and Munshin play three sailors on a 24-hour shore leave in New York City whose romantic ambitions get they more than they bargained for." Get them more than they bargained for?
  • Ha, yea...--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Like Orson Welles, Donen made his film debut at the age of 25." What is the significance of the Welles comparison?
  • Well, its a notable young age to make one's film debut. This admittedly was my contribution, and is certainly true. For me it is noteworthy due to the age being considered a benchmark for many young filmmakers. Also, praise for Welles often makes a point to point out his age when he made Citizen Kane. I could live without this I suppose, but will leave it for now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Never gratuitous or amateurish[...]" Is this Wakeman's opinion? If so, it should be signposted as such, as it seems like a personal commentary.
  • It really isn't, its a rewording of the very detailed description of the scene in the Wakeman book.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1952

• While this section gives a good explanation of Singin' in the Rain's success, very little of it is written from the perspective of Donen; is there nothing written on his and Kelly's methods and techniques used in the film? Why is there such a long chunk of plot summary?
  • Mostly I reserved that for the Relationship with Kelly section. I could make the summary shorter.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--206.188.36.84 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1970-2003

• The last paragraphs of this section lack citations.
  • True, will find a newspaper article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Donen and Gene Kelly are credited[...]", "Cover Girl is credited[...]", "Donen and Kelly are usually considered[...]". As above, attribution should be made in the body of the text.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Donen's skill as a director has been praised by such actor's[...]" No apostrophe in plural of "actor". Rogue and absent puctuation is present elsewhere in the article too and should be rectified.
  • Easy fix.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Gene Kelly

• I don't have access to the sources myself, but the writing style in the Donen/Kelly/Coyne paragraph makes me worry that it is a big block of synthesis. For example, "Blair's autobiography makes no mention of an affair between Kelly and Coyne or of any romantic attachments to or from Donen. However she does state that Donen's marriage to Coyne was unhappy[127] and that Donen was very close to Kelly and herself.[128]" has an element of "It doesn't say X, but it does say Y, so that means Z." about it.
  • Hmm, to be honest I was mostly trying to be fair and show both sides. The basic premise is that their relationship went sour partly because they were both married to the same woman, and the rest is meant to be supporting material. I don't believe that any difinitive explaination of the Donen/Kelly/Coyle relationship could exist since all personalities involved are strong and a bit proud. Will do what I can to improve this though.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

References

• The main sources (Silverman, Casper and Wakeman) appear sound, however much use has been made of unreliable sources. Apart from the aforementioned filmreference.com, use is made of genekellyfans.com (the original article that is cut and pasted to the blog can easily be referenced instead), IMDb.com (which has unverified user-contributed content) and Yahoo Movies (again, user-contributed). Additionally, web references are just listed as bare URLs; they need the page title, publisher, publication and access date as a minimum.

Bradley0110 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Yea, what references could I use for his sons work in the film industry. For instance, his youngest son has no notable film experience aside for being a PA on one film, so I doubt I will find a source for this other than in list form like those already used. Certainly there must be some way to use the actual credits of a film as a reliable source. Otherwise, will deal with the web sources.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • •  Done--206.188.36.84 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Since requesting the review I've decided to work on the Legacy section some more as well. But hopefully it will be better soon.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• •  Done Again, thank you for your review. I now plan to do a "third draft" of this page with specific attention to references and to the sections 1952, Legacy and Relationship with Kelly.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    

---

Lewis Nicola

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want Lewis Nicola's page to be GA. With me being the only editor, things have easily ran together. The two main, main concerns I have is the lead and the references. For the lead, I'm never certain what to put in or leave out, so I am a bit confused about that. For the references, I used one source for nearly footnotes. I don't know if there is a MOS thing about it or not, but I would appreciate some feedback on what to do about that. As always, however, all comments are greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• An interesting individual. A few ideas/comments below, mostly copy-editing:
• On the lead, it feels the right sort of length. Some the sentences probably need to run together slightly more smoothly, e.g. "Nicola's parents bought him a commission into the British Army in 1740. Twenty-six years later, he and his family moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." could become "He became an officer in the British Army, serving in Ireland and Belgium, but in 1756 moved with his family to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." perhaps.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• " Throughout the war..." - "During the war..."?
  • Changed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Washington was horrified at the suggestion. However, the relationship of the two men later went back to normal." - you could probably delete this detail from the lead without losing the impact of the intro.
  • Deleted it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "and re-naming it" - worth checking the grammar here (the subject of the sentence is the library at this point)
  • I reworded it. Think I got it right.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "only after nine issues" > "after only nine issues"
  • I reworded.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "for the next 3 years" - "for the next three years"
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "for various reason, Washington denied it" > "for various reasons"
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Nicola sent out an arrest for Sergeant Major Jonathan Guy for giving clothes of the Continental Army to the British" - "arrest warrant"? "clothes" or "uniforms"?
  • Changed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "During court trials, Nicola had to hire men from other units as the jury" - did you really mean "hire"? (i.e. he had to pay them?)
  • No, he didn't. I changed it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "due to the fact that he faced difficulties have high-ranked officers" - I didn't quite understand this bit
  • What I'm trying to say is he didn't have the men qualified to be hire-ranking officials. I reworded it, but it still sounds a tad choppy.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "his current pay was unable to purchase food or even clothes" - his pay could be "insufficient to purchase..." or he could be "unable to purchase..."
  • Changed.23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Nicola begged Robert Morris, the Continental superintendent of finance, the same month for the money that the Congress did not pay the Corps" - I didn't understand this bit
  • Well Congress never paid the Invalid Corps, and Nicola begged Robert Morris to have the Corps receive their pay. How do you think I should reword it?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• " Nicola wrote under the name of the now famous letter from George Washington Newburgh letter, " - this wasn't clear. Did you mean "Nichola wrote the now famous Newburgh letter to George Washington"?
  • Yeah. That's something I miss with the Google translate. Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• " he became management of the workhouse " > "manager of the workhouse"?
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "This pamphlet," - you don't need the comma here
  • Removed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• "$822.25 today" - you'll want to give the date here (e.g. "$822.25 at 2011 prices" - or whatever: the reference is to 2002, so you might want to get an updated figure). Hchc2009 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I used {{Inflation}}. And after reading the documentation I removed it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hchc2009 for the comments.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Hotel Polen fire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to see what might be needed to promote the article to FA class. Thanks, S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 02:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence That so many people could die... looks randomly placed, it looks like it shouldn't belongs there.
• The paragraphs on The fire section are short, can these be expanded on, or merged together?
• Can you elaborate what this means to non-local readers: through which the Papenbroekssteeg runs, connecting the Rokin with the Kalverstraat.

Hope this helps, Mattg82 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re you last point, the Kalverstraat and the Rokin lie more of less parallel. The Papenbroekssteeg is an alley connecting them both. Hotel Polen faced the alley on one side with the De Slegte book store on the other side of the alley. The historical situation can be seen on Page 50 of the fire department report linked in the article. In the '80s the Rokin Plaza was built encompassing both buildings and the alley goes through the building and there is a small square in the middle. If you look up Rokin 14, Amsterdam on Google Maps with Satellite view you can get an idea of the current situation.

I will look at your other points later. Thanks for the help! S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Call of Duty 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…This was a good article but was removed mostly because it had no development section; I've added one and have contributed to a lot of other things to the article; I think this article it worthy of becoming a GA again, but I need to be sure it is worthy and if there are any flaws in it; note that the campaign section is the equivalent of story/plot sections like other video game/film articles and is optional to have references for it, and this is one of those articles where it is chosen to NOT have references in the campaign section

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by GregorB

I'm both familiar with this article (made some tweaks to it years ago) and its subject, so I believe I can be efficient here as a reviewer. Since the objective is to get this article into GA shape, I'm going to pay extra attention to GA criteria. I'm starting the review this evening (GMT) hopefully, or within 48 hours at the latest. GregorB (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

General comments

I'll post my comments here in no particular order and summarize in the end. I'll add more comments as I go through the article. So:

• The intro is a bit short. E.g. this is both a single-player (with missions, etc.) and a multi-player game, so that bit of vital (if rather mundane) information is missing. Ideally, basic facts from all major sections should be summarized in the intro.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• The beginning of the "Gameplay" section is rather abrupt ("The player can crouch and lie prone, and is able to scale low walls and other obstacles.") The original GA version is much better in this respect.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Multiplayer" - I'd swap the paragraphs, the second is more descriptive while the first is more technical.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Media - two appropriate fair use images (the cover and a screenshot). Still, that screenshot does not represent actual gameplay, as major interface elements (compass, weapons and ammo, damage indicators) are not displayed. One more screenshot with the appropriate caption would really be useful.
• Campaigns - how many missions are there in total?
  • 27 missions;  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps a bit more about the Russian campaign. Sniping not mentioned here.
• Single player gameplay has four difficulty levels.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The game now has sound attenuation" - "now" presumably refers to the time it was previewed, so this needs to be rephrased.
  • got rid of "now"-SCB '92 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Advertisement controversy" - maybe it should become a Level 3 section under "Reception".
  • nah-SCB '92 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• A couple of automated suggestions to be fixed?
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #51 is dead, now tagged as such.
  • it became a dead link only a few days ago, but have now replaced it; links to the same article as before, just with a different url
• Captain Price is rescued in the end, but he is not mentioned in the text before that. Incidentally, the guy has his own article: Captain Price (Call of Duty).
  • Mentioned-SCB '92 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• The development section is rather light on wikilinks. Example: E3 is Electronic Entertainment Expo - didn't know that, and many readers won't.
  • wikilinked E3; can't seem to find much else to wikilink that hasn't been wikilinked previously in the article-SCB '92 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose quality is good. Normally, a copyedit is recommended before GAN, but here I don't see any reason why it would be necessary.
• References are also developed to a high standard. I don't see anything significant wanting here. I'd like to see the system requirements referenced, though.
• Perhaps more could be said about the weapons (although certainly not this). IIRC the article had a section on the weapons - perhaps not a good idea either. Maybe a some kind of summary paragraph? Not sure on this one.
• A bit of context: the original Call of Duty also did WWII, in a similar way. Without that fact, it is not possible to fully understand what some reviewers meant ("Instead of feeling like a stale retread", etc.). This is perhaps something for the lead section.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All in all: this is a fine work and a clear improvement over the version that originally made GA, even without taking the development section into consideration. In terms of GA criteria, the only critical remarks I have are actually in the first two bullets, as these problems could fail the article on WP:WIAGA #1 (intro and layout/prose). The rest are either minor issues or merely (mild) suggestions.

This concludes my review. I'll keep watching this page and possibly provide more comments. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review by the way-SCB '92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

History of Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto (1967–1971)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed a GA review, I've made revisions since the GAN, so I want further review. Please also comment whether you agree the 1971 end is too arbitrary. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I find the opening sentence quite awkward, just to try to get the opening phrases bold linked. I wouldn't bother even trying to do that. Besides, we try to avoid bold links, so linking the bold "Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto" should be discouraged in any case.

Complete overhaul of the first paragraph in the lead.

• "creation of a a permanent" one to many a's.

Fixed by the rewrite.

• "the festival began to take shape and grow" what does this really mean? And did it only "begin to" do that during the era or did it "actually" do it during the era?

Rewrote. Part of the awkwardness of that phrase lies with the fact it bloomed, but into a partially different event than modern party-goers would recognize.

• "Caribana resists their" resisted.

Fixed.

• "by a deaths by a car accident" grammar fail.

Fixed.

• "transit fights" what's a transit fight?

Fixed.

• "plans to blow the Centennial works in a whing-ding, one-week celebration designed to pale the '67 efforts of any other Metro "ethnic" community -> missing a closing quote mark.

Good catch.

• "over 9 months" -> nine

Fixed.

• "ex-pats" a little colloquial for an encyclopedia.

I’ve changed to “Caribbean emigrants”, instead.

• "Downtown Toronto firehall" is Downtown really capitalised? And what's a "firehall"?

I guess that’s a little too influenced by modern branding of the neighbourhood.

As per firehalls, I poked into my dictionary, and I’m quite surprised to see the term is a Canadianism. That’s what we call a fire station, just as American say “fire house”. That said, comparing “firehall” and “fire station”, the earlier is most natural language for Canadian readers, so I‘ll leave that as is.

• "On February 21, " which year?

Fixed.

• "Map of the Toronto Islands." doesn't need the full stop.

Deleted the period.

• "on Wednesday, July 12" do we really need to know what day of the week July 12 was?

I suppose not.

• William Dennison is a dab link.

Fixed.

• "Liverpool explained... Liverpool explained" repetitive.

Fixed.

• "single photo and" photograph.

Fixed.

• "West Indian time is different than North American time." direct quotes usually need direct citation.
• "the Journard Trinidad Players[11] performed at their top level, " odd ref placement, and "performed at their top level" is opinion unless directly referenced.
• "GG" is there really a need to abbreviate this (it isn't explained, incidentally, or used subsequently).

Expanded. I was assuming that the full length mention earlier in the sentence would suffice, but I suppose that it is an unfamiliar abbreviation outside of the Commonwealth nations.

• "contributed $1000 in advance" -> $1,000 (for consistency).

Fixed.

• "tallies didn't result" avoid contractions.

Fixed.

• Queen's Park is a dab link.

Fixed.

• Royal York Hotel is one too.

Someone changed that in the mean time, but they put Fairmount Royal York, the modern name. I've fixed to hide the new name behind the old.

• "5000 " ->5,000 for consistency.

Fixed.

• "1968 ad." poor caption. Perhaps "A 1968 advertisement for the Caribana festival" or something more useful.

Fair thought. Changed.

• "A letter soon after complained of the lack of queuing" complained at the lack of queuing? I'm confused.

How so? Are queues another Canadianism?

The island, to this day, has no sort of stancheons for those waiting for the ferry to form a line in; this would be "queuing" for the boat. Everyone crowds into one big area, waiting for the ferry to arrive, and then the ferry comes, and those getting off the ferry have to force their way through everyone waiting to get on. It's dreadful. Does that explain?

I've reworded the sentence surrounding the problem fragment.

• "ended up killing " just "killed" is fine.

Fixed.

• What's TTC?

I now mentioned the Toronto Transit Commission earlier in the paragraph. Is it clear enough from its name that this is the municipal transit system.

• "couldn't bring the" avoid contractions.

Changed.

• "the event hadn't developed" ditto.

Changed two sentences into one, to avoid the contracted words entirely.

• Page ranges in the references should use en-dashes not hyphens.

Fixed.

• Single page references shouldn't be "pp.", they should just be "p."

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Bluespotted stingray

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am really eager to have a GA article and know there are things I know I've missed. But for things to really look out for would 1) be plagiarism... even the slightest bit. 2) Mis-content or lack of citation. 3) Grammar 4) Any additional help! I appreciate this so much. Thank You, Stanfordbound 14 (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by StringTheory11

• What does it's scientific name mean?
• A description of the differences between the Java form and the Bali form would help.
• What exactly entails a "true stingray?"
• More peer-reviewed sources would be nice.
• The image captions could use a bit more description.
• A lot of the sentences could probably be combined to make for a smoother flow.
• Predators section either needs expansion or should be merged into another section; same with conservation section.
• I can't discern at all what the parasites section is trying to say. I recommend a rewrite.
• What is the size of the ray, both length and weight?
  

---

List of India Twenty20 International cricketers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this list, a failed FLC wasn't updated in the last 4 years. I have expanded this list with statistics upto date. I want everyone's feedback on how to make this an FL.

Thanks, —Commander _{(Ping me)} 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• We have a helpful example of a similar FL at List of England Twenty20 International cricketers. One thing I notice right off the bat is that the first paragraph is more well-developed in the England list. Modelling the first paragraph here after the one there would be wise.

• I have rearranged the sentences now. Does it look okay? —Commander _{(Ping me)} 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• "having played 31 T20I matches for 16 wins and a tie against Pakistan." "for" → "with"?

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In 2007, they became won the world championship...". Remove "became".

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is the fourth-highest total in an innings sourced by anything?

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the photo caption, the "till date" doesn't help the writing and would be better off removed.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could cite captains and wicketkeepers in the key, like the England list does.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Players: "This list comprising of list of Indian cricketers...". Needs "comprising of list" taken out.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the footnote, "international" should probably be capitalized.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• The hyphen in the title of reference 2 should probably be an en dash. Such minor formatting improvements are permitted for ref titles.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.itsonlycricket.com/entry/1888/ a reliable source? Giants2008

(Talk) 22:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Replaced that with a RS. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• As Giants2008 suggested, improve the lead.
• Rephrase "they became won".

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Table does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; use scope row, column and header, etc (if I'm not missing anything else).

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 12:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Categorize the column headings into batting, bowling and fielding.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• You didn't use ♠ anywhere.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fix this large white space in the "Players" section, above the table. I guess you need to adjust the width of the table, or don't use it at all.

• Did you mean removing the image? —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was taking about width parameter. Actually you should use more good quality images. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• West Indies → West Indies in the footnotes.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of using slashes use dashes in the titles of the references.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

— Bill william compton^Talk 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The Australian team is overlinked in the lead.

• Removed —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tie v Pakistan isn't in ref 4.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• You expand MS of MS Dhoni, but not RP of RP Singh.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check sorting. E.g. HS, you have a 0 sorting before a bunch of en-dashes...

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 04:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest you force the en-dashes to sort before 0's in all columns.

• Didn't get you. Can you make a dummy edit to illustrate tha if possible. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 09:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 04:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "first Twenty20 cap." not sure why "first Twenty20" is part of the link to the cap.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Virendar Sehwag ->Virender Sehwag.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cricinfo linked in ref 1 and ref 4 only. Why not the lot or just the first?

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Charles Villiers Stanford

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. This is one of those magna opera that start as modest overhauls but develop a momentum of their own. The more I read about Stanford the more interesting I found him as a character; and the more I listened to his music the more impressed I was. He had an international reputation as a young man, but rather got left behind in the 20th century. But even if his compositions have been marginalised he was probably the most influential music teacher the UK has ever produced. So I think he deserves an article of FA quality, and I look forward to comments to help me get him there. Tim riley (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick #1: Re "the Italian opera company from London", note 2 says: "In his memoirs, Stanford listed the operas he heard performed by the company in Dublin. They were Le nozze di Figaro, Die Zauberflöte (in Italian as Il flauto magico), Fidelio, Il barbiere di Siviglia, Les deux journées, Robert le diable, Les Huguenots, Der Freischütz, Oberon, La fille du régiment (in Italian as La figlia del reggimento), Lucrezia Borgia, La traviata, Rigoletto, Hamlet, Faust and Mireille. Presumably the company was The Royal Italian Opera, then based at Covent Garden? If so, how come there are French and German operas in the list? Or did they also perform all of these in Italian along with the two mentioned in the note? --GuillaumeTell 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A most piquant point. My list (with the two Italian translations) is cribbed pretty well verbatim from Stanford's memoirs. I suppose the alternatives are to rummage in the British Library archives in re Les deux journées et al or to leave all the titles in their customary Wikipedia form. Thoughts invited on this... Tim riley (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the British premiere of Les deux journées (ignoring an 1801 Covent Garden "adaptation" with some of Cherubini's music) was given by the Carl Rosa Opera Company on 27 October 1875 at the Princess's Theatre, London. Grove Opera describes this as a revival, and says that the company started out at the Gaiety Theatre, Dublin on 29 March of the same year. I don't know what Stanford was doing around that date, but maybe the Carl Rosa performed some non-Italian works in Dublin in their original language? Maybe Rosa's 1867-71 activities in the USA and his tour of the English provinces in 1873 preceded his decision to devote the rest of his life to promoting opera in English? Maybe Stanford's memory when writing his memoirs played him false? Just speculation on my part. However, the Dublin article in Grove does mention that French companies appeared there (at the Theatre Royal in Hawkins Street) in 1870 and 1875 --GuillaumeTell 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't bet much on the accuracy of Stanford's memoirs, though he'd have to have gone some to outdo Henry Wood in the creative embroidery department. I think I'll redraw the footnote to say that CVS said he saw these operas by the Italian Opera company, and stick to WP titles for the list, removing my discursive comments about translations into Italian. Will that do, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• I would suggest throwing a "Stanford" rather than a "he" in the first paragraph. Readers may be confused as to what is the surname (since Villiers is an unusual middle name and since the article is under the full name), and shouldn't make the eyes have to wander to the second paragraph for that.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• " Cambridge University Musical Society, attracting international stars to perform there." There? Is the society a place? Suggest tweaking of language.
  • Tweaked. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• " he combined the post" If he held both posts, can he be said to have "combined" them? Hmmm.
  • I concur; redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Some critics regarded Stanford, together with Hubert Parry and Alexander Mackenzie, as responsible for a renaissance in English music. However, after conspicuous success as a composer in the last two decades of the 19th century, he found his music eclipsed in the 20th century by that of Edward Elgar and some of his own former pupils." The shift in perspective, from the critics back to Stanford is somewhat jarring. I would suggest the passive voice for the last sentence, "his fame was eclipsed by that of ..." or some such.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Early years

• "The young Stanford was given a conventional schooling in Dublin, with the classics strongly emphasised, at Henry Tilney Bassett's school" This is awkward, but I can suggest no improvement.
  • Redrawn. Better now, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "At the same time" Suggest omitting, the "twelve years old" a few lines on makes it unnecessary I think.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Arthur O'Leary" Can you just give a couple of words of who he was. I would also perhaps put "composer" before Sullivan's name and perhaps "music writer" before Grove, who may not immediately associate the man and his works.
  • All done.
• Is it possible to state John Stanford's reason? I imagine so his son would have something to fall back on.
  • I'm sure that's right, but the sources don't actually say so. Better leave as is, perhaps. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• The two "including" clauses in the final sentence of this subsection makes for a confusing sentence.
  • True. Amended.

Cambridge

• "via Berlin to Bonn" That is a considerable detour, if I remember my Teutonic geography correctly. Did he do anything interesting in Berlin? If not, is the detour material?
  • No, and I've deleted reference to Berlin. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "admirer of all Wagner's works, but immensely admired" I suggest an end to the mutual admiration society.
  • Good! One never spots one's own jingles and repetitions when attempting to proof-read one's own prose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "He ranked 65th of 66, and was awarded a third-class degree" In classics? I am only guessing.
  • Yes. Now mentioned. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Leipzig

• "Stanford ignored his early works when assigning opus numbers in his mature years. The earliest compositions in his official list of works are a four-movement suite for piano and a toccata for piano, which both date from 1875" This seems rather an aside.
  • Redrawn. I want to make the point that he wrote more than his official catalogue would suggest, but I've pruned the prose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rising composer

• "composer. He was composing prolifically, though he later withdrew some of his compositions" A prolific composer indeed.
  • Another good catch – thank you!
• "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition for symphonies by British composers held at the Alexandra Palace, although he had to wait a further two years to hear the work performed" Were the works not performed at the Alexandra Palace?
  • Not sure if the first prize winner's work was put on at the Ally Pally at the time, but Stanford's wasn't. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The two judges were Sir George Macfarren, professor of music at Cambridge, and Joachim." I would consign to a note, it is a stone in the narrative stream.
  • Done. I toyed with the idea of mentioning that the first prize was won by Macfarren's pupil and future son-in-law, but I refrained. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• The paragraph about The Veiled Prophet: I would reverse things and have the second-half description of it come before the whole bit about Cox and Box. Is it not rather crushing to have a serious work rejected because it's not more like Pinafore?
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would say "rivals" rather than "peers". And perhaps major rivals rather than only possible rivals.
  • Better. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "leading international performers including Joachim, Hans Richter" Is a conductor a performer? Hmm. Maybe "musical figures" rather than performers? YMMV.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• I would say when the Hamburg premiere was, to establish that these two works are being discussed in chronological order by premiere.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Dr. Stanford" Is this a courtesy title, like "Professor" famously for bandleaders?
  • By the time this source was published Stanford had a clutch of honorary doctorates. His first (mentioned in the "honours" section at the end of the biography) was in 1883. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More later. Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

These comments are all very much ad rem and I have acted on them as indicated above. I am most grateful, and look forward to more at your leisure. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Professor

• "training school" Would you consider capitalising this? "training school" carries unfortunate connotations in American English. Also note the repetition of "training" in the sentence.
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "founder-director of the college, George Grove" The way this is linked had moving back through the article. Yes, we've already met him. The tone of this, combined with the link, is as if you are introducing someone new.
  • Duplicate link removed. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "In a study ..." split sentence. At least once.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "easy-going teacher. He insisted on one-to-one teaching," Suggest the second be changed.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "for many years after his death". It strikes me this and the next sentence interrupt the biographical flow, but can't think of a better place to put it.
  • Point taken, but this info is needed, I think, and I agree that there isn't a conspicuously better place for it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conductor

• " For Cambridge" CUMS?
  • No – it was for the (annual, I think) presentation by an almost completely undergraduate cast of a classic Greek drama given, God save us, in the original. These rollicking shows were put on at the Theatre Royal, and I have redrafted accordingly. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Wagner, and the critic" suggest "Wagner; the critic"
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• ", Bernard Shaw writing as "Corno di Bassetto"" Suggest excellent opportunity to use nom de plume in a sentence.
  • I was given an allergy to that phrase forty-five years or more ago, by an English master who berated me for using bastard French. He insisted that the French was "nom de guerre" and the English was "pen name". I don't think I have written the words "nom de plume" since then until this very moment. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "He admired him when he was uninhibited " Although the likely meaning is clear, there is ambiguity.
  • Yes. I wrestled with this when writing it. I've redrawn – I think it's now unambiguous. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "was was" ahem
  • Errare humanum est. Very glad you spotted it. Now pruned.
• "In October of the same year, Shaw was attacking" I suspect at some time you started this sentence "By". Perhaps some adjustment.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Fuller Maitland" As you call him J A Fuller Maitland before, there may be some confusion in the reader's head.
  • Fuller Maitland, in addition to his many other sins, had one of those infuriating double-barrelled surnames that don't have a hyphen, so the uninitiated don't know where the given name ends and the surname begins. There ought to be a law. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "for the festival." I would move this before the series of works so the reader appreciates the significance of the dates.
  • Yes. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "New works by other composers" That is, presented for the festival.
  • Redrawn

20th century

• "Cambridge doctorate" Honorary?
  • Well, yes and no. Some music doctorates in those days were certainly granted honoris causa, as in this case, but unlike the all-purpose "he's a jolly good chap" honorary degrees – typically doctorates of law – music doctorates were reserved for musicians. A man with an Hon LLD wouldn't go round calling himself "Doctor So-and-So", whereas the doctorate Elgar got definitely got him labelled as "Dr Elgar" in the papers, which he rather disliked. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "found "odious";[n 13] Elgar" full stop?
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Last years

• "Windsor" I'm not sure you've specified where he was living at the time. I would throw something in at some point so this won't raise a question.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The annual operatic production, " At CUMS? Note that his adds to the confusion about residence.
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Stanford's generosity " A "though" or "however" would be welcome in this sentence.
  • Decidedly so. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Interment at Westminster Abbey! Quite an honour? Who lobbied for Stanford? Really, a bit more would be appreciated about the funeral. Perhaps a couple of attending notables, a nice quote in praise of him by a euloger?
  • The lobbyist was Parry's successor as director of the RCM, Sir Hugh Allen. It wasn't, in truth, an all-star cast. Parry's widow, and Mackenzie were there, but neither of Stanford's most eminent pupils. I've added a quote from The Times which may fill the bill. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Works

• "held their place in the repertoire," Which repertoire? Ecclesiastical music?
  • Redrawn – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• " In his operas and elsewhere, Grove, Parry and later commentators have found music" This rings slightly oddly as we have been told Parry is dead. Is there any way to have the two named commentators referred to in the past tense?
  • Redrawn – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Rodmell calls grand statements that only occasionally" Here we are talking in terms of the context of what kind of music?
  • Amended – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chamber music

• The first sentence has too many commas.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Church music

• " in detail,[142] Nicholas Temperley, in Music in Britain, writes" Again, too many commas.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "imperishable" I don't think you can use that word outside a quotation.
  • These are the ipsissima verba, and I've now wrapped them in quotation marks. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Operas

• "Dibble rates the work" Which?
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Burton praises" split sentence.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Recordings

• "for the gramophone" I would omit this phrase. People know what recorded is.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Final statement needs citation.
  • Redrawn and done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done as always, looking forward to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am most grateful for your thorough scrutiny and detailed comments, which have helped considerably to improve the article. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comment: I've not forgotten this, but I'm working through my reviews log (just done a couple of bishops, do I owe you one, Wehwalt?) and I'll be with you soon. One point struck me, though, on my initial quick skim-through. The only work of Stanfords I know fairly well is his Te Deum, in which I sang as a boy chorister oh so many moons erstwhile. And I can't see any mention of it! Woe, woe! Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And thrice woe! I'll have a rummage in the sources and see if the work is generally considered notable among CVS's works. (I too piped away as a treble, but I don't think I ever sang anything by Stanford.) – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Later: the Te Deum was composed for the 1898 Leeds Festival, and is definitely worth mentioning because it enhanced Stanford's standing with the festival committee by contrast with Sullivan's which suffered from his failure to write anything for that year's festival. I have added a footnote, with an Elgarian sting in the tail. – Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

...and perhaps you could mention my role, circa 1967, St Matthew's Church choir (augmented). Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Detailed comments: Not many; the article is well constructed, informative and pleasant to read. I've not checked out image licences, and alas Jappalang isn't around any more to do it. The following are mainly nipicks; some more by way of suggestion:-

Lead

• I don't think Stanford's undergrad role as Trinity's organist should be in the same sentence as his founding the RCM, with a simple "and" connector. They were unrelated achievements, years apart.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• The point about his being overtaken by his former pupils is made twice, in the second and then the third paragraph.
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "solo part" → "solo parts"
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• The key D♭ major should be linked
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "During another spell" → "During a second spell"?
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Leipzig

• Link Longfellow
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rising composer

• "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition for symphonies by British composers held at the Alexandra Palace..." The present phrasing introduces slight if absurd ambiguities. Personally I would resolve this by a slight switch in phrase order: "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition held at the Alexandra Palace for symphonies by British composers,..."
  • This gave me some grief when writing it, and I am grateful for your suggested rewording – just the job. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Any reason indicated for father's disapproval of Jennie? A bit common, perhaps?
  • I think he just thought they were too young, but the biographies are not all that definite on the point. By the time they married they had already complied with Stanford Sr's insistence on waiting a year or three before tying the knot. John Stanford later came round and was fond of his daughter in law. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• It would be better to say when or where The Veiled Prophet was performed before quoting the review in the MT.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "was beginning to be..." → "was becoming..."?
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• In the account of the respective stagings of Savonarola and The Canterbury Pilgrims we have "The Canterbury Pilgrims was premiered in London in April 1884, three months before Savonarola was presented at Covent Garden." I think this should be "Had been premiered".
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Clarify: "It had a better reception than the latter, though..."
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Cellier wasn't "the late" until 1891, so the critic's comments were not contemporary with the performances of the operas. Perhaps say "a later crtic"
  • Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Professor

• "In 1883, the Royal College of Music was set up..." By whom?
  • By a committee convened under the presidency of the Prince of Wales, but I'm reluctant to go down this byway. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "provided adequate musical training of professional orchestral players" → "provide adequate musical training for professional orchestral players" (you provide "for", not "of")
  • The training was provided, and the training was of players, but I don't feel strongly on the matter. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conductor and composer

• No specific points

20th century

• Better say who the Spy caricature is of.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• The section beginning, "Stanford returned to opera in 1901, with..." is identical (except for the year) to the start of paragraph 3 of the previous section.
  • Well spotted! Thank you. Redrawn the second time round. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Last years

• "The annual operatic production..." Clarify where
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Could we have a composition date for The Travelling Companion?
  • Done (sort of) – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Works

• Clarify that Dibble is a modern commentator, since just before quoting him you seem to be writing about the situation in the years immediately after Stanford's death.
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• "his six Irish Rhapsodies all date from the 20th century, the first dating from 1901..." Omit "dating"
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Recording

• No specific commment

That's me done. If I've duplicated another reviewer's comments I'm sorry. See you at FAC.

Many thanks for these eagle-eyed and helpful comments. The article is now decidedly improved by virtue of all the above comments. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing review – I don't foresee any more comments here, and am closing the review and decamping to FAC. Thanks to all noble contributors above. Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Prosperity theology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm working on this article with two other people; it recently achieved Good Article status and we hope to get it to FA status in the future. The GA reviewer left some feedback on FAC when passing it, which we've addressed. We'd like to know how the article could be improved before we nominate it as a featured article.

Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Wow, scary stuff! The article is commendably calm, presenting this strange theology without a whiff of sensationlism. Impressive work; my points are all fairly trivial:-

Lead

• Missing word: "the Bible as a contract God and humans"
• "some have criticized their advice as unsound". Be more precise about to whom "some" refers here
• Missing word: "It has been compared other movements" - and "compared" is probably not the most appropriate word. "Likened to" would probably be better.

Theology

• Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar require links, and you should say who David Van Biema and Jeff Chu are.
• You should state which version of the bible you are using for the biblical quotes
• "Prosperity churches may also allot time to pray for sick members of the congregation during services." I believe this is common practice in all mainstream Christian denominations; it is a standard unit in prayers of intercession. It should not be suggested that this is a practice peculiar to prosperity churches.

History

• There's a slight confusion in terminology, arising from the dual meaning of "bill": "God supernaturally changed one-dollar bills into twenty-dollar bills to allow Allen to pay a bill". Suggest change sentence end to "settle an account".
• "Allen taught the "word of faith" or the power to speak something into being." Requires a comma after "faith"; he wasn't teaching either–or.
• Link televangelism
• Oral Roberts "led" not "lead"

Word of faith

• "This Positive Confession or Word of Faith Movement..." Quote marks required around "Positive Confession" and "Word of Faith", and "movement" should be decapitalised

International growth

• Missing word: "as justified in light of..."
• I wonder if powerlessness can properly be described as "rampant"?

Reception

• You should not have a subsection title ("Theology") which is the same as an earlier main section title.
• Missing word: "...characterize the doctrine as a form poor theology." This could be: "as a form of poor theology", or "as a poor form of theology", or "as poor theology". Take your pick.
• I got confused by "The paper notes Biblical examples of negative confessions which resulted in positive results and argues that the Biblical Greek translation of the word is "to speak the same thing", as it was not clear to me what "the word" is referring to. A similar confusion occurs over "the words" later in the paragraph.
• "holistic" should be pipe-linked to "holism"

Socioeconomic analysis

• Coleman developed" → "Coleman has developed". And later, "he notes", not "he noted"

Citation formats

• Use dashes for page ranges, not hyphens.

I hope these points are helpful. As I cannot watch individual peer review pages, please contact my talk page if you wish to discuss anything arising from this review with me. Please let me know if you decide to submit it to FAC; I'd be curious to see how it is received there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review! I'll let you know if we run into any issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I took care of most of the points. I think televangelism was linked higher up, and I'll have to take a read through the source to figure out the ambiguity of the two words. I actually was prompted to start working on this page when I saw how biased it was, so it means a lot to hear praise for the neutral tone here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• I echo Mark's thanks for the review - it's incredibly helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  

---

To Heart 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of taking this article to GA quality, and want some outside opinion and advice before I take it to GAN.

Thanks, -- クラウド６６８ 23:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this peer review request. -- クラウド６６８ 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Randall Flagg

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because other editors and I have worked hard on this article for years, and I would like to know if it is ready (or almost ready) for Featured status. The article is in-depth and covers a variety of sources, including literary criticism and analysis.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Stop Online Piracy Act

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the community to get it to FA status.

An important aspect of the review is neutrality, including balance, avoiding WP:UNDUE and using neutral references wherever possible.

Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

•  Doing... ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• But there's some quick things:

• In one word, references.

• ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's not SNOWBALL-y enough. That needs work before it can get to FAC. ResMar 02:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this is an important article, but do not think it owuld stand a chance at FAC until the bill is either passed into law or dies in Congress (because FAs have to be comprehensive). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some FAs about laws which may be useful models - for example Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act was a federal law, or the Accurate News and Information Act was a Canadian law.
• As I noted above, one the FA Criteria is comprehensiveness and until the fate of the bill is decided (it becomes a law in some form or fails) then I do not see how this would be comprehensive.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However whistle-blowing seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• I think that another aspect of comprehensiveness is providing context to the reader - however, there is no real background or history of how the bill came to be proposed, or previous legislation it builds on / modifies, or even much on the perceived problems / issues this is supposed to fix.
• Writing is a bit obtuse and difficult to follow in places The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. Also I do not understand how the last phrase works - how does the website know to provide counter notification before the payment facilitators and ad networks contact it?
• COntents section has a clarification needed tag
• If this does become law, it may be necessary to merge it with the PROTECT IP article.
• I was surprised there was no mention of Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act beyond a See also link (again seems like it would be useful background / history)
• The COntents section seems to focus on foreign / overseas sites, but then it mentions websites that I thought werte domestic (Flickr? Vimeo?)
• Abbreviations need to be spelled out on first use - I am not sure most readers outside the US would know what D-VA (or whatever) would mean for a senator (again the model articles would be useful to look at here). Similarly spell out things like EFF and MPAA
• Links need to be at first use (see MPAA, which linked on second use)
• There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections in the article - this breaks up the narrative flow. WHere possible these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Could some free images be added - the sponsors? Key proponents or opponents? Even text / quote boxes - anything to break up the wall of text a little
• 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
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Pebbly Arkose Formation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature.

Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have closed this nomination. It is the third nomination for 12 January from Babakathy, when rules clearly limit editors to one a day. There is an very heavy backlog on PR at the moment; please resubmit in a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Forest Sandstone Formation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature. Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have closed this nomination. It is the second nomination (of three) for 12 January from Babakathy, when rules clearly limit editors to one a day. There is an very heavy backlog on PR at the moment; please resubmit in a few days.

---

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if we can make any improvements so it can get back its GA status

Thanks, JDOG555 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is about an interesting place I'd like to visit. It's well beyond "start class", but it will need quite a bit of work to regain GA status. Here are a few suggestions.

• The lead should summarize the whole article, and this one doesn't come close. My rule of thumb is to mention the main thrust of each of the text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• Large parts of the existing article lack inline citations to reliable sources. For example, the Geography section is completely unsourced as are the Canoeing, Fishing, and Hiking subsections. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports all of the claims in a paragraph, the citation should go at the end of the paragraph.

• Quite a few of the citations are incomplete or malformed. For citations of web pages, include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. Since citation 1 uses "cite web", it would be a good idea to use the "cite" family of templates throughout.

• Extremely short sections and paragraphs produce a disjointed layout and make it hard to fit images inside the sections. Images should not overlap section boundaries or displace heads or edit buttons. An effective way to solve these problems is to merge short subsections. For example, "Recreation" would work better, I think, as a section with no subsections, just paragraphs.

• The "General references" section is of little use, in my opinion. If those works are important to the topic, try to include them in inline citations that support important points.

• If you can manage it, place directional images so that they look into the page rather than out. The loon does this already, but File:Voyageur canoe.jpg is facing out of the page, and so are the camping canoers. They would both look better on the left looking in.

• Rather than making a list of notable people, I'd try to fit these three items into the "Human history" section in chronological order. These three items need sources, and more details about these people would probably be interesting.

• The "Human history" section has a large chronological gap between the end of the 18th century and the 1920s. Did nothing noteworthy happen in this region for 120 years?

• This is not a complete review or anything like a line-by-line critique. When you're done making changes, you might ask for a copyedit from an editor at WP:GOCE. I see small errors here and there as well as deviations from the Manual of Style; for example, I added a needed hyphen to the first sentence. For another example, the lead image in the infobox needs a caption.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Cross of Gold speech

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it for FA in due course. The Cross of Gold speech was long famous, though few really understand what it was all about. Hopefully I shed a little light on it.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this. Once ... long ago in a school far far away... I did a senior history paper on William Jennings Bryan. This was before I discovered that I really didn't like American history much, but I suspect I still remember bits and pieces. I'll get to work on this later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
• Lead:
  • Run on links: "Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan"
  • Portrait faces out from the page ... you know someone will whine.

I know. I'm still looking for good images from 1896 that are defensible copyright-wise. I've got a shot from outside the convention coming, and I plan to add two or three more.

• • Do we have an article on "presidential nomination" or the process ... for those who aren't familiar with American presidental elections?

United States presidential nominating convention it is only so-so and really deals with the modern beast. But it's the best we got.

• • Linkie for "monetary standard"?
  • Awkward: "upon which the United States had effectively been since 1873" can we reword ... perhaps "which the United States had effectively been on since 1873"?
  • Why is free silver in quotes?
• Monetary standards:
  • Double linkage " United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton"

• • Is there actually a MOS issue for back to back links, or is it a matter of preference? It is natural to refer to someone by their title, and if you have to separate it, it looks awkward.
    • Tony got on my butt once for stringing links together - I don't have the MOS memorized, but I know I've been told to not do it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style fifth bullet point. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • link for "mint"
  • Probably need a conversion for "ounce"
  • You say "new currency" but then later refer to the dollar. Perhaps it's best to specify that the dollar=new currency? Or continue to refer to this as the "currency" as later you actually define the "dollar"
  • why is the second mention of "dollar" in quotes?
  • Picky, but you haven't defined what the abbreviation "US" is for (and also - this is an American article - we generally use "U.S." with periods.
  • Double linkage" "Tennessee Senator (and future president) Andrew Johnson"
• Political events:
  • Again, why "free silver" in quotes?
  • Triple linkage: " Missouri Representative Richard P. Bland,"
  • Need to briefly explain "passed over the veto" as non-Americans might not understand it.
  • Linkie "treasury notes" also "recession"
  • Non-Americans will probably miss the context of "1896 campaign" - best explain.
  • "Farmers went bankrupt; their farms were sold towards their debts." sounds jargonish. Perhaps "Farmers went bankrupt; their farms were sold to pay their debts."
• Bryan prepares his rise:
  • Really dislike the title of this subsection - can we get it a bit less POVish?
  • "to end a strike against" strongly suggest "the strike" for two reasons - first linking "a+word" looks odd and two, using "the" makes it clearer that easter egg link is to ONE event rather than just to a general article on strikes. Would be even better if you dropped the easter eggishness and just did "to end the Pullman strike against..."
  • "Railway workers had joined the strike, which threatened to paralyze the nation's rail lines." okay - unless you know the details of the event, this isn't going to make any sense to folks - why did railway workers join the strike and/or why weren't they the ones that started teh strike (if the reader vaguely recalls that Pullman's are railway cars).
  • Linkie: "midterm elections"
  • Non Americans (as well a too many Americans who will have forgotten that the Senate was ever not popularly elected) will be confused by "The Republicans gained control of the House, as well as the Senate, which was then elected by state legislatures." Best explain.
  • Who is Stanley Jones and why do we care?

You mention this several times. Is it sufficient to add "historian"? I already mention his book.

"Historian" would be fine ... just something to give folks an idea of why his opinion is important. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • "...he believed the silver question could carry him not only to the nomination, but to the presidency." awkward, suggest rewording...
  • Best explain that the populist party was not a mainstream party at the time...
  • "You are young yet. Let Bland have the prize this time." need to explain who the heck Bland was and why he matters to Altgeld.
  • "Professor James A. Barnes, in his journal article pointing out myths..." two things - Who is Barnes and why do we care? and what journal - did he write in a historical journal or is the subject matter something else? Also - why "Professor" here? Didn't list title for the other guy - Jones.
• Selection of delegates:
  • "The 1896 Democratic National Convention followed events unique in post-Civil War American history. One after another, state conventions to elect delegates to the national convention in Chicago repudiated an incumbent president of their party..." this is ass-backwards - suggest stating the events that happend THEN the fact that they were unique. As it is, the first sentence is jarring.

Let me explain. The 1896 campaign was very unusual, even for its time, and I feel it best to focus the attention of the reader right off the bat. That gives the reader the context to understand, as he reads, that it, even then, was not usual for presidents to be renounced by their own party.

• • "According to Professor James A. Barnes.." We've already discussed Barnes above, no need for full name and title here.
  • "Cleveland issued a statement urging Democratic voters to support gold—the next convention, in Illinois, unanimously supported silver..." Do you mean the next convention after Cleveland's statement? Confusing as written.
  • Okay... "A few states, such as Bryan's Nebraska, sent rival gold and silver delegations to the convention." how could they send rival delegations? Surely only one can be selected? (as an American who's reasonably well read in our history - I know, but most other Americans and almost all non-American's will be totally confused by this statement.)
• 1896 convention:
  • Suggest you pare down some of this background as well as add a "main article" to this section - a lot of this is redundant to the actual speech. Detail is good, but some of this is overkill, especially with an article on the convention.

It is difficult. The speech has to be put in its context. Part of the reason the speech was so successful was that events kept breaking Bryan's way. I will look for stuff I can take out, but the world has changed so since 1896 (and we are so used to activist government and fiat money) that without the context, the speech has very little meaning. Also, look at 1896 Democratic National Convention! Perhaps I should work on that as well, but for now, it is in very poor shape.

• • Did Cleveland actually attend the convention? The reader will be a bit confused because of the mention of him doing more fishing than anything political.
  • "He arrived convinced that he would win the nomination. He had already begun work on a speech." Suggest "He arrived convinced that he would win the nomination and had already begun work on an acceptance speech." (or whatever sort of speech he'd begun work on)

Bryan did not know when he would make the speech. He got exactly what he wanted, but it could have wound up being the keynote speech if he had been temporary chairman, for example. It was customary at the time for candidates to make acceptance speeches some time after the convention; Bryan made his in New York some weeks later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Candidates:
  • As above, condense some of this down - as it is really peripheral to the actual speech.
• Bryan's path to the podium:
  • Again, the title of this subsection is POV - suggest "Pre-speech preparations" or something similar
  • Haven't defined "DNC"
  • "the pro-gold Democratic National Committee had seated the rival Nebraska delegation" - won't make any sense to non-Americans or those Americans who have forgotten all their High School American history.
  • "lame-duck committee"?
  • "The temporary chairmanship, for example, would have permitted him to deliver the keynote address." No idea what bearing this has on the "good luck" ... most folks would consider delivering the keynote address a good thing - nor is there any mention that Bryan was considered for the chairmanship - so the reader is left confused.
• Making the speech:
  • Suggest "Speech delivery" or something similar - "making the speech" seems a bit too informal for an encyclopedia.
  • Who is Richard F. Bensel and why do we care?
  • "The self-deprecation helped disarm the delegates." Opinion - who's?
• Convention events:
  • suggest explaining that the Washington Post is a newspaper - some won't know this.
• Campaign and aftermath:
  • "Bryan did gain the support of the Populists..." suggest "Bryan did gain the support of the Populist Party..." to make this clear to readers
  • "Although McKinley outpolled him by 600,000 votes, Bryan received more votes than any other presidential candidate had." err.. something is missing here - if McKinley outpolled him, Bryan couldn't have received more votes than any other presidential candidate - do you mean "any other losing presidential candidate"?
  • "After McKinley's inauguration, increases in gold availability from new discoveries and improved refining methods led to a considerable increase in the money supply." - these were partly in Alaska, right?

Yes, Alaska/Klondike, South Africa, Australia. Also, the new methods made older deposits worth reopening. Do you think I should mention the sources?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • "Although Bryan ran again on a silver platform in 1900, the issue..." suggest instead (to avoid the ugly easter egg link) "Although Bryan ran again on a silver platform in the Presidential election of 1900, the issue.."
• Legacy:
  • Who is William Hardine and why do we care about his opinion?
  • Same for Edgar Lee Masters (even though you've linked...)
  • Same for William Safire (even though you've linked)
  • "William Safire, in his political dictionary, traces the term, common in the Reagan era, "trickle-down economics" to Bryan's statement that some believe that government should legislate for the wealthy, and allow prosperity to "leak through" on those below." very convoluted - suggest rewording.
  • "Williams suggests" - do you mean Safire? or someone else? If someone else, who???
• File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg - when was this published or when did the copyright holder die?

I've clarified that it was published 10/3/96 per the L of C page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, I think. I've cut back on the context a bit but I feel that the world of 1896 is so unfamiliar to the reader that to be fair to him, I have to lead him by the hand a bit. I'm sure you run into the same problem with your bishops, how much to explain about arcane ecclesiastical matters. Especially since we have no decent articles about the Democratic side of the 1896 election (my Hanna and Hobart articles really only detail the Republican side). I may be motivated to do something about that though, I think there is a rich field unmined here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Hyderabad, India

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, before proceeding for the GA status I need the valuable advices from the wikipedians to make this article more accurate, and want the article to be nominated as GA. Thanks and Regards, Omer123hussain (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that some initiative has been taken. As the suggestions are put up, I'll start resolving them, one by one. Hope this wont take forever. X.One ^SOS 06:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• "and once Wall Street used to be referred as a Golconda (former name of Hyderabad)." Why is this in the lead? WP:UNDUE
• Add name of founder in lead
• "6,809,970 and further 7,749,334" in lead is a dated statement, needs a "as of Date".
• stick to one convention km or kilometres
• WP:OVERLINK: Delhi, Nizam of Hyderabad, Khilji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Charminar etc. are linked more than once in a para/section
• There are some dead links (use external links tool) and tags. Address them
• Questionable Reliability:
  • http://www.discoverasia.org/India/tips_visitinghyderabad.html
  • http://www.orissalinks.com/archives/1583
• Missing info for references:
  • Sastri (1955), p. 192: book name, author ???
  • A.Ranga Reddy (2003). The State of Rayalaseema (ref 32) page no?
  • Hydrology and water resources of India (ref 39) page no?
  • "GHMC inks sister city pact with Indianapolis". The Hindu. date??

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

At last, solid work! X.One ^SOS 15:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Wall Street used to be referred as a Golconda (former name of Hyderabad)." as I am not sure where to place it. Also, the sentence, "Hyderabad is located on the crossroads of North and South India" should be separated to the last line of the lead. X.One ^SOS 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, regarding the third concern, it has already been mentioned "As of 2011". X.One ^SOS 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Omer123hussain addressed it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And, the sentence "Most of the youth wear western clothing.", I removed the Discover Asia source, but will this one do? X.One ^SOS 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, would be original research to use it.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wp:OVERLINK fixed. X.One ^SOS 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look again next year. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for everything! X.One ^SOS 17:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Check that every ref has a title, author, publisher, date, isbn (if available)
  • ref 139
  • ref 145
• Osmania.ac.in, Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com etc. are not correct publishers, Osmania University, Times of India are the right choices to fill. Check All. Many Similar instances.
• "the world's number one airport" may chnage. Add "as of 2011" for this. Check for similar scenarios
  • "best airport in India" is according to 2010 data. Check 2011 data. Add "as of 2010" for now
  • "11,000 passengers a day to over 1.50 lakh passengers"
• Noticed a tag. Fix it

The article looks more or less fit to a GA. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed most of the issues. The cn tags need to be addressed and I could correct only 30-40 sources in the publishing parameter. The "Airport" issues, and the formatting of the books have been resolved. But is that it? I would personally state some more problems the article is facing. First, the history section is improperly organized and the data is haphazardly mixed in each subsection. It should talk about Ancient, Medieval and Modern history, rather than about the present titles. The "Education and research", "Media" and "Sports" look more like directories, rather than showing useful content. I'll try fixing these issues before going for a GA review, because I doubt if the reviewer would hold the review for long. Thanks for the help! X.One ^SOS 09:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Pakistan

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to look for areas of improvement as I would like it to reach FA status again. Me and TopGun recently reviewed it's former FA revision and think the current version is in better shape and welcome any suggestions for further improvements.

Thanks, September88 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by TopGun: The current revision of article is better than the former FA coverage wise. We also have new images and better prose. I just fixed links etc and reviewed for WP:MOS. A read with aim of correcting spellings to a single English would be a good idea. British English's variant Pakistani English should be used for all spellings. Any American English spellings should be corrected (unless they are used in Pakistani English). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Some suggestions to the structure to be reviewed:

• Health (under infrastructure),
• Law enforcement (under infrastructure or independent - what ever the trend is).
• Energy (under infrastructure - week support for this).

Obviously all will have very small summaries and links to main articles to keep the article concise. Should these be included? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

*Answered below by Finetooth in 5th part of his comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber: sorry, missed this - will add some ideas Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

When did the 'i' become defacto? 1940s? 1960s? ok, I take it was pretty much straightaway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Were there other name options?

link " gangetic plains"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

I've added a citation for the significance of letter 'i'. It was used before that, see -istan; so became the defacto language word. The acronym, as it can be seen in the explanation was double intended to represent the provinces as well as the word "Land of (the) pure", correct translation for which is "Pakistan". Hence defacto. There were no other name options, rather name came before (in 1933) the actual clearly aimed aspiration/conception of a separate country (in 1938) as a concept, so was readily accepted for the same. For "gangetic plains" do you mean wikilink? (added) --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

yes indeed. Now a tricky bit is going to be the Kashmir conflict - to try and write it so one could not guess the feelings of the writer. Maybe the best is stating each country's views. At the moment it reads mostly India's views. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit with adding Pakistani view. What do you think? September88 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Better, but is it possible to state in one sentence why India regards it as integral to India? Plus have placed the tags about to reference.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done.September88 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

Layout

The illustrations are generally fine, but the layout could be improved. Generally, it's best to avoid cramming too many images into a section. For example, "Early period" and "Medieval age" have three images; the two on the left make a kind of text sandwich with the one on the right, and File:TNMStandingBuddha.jpg overlaps the subsection boundary. My rule of thumb is to avoid text sandwiches and to keep illustrations entirely within the sections or subsections they refer to. To improve the layout in these two subsections, I'd consider merging them into one under the subhead "Early and medieval" and using only two of the three images. The third will still be available on the Commons for readers who want to see more images related to Pakistan.

Further down in the article File:Minar e Pakistan.jpg overlaps the section boundary between "Modern" and "Recent elections". It would be better to reposition the image to avoid overlapping the boundary.

In "Politics", five images is one too many, in my opinion. You can't make five fit there without creating a text sandwich. In the "Administrative divisions" section, for a cleaner layout I would eliminate the table, which repeats information already stated in the text.

"Tourism" has room for only two images, not four, if you wish to avoid a text sandwich.

"Demographics" looks cluttered to me. I would think of stacking the population table above the population density chart rather than placing them side by side. I'd change the two lists to straight prose paragraphs, and then I'd be able to see if there was enough room left for both of the other images or perhaps just one.

I'd turn the bulleted list in "Religion" into a prose paragraph. I'd think about slightly reducing the size of File:Rubab.jpg to make sure it didn't displace an edit button or overlap a section boundary. I see that it has an "upleft" parameter, which may be a mistake. If you change this to "upright", I think the image will be about the right size.

File:Miqbal4.jpg overlaps a section boundary and displaces an edit button. Maybe a smaller image size combined with a shorter caption would be sufficient to make the image fit.

"Cuisine" has a text sandwich.

"Sports" has room for two images, not three.

This is all I have time for at the moment, but I will add more comments in the coming days. Finetooth (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. September88 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done (something has to be done about population table yet). --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done September88 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 2:

Overlinking

• The article includes a lot of overlinking. One kind involves links from perfectly clear words or phrases to articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, "struggle for independence" is clear without a link. Likewise "four provinces and four federal territories" needs no explanation. The "second largest Muslin population" is perfectly clear, as is "170 million people". Even though the linked articles may in some way elaborate on the linked term, it's not a good idea to send readers away more often than necessary or to surprise them with non-intuitive links. They may link away and never come back.

• Common words like "geography", "wildlife", "military rule", "27th largest" need no clarification. I would not link things like this without some special reason.

• My rule of thumb for linking is to link uncommon or special terms no more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. Sometimes an exception will arise but not often. "Multan", for example, should not be linked twice in the "Early and Medieval" section, and "Sikh" should not be linked three times in the "British colony" section.

• I think an argument can be made for linking well-known countries like China and India once in the article. Since they are linked in the lead, I would not link them elsewhere. Most readers are familiar with both.

• Since "Pakistan People's Party" is linked and abbreviated PPP in the "Recent elections" section, I would use PPP on second use in the next section, "Politics", and I would not link it again.

• Individual years like "1963" in the "Kashmir conflict" section should not be linked. "Indus River" should not be linked twice in the "Geography" section. "Pakistan Railways" and "Islamabad" should not be linked twice each in the "Transport" section.

• The above sentences cite examples of overlinking, but it would be easy to identify many more. My advice is to comb through the complete article carefully and to remove all links that are misleading, non-intuitive, or redundant.

More to come. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Changes made. Linking in lead under discussion at talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 3:

• To achieve FA again, I believe the article will need a few more inline citations to reliable sources even though it already has 240. My rule of thumb is to add a source for every set of quantities or statistics, every claim that is apt to be questioned, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation. As a practical consequence, this means that every paragraph requires at least one source. Specifically, I'd look for places in the article that have entire paragraphs or large parts of paragraphs with claims not supported by a reliable source.

• Aside from the lead, which may not need inline citations since the summarized claims in the lead presumably appear in the main text and are sourced there, the first paragraph in the article that has incomplete sourcing is in the "British colony" section and begins "Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, espoused the Two Nation Theory... " The problem here is that the inline citation in this paragraph covers the direct quotation but not the remainder of the paragraph. Since the specific dates and claims in the rest of the paragraph are not common knowledge, they need support by one or more reliable sources. Other paragraphs in the article are parallel to this one; that is, they are partly sourced but end with claims that lack sources.

• In some cases, entire paragraphs lack sources and should have them. In the "Military" section, the third and sixth paragraphs are unsourced. Likewise, the first two paragraphs of the Geography section lack sources, and there are similar unsourced paragraphs further down in the article. It's tedious and time-consuming to find sources for claims that other editors may have added without including the sources, but there is no escape from the chore. If no source can be found for some of the claims, it is better to delete them or to modify them in a way supported by reliable sources.

• I think that only a small fraction of the article lacks reliable sources, but that fraction needs attention. One more example is this claim in the Cuisine section: "Among beverages lassi is a traditional drink in the Punjab region. Black tea with milk and sugar is popular throughout Pakistan and is taken daily by most of the population." I personally have no doubt that this is true; however, the claims are non-obvious, and I would try to find support for them.

More to come. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Geography section, Two-Nation theory, military, and some from history sourced. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done September88 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments by Chipmunkdavis

In regards to Finetooths note that more sources are needed even though there are so many, I suggest you cut down the total article size. There are 33 sections in the TOC, and a total text size of 54kB. While not beyond the maximum MOS limits, it is still quite long. A country article with a whole section on "Recent elections" is crying out recentism. The Climate and Language subsections are very short, and per WP:BODY "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." My rule of thumb is that if a section either can't reach a decent two paragraphs or doesn't deserve that length of prose, it should be merged with the larger section. As a last quick note, I'd do something drastic with the Tourism section. It reads very advertisment like, quite WP:PEACOCKy. It's also weird that it's not included as part of Economy. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend making the language section a bit longer in that case; also refer to my comment on top. I've renamed the "Recent elections" section. The content was not really recent but of last decade. I'll check the tourism section though I think keeping it separate from economy seems a bit better. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comments Chipmunkdavis. TopGun making languages section longer will just increase article size which is already reaching towards maximum. I agree that its better to just merge the smaller sections. September88 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By merge, do you mean sending it to further subsections or to merge the text? I think all country articles are long or even longer... that won't matter as far as we stay with in the max limit. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia lost its GA status due to excessive length, Germany's length was reduced in a recent FAR (although it has since gone back up). See Indonesia for a well written and maintained but short FA. An FA doesn't have to be that short, but with great length comes great boredom. Give an overview, don't drown in detail (That's what main article links are for). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was comparing it to India which is an FA but quite lengthy. And all other country articles seem to be long. Let's see how much we can shorten it. I suggest removal of redundant text first and then see if it can be further shortened. You are right, we should use main article template where possible to reduce text. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean remove the subsections and merge the text. September88 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That won't be a good idea - see the next few sections which are not much longer than "Languages". Infact as per second comment by Chipmunkdavis it means that the short length of this section amounts to the same and is linked with the main article. On a second thought, how about merging it with main demographics or ethnic groups? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics it is. Doing the merge. September88 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think that answers your question above, so tag can be removed. September88 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually not fully. There's no info on health or energy as far as I can see even in merged form. And I've seen health as a separate section of infrastructure. I've asked Finetooth to comment on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Tourism section has been removed and details have been fixed. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 4:

Etymology

• The Manual of Style advises against linking anything from within a direct quotation since the links were not part of the original. Thus the links in the following quotation should be removed: "thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN—by which we mean the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan".

References

• When I click on citation 27, I get a "site is currently unavailable" error message. For promotion to FA, the article's citation links will all need to be working. In addition, be sure that all of your sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. "Currentsocial.com" looks doubtful to me, though I can't be sure without looking at it closely, which I can't do because of the error message.

• At least some of the citations to books are missing some of the required data, and the data has been entered in the wrong fields. I fixed one of these, citation 23, to show you what they should look like. A handy template listing all of the possible parameters lives here. You'll never need to use most of the possible parameters, but the parameters for the author's (or multiple authors') last and first names, date of publication, place of publication, isbn, and page (for a single page) and pages (for multiple pages) are essential. Furthermore, I would list the original publisher rather than Google Books as the publisher.

• I use Google Books as a handy look-up tool, but I try not to rely on it as a source. Google Books are often incomplete, and clicking through to them may return an error message saying that the maximum number of free views has been exceeded, or words to that effect. If a Google Book is essential to whatever I'm working on, I try to somehow obtain a hard copy through a library or elsewhere so that I can cite the original rather than the Google partial reprint. Then I can consider the link to the Google version as a courtesy link for readers rather than my reliable source for the information. I'm not sure how Google Book links are being regarded these days at FAC since I try to avoid the problem by finding the original or another reliable source. It doesn't hurt to look in on FAC from time to time to see what is happening to other articles. You can view the ongoing proceedings at WP:FAC. If you do this, you will see that an editor there carefully checks every citation in every nominated article, and I believe that no citations with missing data or incorrect formatting slip through. It's very difficult to get all of them exactly right, but it's a good idea to aim for perfection in this area before nominating.

• What makes Pak Tea House a reliable source? Blogs generally don't qualify as reliable per WP:RS because they publish individual opinions not subject to fact-checking by an editorial board. Make sure that all of your citations meet the reliable source guidelines.

• Citation 225 is incomplete, and the link does not seem to work. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, url, publication date, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. Most of the dates use a format like 10 February 2008, which is fine, but a few are like 2010-09-19. Those should be changed so that all the dates are in the same format.

More to come. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done September88 (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 5:

• I'm finding your questions about structure more difficult to answer than questions about other aspects of the article. My own articles have tended to focus on much more narrow topics than the gigantic topic of a whole country. Looking at Indonesia, Australia, Japan, and India, all featured, I see that there's no exact formula for structuring FAs about nations, though these four are similar in many ways. You want readers to be able to find information in a place where they might expect it, so it wouldn't make sense to put "Health" in the "Sports" subsection, for example, but it might reasonably fit in more than one of the other sections or subsections. Since you already discuss mortality rates and life expectancy in the third paragraph of the "Demographics" section, I would suggest adding anything new about health to that paragraph rather than creating a separate section or subsection.

• It would not be amiss to add something about energy, but rather than creating a separate section or subsection, I'd think about adding a paragraph to "Science and technology".

• If you decide to add something about law enforcement, my suggestion would be to try to add it to the "Administrative divisions" subsection. It could be something general that explains who is in charge of national, state, and local kinds of law enforcement. This could be blended with a brief overview of the court system of Pakistan, about which I think you need to add a paragraph or so to meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive.

• To reduce the number of short subsections, I'd probably change "Geography" to "Geography and climate" and merge the short "Climate" subsection with the material above it by making it simply a fourth paragraph.

• To further reduce the number of short subsections, I'd try eliminating the separate subsections for "Ethnic groups" and "Religion", leaving them where they are but simply as separate paragraphs of the "Demographics" section. The "main articles" list at the top could accommodate all four links rather than just two.

• Just to clarify, the structure requirements are not set in stone. When in doubt, use your best judgment and be prepared to defend it at FAC.

• On an unrelated minor issue, academic titles like "Dr." or "Ph.D." are generally avoided in Wikipedia articles. Thus "Dr. Salimuzzaman Siddiqui was the first Pakistani scientist... " should be altered to say "Salimuzzaman Siddiqui was the first Pakistani scientist... ". If it's important, you can always add a brief description right after the name; i.e., "Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, brief description, was the first Pakistani scientist... ". I see a few instances of academic titles in the article.

• Captions that consist solely of a sentence fragment do not take terminal periods. I fixed one of these, but there are a few others.

More to come. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the structure issue. Will be working on that shortly. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments, part 6 (and last):

Image licenses

• All of the image licenses will be checked at FAC to make sure they are complete and correct and that the images do not violate copyright law. Sorting the license questions out is often not easy, especially since the main contributors to an article may not be the photographers or image uploaders. It can't be assumed that everything appearing at the Commons has been licensed correctly or is actually following copyright law. In some cases, it may be possible to track down and fill in missing data by checking the source link or asking the uploader or finding the data elsewhere in the metadata at the bottom of the license page.

• File:TNMStandingBuddha.jpg has an incomplete summary section. I would suggest fleshing out the summary with the date the photo was taken and by whom to make it as easy as possible for fact checkers. File:Working Committee.jpg has a more complete model you could imitate. As you can see, it has five items in the Summary section of the license: Description, Date, Source, Author, Permission. In the case of the standing Buddha, the source can be listed as "Own photo"; the date can be cloned from the metadata; the author is World Imaging, and the permission line can say "See below" since World Imaging has released the photo without restriction (except that the law be followed) into the public domain.

• Alas, the standing Buddha may also be incorrectly licensed. I'm not sure. The image is of a three-dimensional work of art, and different countries have different copyright laws about such images. To determine whether this image is correctly licensed and should be on the Commons at all requires checking Japanese copyright law. Having run into "Freedom of Panorama" problems with some of my own images, I checked commons:COM:FOP to see what the case might be in Japan regarding images of statues. The first sentence explaining the situation in Japan says, "Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons." The uploader of the image might have no idea that a restriction of this sort might apply and that a public-domain license for a photograph of this statue might violate Japanese law. However, I am no expert on copyright law, and you might need to direct specific copyright questions to the Commons Help Desk at commons:COM:HD.

• I don't have time (or the expertise, really) to check all of your image licenses, but you should try to make all of the licenses as complete as possible and should try to make sure that the uploaders' licenses are appropriate.

• The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds one dead link, one probably dead link, and several connection timeouts that might or might not be transient.

• On the positive side, the prose flows nicely in this article, and the article seems to cover the topic comprehensively or nearly so. The dab-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds no dabs.

• I ran a script to change the hyphens in date ranges and page ranges to en dashes per the Manual of Style. You can fix these by hand as you go along, or I'd be happy to run the script again any time.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to give this helpful review Finetooth. We'll be working on the suggestions and hopefully will meet our goal by making the article FA. September88 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done All checked and compiled a list on talk page. No non-free images found and all images have license tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis 2

A very quick skim pointing out problems (I use the term lightly!) I found.

• I spy a few Issues with the lead which need to be fixed before this article goes anywhere. Finetooth has already commented that the lead shouldn't need citations, as everything in the lead should be in the article. I've often found that something being cited in the lead is a good indication it's not in the article. At the moment, citation 8 notes the maritime border with Oman. Oman isn't mentioned again in the article (and neither is the Gulf of Oman). The second citation in the lead is about Pakistans strategic location. If this is so important, I'd expect to read something about it in the article. The third source is for "Initially a dominion, with the adoption of its constitution in 1956 Pakistan became an Islamic republic", which besides being nowhere in the article, isn't that informative: Islamic republic is just a name (speaking of, it may be worth unlinking it in the bold title at the start. Also, instead of "its constitution", "a new constitution" would make more sense), what Pakistan became was a parliamentary republic. Make sure everything in the lead is in the article, and if it is, you probably don't need sources for it.
• I'd remove the Pakistan declaration and resolution from the infobox. Although significant parts of the road to partition, I don't think either is a significant state-defining event.
• History of India would be a much better See Also in the History section than History of South Asia, which seems to be basically a disambiguation page. In addition, what makes the 21st century such an important part of the modern era that it needs its own tiny section?
• I can't click the clickable administrative territories map. I also question the inclusion of Chinese areas of Kashmir on it, as Pakistan has officially forgone them has it not?
• Try not to use terms like currently or presently or similar, the article is meant to be written for the present. "From 2001 to present, Pakistan Armed Forces..." --> "From 2001, Pakistan's Armed Forces" (and fix the grammar of that whole sentence). "India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and as of 2009, administers approximately..." --> "India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and administers approximately...".
• Concise image captions are better. "A scenic view of hilly terrains in Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" --> "Hilly terrain in Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". "A view of the skyline in Karachi's financial district" --> "Karachi's financial district".
• I'd recommend going over the article again in regards to concision. It's not too long for me, but do I have to know that, for example, W. J. M. Turowicz was Polish-Pakistani? Is he so important he needs a mention? Seems WP:UNDUE. Keep the reader interested, assume they're not looking for specific details on every topic (or they'd be at that topics page).
• Last paragraph in Demographics. What are those five sources sourcing?
• Watch out for short paragraphs, I see a few two liners scattered throughout the article.

The article is definitely in a good shape compared to many country articles, keep up the good work. The examples I've used above are just examples, not complete lists. Remember, no matter how good you make it, it will probably be hammered in FAC :) I'd say however you're definitely at GA level already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Good to know its going somewhere! September88 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

About the ceded part of Kashmir to China, although, it now belongs to China but there's still a provision for it to be reconsidered equally with the rest of Kashmir if there's a solution to the dispute with India. So this is not really an issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

---

2011 Syrian uprising

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some feedback for how I can further improve this page. Obviously it's going to change dramatically over the next several months, and I want to help update it as it progresses. But what can I do at this time to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the uprising?

Thanks, Master&Expert (Talk) 21:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this important article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples - some of the FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Warfare should be useful models
• One circular redirect here
• Lots of dead external links here - note that if the source is also available in print (like the Wall Street Journal) then the ref is still OK even though the link is dead
• I would also make sure that all of the references used meet WP:RS - news outlets are generally reliable sources
• There are places that need refs - for example at the end of the History section According to The New York Times, the Syrian government has relied "almost exclusively" on Alawite-dominated units of the security services to fight the uprising. His younger brother Maher al-Assad commands the army's Fourth Armored Division, and his brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, is deputy chief of staff of the army. has a short direct quote without a ref.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Make sure refs give enough information to allow someone else to check them. 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
• I would just make Socio-economics and Human rights their own sections (not subsections of Socio-economics and civil rights)
• Since there is a hatnote to it, I do think there needs to be a subheader "Timeline" with no other content
• The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which make for choppy prose and break up the narrative flow. Wherever possible these should be combined with others, or perhapos expanded - see for example the Protests and armed clashes section
• Syrian opposition section has no refs either
• N.O.H.R.S. needs to be explained / spelled out
• The further down the article I read, the more disjointed the narrative became. The Background section is well written and coherent, the rest of the article feels more like something added to haphazardly over months
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing
• Per WP:See also, links already used in the article are generally not included in See also
• This map is from 1976 File:Syria Political Governorates Map 1976.jpg so I am not sure the caption Protests and military sieges occur across Syria. is accurate (since the map dshows no protests or sieges)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort, I appreciate it. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help - another thing to watch out for is needless repetition. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Grey's Anatomy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and even though it is far from featured article, I want to make that happen. In order to do this, I need to know what this article needs to make it to FA status. I think the 'series overview' section needs work but I would like specific details on what this article needs.

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51

Thank you for your effort on this. Alas, I'm not the biggest fan of Grey's Anatomy—in fact I haven't even watched it properly since the Season three finale but this is a generally well written piece. The page ratings support that, it must be viewed by thousands every month (one would guess) so logically this has the potential to be a FA. Here are some suggestions and ideas:

• For inspiration, take a look at other WP:FAC's related to your topic. There aren't much TV show articles with a 'FA' status; House (TV series) featured on the Wikipedia home page last May so that would be a start. Or even check out The Simpsons, in spite of it being an animated sitcom. Firefly is another one.
• I am not entirely convinced about WP:LEAD. Ask yourself this: when reading it, does it provide a summary of the show?
• "A spin-off show, titled Private Practice, revolving around character Addison Montgomery...", what is that doing in the second paragraph of the lead? It's like someone reading about Friends and halfway down a few sentences start learning about Joey when they don't even know about the original Friends characters or whether the show was a success (OK, maybe they could have guessed that because of the spin-off but you do understand where I'm trying to get at?). Surely any mention of a spinoff programme should be in the final paragraph, or third in this case where it discusses the success of the show.
• Is there any summary about the show's main characters and general themes in the lead? You don't have to go into too much detail, brief would be fine.
• "Regarding the eighth season, Dempsey stated that...", would that quote be justifiable in the lead? Because this is an ever changing subject (will Dempsey leave/stay on?), maybe it would be best to leave that somewhere else for now.
• Good to see that there aren't any Dablinks. However, there are two dead links which unfortunately passed away on the 3 January. Consider replacing them.
• "The title Grey's Anatomy was devised as a play on...", It would be nice if you have a ref to back this up. Maybe you could mention this in the lead and blend it with the character Meredith Grey. That way you have answered one of my earlier points.
• Casting? How did Patrick Dempsey get his role for instance?
• Ideally there should be more background information under 'Production'. How was the programme concepted? Origin? Did the producers budge other networks before ABC? Who did the creator originally intend the target audience to be set at? There should be articles available, an interview even of Shonda Rhimes before the show launched in 2005. Researching this might be the difficult part.
• "Mark Kimson of The Guardian has credited Grey's Anatomy with popularizing the "songtage", or musical montage segments.", consider a Cultural impact section perhaps? That paragraph alone would be good as a standalone, of course you may want to beef up the production bit before doing so.
• Anything on Distribution? Where is the programme shown in the United Kingdom, Australia for instance? How many countries does the programme reach out to?
• For TV seasons, use the en dash ( – )
• Putting headers of all seasons in the series overview seems the lazy way out. One way could be explaining what the ordinary viewer can expect in any episode – like House does. Alternatively you could do something like Friends by stating the goings-on in each season. However you may need to develop story arcs and themes better.

I will post any more suggestions if I have any in the coming days. – Lemonade51 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Periodic table

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to at least GA (preferably FA) in the next month or so, but it is currently, to be honest, terrible, and needs major work.

Thanks, StringTheory¹¹ 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• One dab link that will need to be fixed here

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 03:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• One dead link here

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 04:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this important article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Chemistry_and_mineralogy which may be useful as models - perhaps Noble gas would be a useful model as it is about several elements?
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says it should be no more than 4 paragraphs long (it is now 6).
  •  Done FREYWA 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• 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 geology, biology, medicine, and astronomy are only mentioned in the lead, and some very specific details like For example: "eka-aluminium", expected to have properties intermediate between aluminium and indium, was discovered with said properties in 1875 and named gallium. are not repeated in the body of the article.
  •  Done FREYWA 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but "Blocks" are not mentioned in the lead explicitly that I can see

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• The lead should give general information and the body of the article should give the specific details
• Avoid needless repetition - for example in the lead too much detail / repetion is given to technetium, promethium and neptunium
• In general watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - plutonium is linked twice in the lead and Meyer twice in History, for example.

 Done; I prefer to keep links in the lead and in the body once, but repeats in the body have been removed. StringTheory¹¹ 18:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Links should appear on first use - see electronegativity, for example (link is second use)
• Biggest problem this would face at FAC or GAN is a lack of references - for example the Organization section seems to have zero refs, and the Alternatives lacks refs in many places
• 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

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would start with History as many of the concepts could be introduced more easily / simply that way

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would go into more detail in History - for example give specifics of one of Mendeleev's predictions (take it from the lead) or more details on Moseley and the development of atomic number would help.
• I would use the Te and I example as a better example for not following atomic mass - again more details on how I fits better with the halogens would help.

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is a lot on isotopes in the last paragraph of Periodic table, which seems to be too much detail for this article - focus on the Periodic table wherever possible

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:HEAD says not to repeat the name of the article as a section header if at all possible

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Are there reliable sources saying the form of the Periodic table shown is the most common one?
• Perhaps show thumbnails of some of the other forms of the periodic table - extended and wide

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• The alternatives are mostly about tweaks to the standard form (stair step line, hyperlinks, where to put La or H) and mostly ignores things like File:Elementspiral.svg

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 00:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Periodic table#Points on history missing has many potentially useful comments. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs comments (subsection needed only for editing purposes, you may remove the title once I'm done (I'll specify))

Doing--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• History comments

For now, I suggest splitting History section into three subsections: Attempts to systematize elements, Reasons for Mendeleev's success, and Further development (titles are of your choice, it's important for you to get the idea). One by one, what is missing and important

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Attempts to systematize elements
    • Lavoisier also redefined the term "element" and added light to the list of elements.
    • Döbereiner experienced problems with P, As, Sb, and Bi. Having limited himself to triads, he didn't make it to the fact they were all similar.

• • Reasons for Mendeleev's success
    • Beryllium was mostly considered trivalent before Mendeleev's work (see here, for example)
    • He also changed a few atomic masses: U from 60 to 240, Be from 13.5 to 9, so on. (There are more, but this is clearly enough)

• • Further development
    • Noble gases discovery
    • Stone's idea from the talkpage: "The lanthanides or rare earth elements and the expansion of the periodic table, with an unkown number of elements. There the final fixture of the table by the measurments of Henry Moseley could be helpful."
    • 7th period research up to 1950: first Th, Pa, and U "were" analogs of Hf, Ta, and W. Then U, Np, and Pu "started" the uranide series of +6 elements, all in the same cell under tungsten. In 1944, Seaborg came up with the idea of "actinides" (watch this); this was first opposed (invention of curide series (check this. Just a snippet, but it gives enough impression). Also, Russian wiki says the name for the term was invented in 1937 by Victor Moritz Goldschmidt and even gives a ref:

**Uncertainties after element 118.. really 118? 112 and 114 were also very surprising originally, thought to be gases. (Also, 119 and 120 may form +3 and +4 oxidation states, respectively... In case you're interested)

 Doing... StringTheory¹¹ 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book; does it include the info on 112 and 114, or just on 119 and 120? StringTheory¹¹ 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref 15: Adloff, Jean-Pierre (25 September 2005). "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". The Chemical Educator.

 Done by another editor. StringTheory¹¹ 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back with more. It's unlikely that I'll get you sources before it's the 11th, but anyway specify the exact sources you need.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags to where I need refs. StringTheory¹¹ 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Fandi Ahmad

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a legendary Singaporean footballer! Could you start 2012 by pointing out any and all issues that would prevent this article from attaining GA status, thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just a few things - it needs an infobox ({{Infobox football biography}}), and if online references can be found then that'd be great - in its current state it is hard to verify. Also no date of birth? GiantSnowman 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief review (and feel free to do a more thorough onre). Would there be any potential BLP issues from including his date of birth? Referenced information on Singaporean topics, even a national icon like Fandi, is scarce, so an infobox would have large gaps in statistics, hence my decision to write all my GAs with a minimalist approach. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Voetbal International link I added to the page includes a DOB, so that can be used to reference it. I will add an infobox now, and show you that we can still include one with minimal information. GiantSnowman 17:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed How reliable a source is Voetbal International? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond football should probably be called Personal Life, also pictures would be good and you should split club career into smaller sections (i.e. by each club) to make it easier to read. Adam4267 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering, clarification needed The Beyond Football section mentions endorsing products, releasing an album and support of good causes. Should these be considered "personal"? The current paragraphing makes dividing the Club career section quite difficult; for example, should OFI Crete have its own subsection, considering he never actually played for them? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

I have never edited nor written a soccer biography, but I can help out with some things before you take this to good article nominations.

• "At Serangoon Gardens Secondary School, he played for the school football team, but neglected his studies and was retained, so he transferred to the Singapore Vocational Institute, where he obtained a National Trade Certificate 3." - The word "so" is a bit awkward to use here, but it could be just because the sentence is so long. This is what I would write it as "He played for the Serangoon Gardens Secondary School football team, but neglected his studies and was retained, thus transferring to the Singapore Vocational Institute and obtaining a National Trade Certificate 3."

Done Would the use of the present continuous tense be confusing to non-native speakers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think so. It reads clear and less repetitive. Splitting the sentence could be considered, but would be choppy. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion How about "thus he transferred to the Singapore Vocational Institute and obtained a National Trade Certificate 3"? Still short, but clearer, without use of present continuous tense. If you do not reply, I will stick to your suggested wording though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. You can do that. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Changed to clearer wording, for sake of non-native speakers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• "to allow him to concentrate on football and continue playing for Singapore FA" - "allow him to" is redundant.

Done, clarification needed How about "to let him" instead? "He...was given light duties...to concentrate on football..." may be less redundant, but would it be confusing to non-native speakers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "to let him" would be clearer and better. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done again Clarity and accessibility to non-native speakers is an important consideration, as many Singaporean readers may be more fluent in Chinese or Malay than English. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The following year, Singapore FA did not play in the Malaysia Cup for political reasons, while Fandi had to undergo a shoulder operation that sidelined him for six weeks, leading to an early discharge from National Service." - The word "while" is used to show contrast or events happening at the same time. This falls into neither category. "And" is best here.

Done Thanks for catching that! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Selangor FA invited Fandi to play for them in a friendly against Argentine club Boca Juniors, in which he scored the only goal for Selangor FA as they lost 1–2."
  • I do not think your typical disinterested reader (like me) will know what a "friendly" is. Do you mean "friendly game"?

Done Yes, I meant "friendly game". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• • "In which" is incorrectly referring to "Boca Juniors", not "a friendly" as you want the relative pronoun to. I think some re-arranging needs to be done. Maybe "Selangor FA invited Fandi to play for them against Argentine club Boca Juniors in a friendly, in which he scored the only goal for Selangor FA as they lost 1–2."

Done Thanks, I learnt something new today! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "On April Fools' Day 1984, The Straits Times published a front-page story claiming that Manchester United had signed Fandi." - Some clarification is needed here. Was this story a hoax? If not, then why is the fact that it was on Fools' Day notable? It would be best to say "1 April 1984".

Done, please check Yes, the story was a hoax. Clarified that. Could you check whether my clarification is grammatically correct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "After helping Kuala Lumpur FA win a third consecutive Malaysia Cup, Fandi signed a two-year contract with Greek club OFI Crete in 1990" - Instead of "Fandi", I think "he" would work better here for flow.

Done I certainly want the sentences to flow better. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "scoring 52 goals and earning himself a place in the Asian Football Confederation Hall of Fame"

Done Redundancy removed. (Was going to write "redundant word removed" but realised the word "word" would be redundant.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "only to be substituted in the semi-final match, after Indonesian fullback Herry Setyawan elbowed him in the eye" - remove comma after "match" to avoid confusing "only to be substituted in the semi-final match" as a parenthetical clause.

Done Could you tell me more about parenthetical clauses? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical clauses, like this one, are descriptive details in the middle of sentences that can be surrounded by dashes, brackets, or commas. So "Parenthetica clauses—like this one—..." or "Parenthetical clauses (like this one)..." work too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Fandi is a devout Muslim,[2] who avoids scandals, does not smoke or drink" - I think the comma after "Muslim" is best removed here so that the sentence is not taken as generally all Muslims avoid scandals, do not smoke nor drink. You are referring to Fandi in specific.

Clarification needed The Manual of Style states that citation numbers should only be placed after punctuation, hence the comma. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will this work for you? Feel free to modify or revert. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Excellent! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can this article be illustrated with free images, if there are any?

Considering Free images of living people are much harder to obtain in Singapore. For starters, Singaporeans generally respect the private lives of celebrities, so there is hardly any paparazzi here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. GA reviewers should not ask for images if they are not available. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sources look good. I think italicization needs to be checked. Newspaper names and book titles are generally in italics, but if this is the format you have been using without problem, then fine.

Noted Will change if anyone else asks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to have a look at this interesting article. I didn't do a thorough read, but hopefully GAN is easy for you. I do not have this watchlisted, so ping me at my talk page for queries. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found the article interesting; if so, would you like to have another, more thorough, read? Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I may, in due time. No problem! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I do hope the GAN is a breeze and also hope reading this inspires you to counter systemic bias by contributing to articles in poorly covered topics and regions! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, but also a difficult task to do. I may consider some projects, but there isn't much in my area of interest. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• Fandi is widely considered a national legend. - Given that there's nothing in the body of the article to expand on this, it is an example of weasel words. The lead of Real Madrid does not say "Real Madrid are widely considered one of the best football clubs in the world", it simply lists their achievements, which does a far more effective job than a sweeping subjective statement. The same should apply here.

Clarification needed In Singapore, there is no serious dispute on his status as a legend. Most of the sources describe him with terms such as "Singapore's favourite footballing son". I did try to explain why he is considered a legend, but perhaps a footnote on how sources describe him may help? Feel free to suggest better ways to put his achievements and status as a legend in context, with or without using the word "legend" itself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is usually the way to go e.g. Name of respected Singaporean publication describes him as "Singapore's favourite footballing son". Remember that per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lead should also be included in the body. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, please check Added a sentence quoting several phrases used to describe him in reliable sources. Is the International career section a good location for the sentence? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spell out acronyms on first usage e.g. SEA Games

Done for SEA Games and SAFFC, please check for other acronyms. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• he chose to sign a one-year contract with Niac Mitra instead, a decision he later regretted. - any indication as to why? A quote would be useful. When reading the article Galatama for context, it states that Fandi left because the league banned foreign players. Is there any information available about this?

Done, please check Removed "a decision he later regretted" as difficult to elaborate on. Added mention that the Galatama League banned foreign players, since The Fandi Ahmad Story does mention that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Three days later, he played in the first leg of an UEFA Cup second-round match against Internazionale of Italy, scoring the second goal in a 2–0 upset win. - a bit misleading. Looking up the UEFA Cup results for that season, Inter won the second leg 5–1 to progress comfortably.

Done Added mention of second leg result. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in how football clubs are referred to, such as whether F.C. type suffixes are included.

Done Such suffixes are included only when their omission would be misleading. Hence for Malaysia Cup teams, which are representative sides of state football associations and not clubs, the FA is always included. In Singaporean newspapers, Singapore Armed Forces FC is always abbreviated as SAFFC or SAF FC, never SAF (since the SAF is a military force, not a football club). Do you think that this arrangement is fine or that suffixes should always be included if the omission of some would be misleading? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Many football biographies have a section summarising honours won. See Gilberto Silva (a featured article), for example.

Clarification needed To what extent is such a section (or an infobox) required for GA status? I am reluctant to include such a section, that would probably be incomplete, inaccurate and inadequately sourced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it no dealbreaker, just something that's nice to have. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done but thanks for the suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Was the match mentioned at the end of the Club career section the only time Fandi played in the Asian Club Championship?

Clarification None of the sources mention him playing in any other Asian Club Championship games, but none stated that was his only game in the Asian Club Championship. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fandi then joined Pahang FA, where he reverted to playing mainly in midfield due to his advancing age. - This seems odd. If I'm reading it correctly, this would be in 1990, when he would only have been 28.

Clarification Per the date of the source and the last sentence of the paragraph, this was in 1992, when he was 30. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• That year, he also became the first Singaporean millionaire sportsperson. - does this mean a millionaire in Singapore dollars? What is this equivalent to in one of the major reserve currencies?

Clarification Yes, a millionaire in Singapore dollars, in 1994. A comparison with a major reserve currency would not be meaningful due to inflation and exchange rate changes from 1994 to 2012. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• In 1996, the inaugural season of the S.League saw Fandi captain Geylang United... - could do with a sentence before this explaining that the S. League was a new top level competition for football in Singapore.

Doing Thinking how to explain this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, please check the sentence for language errors. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• This completed the hattrick of silver medals, though his failure to help Singapore attain a SEA Games gold medal remains one of his biggest regrets - This could do with a direct quote.

Doing Looking through the sources to find a suitable quote. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Directly quoted the source instead of paraphrasing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Was Fandi in the Singapore squad for the 1984 Asian Cup? To put his international achievements into context, it'd be worth mentioning that Singapore have never qualified for the World Cup, and that their only Asian Cup qualification was as hosts.

Clarification According to RSSSF, he did not play in the 1984 Asian Cup. None of the sources explain his omission. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• His number of caps needs clarifying. Fandi does not appear on FIFA's list of players with more than 100 caps, so some of them must not have been A-category internationals.

Clarification needed The FIFA Century Club also omits other players who had accumulated over 100 caps for the Singapore national team in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Malek Awab. One source suggests that FIFA rejected FAS records from that period as inadequate. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a footnote, explaining that this is the FAS figure, and that there is a discrepancy between FAS and FIFA figures. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, please check as this is my first time adding footnotes (despite having written 8 GAs) and I am not sure whether I have done so correctly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• the eldest two are potential professional footballers who impressed at trials at Arsenal, English club Chelsea F.C. and Italian side AC Milan. If they impressed, they would have been offered contracts. Better wording would be the eldest two are youth footballers who have had trials at Arsenal and Chelsea in England and AC Milan in Italy. - "potential professional" isn't that meaningful as it could apply to anyone who aspires to do something for a living.

Partially done, clarification needed Changed "potential professional footballers" to "youth footballers", but unsure on the use of "have had". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hope you enjoyed reading the article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I often tend to make silly mistakes when writing. I'd especially like comnets on language, readability and clarity.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely right up my alley - I'll look at this tonight or tomorrow - doesn't everyone spend their New Year's Eve peer reviewing articles on Wikipedia? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If not, they haven't really lived. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
• Lead:
  • Linkie to "earl"?
  • Looks odd to list the title for Gilbert de Clare (7th earl) but no title at all for Edward I - suggest explaining that Edward I was king of England (pesky little detail ...)
  • What "northern border"? Context for the non-specialist
  • Again - who is Edward II??
  • avoid linking things next to each other, such as with "king's favourite Piers Gaveston in 1311"
  • Second paragraph of lead seems more about Despenser than about Clare...
  • The lead is disportionate on the aftermath after he died - most of the article is about his life, but about a third of the lead deals with events after his death - needs rebalancing.
• Family background:
  • I believe we use double quotes for things like nicknames - thus "...known as Gilbert "the Red"..."
  • Again - need title or explanation of who "Edward I" is.
• Early service:
  • Probably need a bit more context on the Scottish Wars here - why is Robert the Bruce involved, what are the English doing fighting in Scotland, etc.
  • "He had no personal interest in the region, but the Welsh Marches, where his landed interest lay, were largely pacified at the time, and Scotland presented a good opportunity to pursue military glory and reward." Runon sentence, suggest reworking.
  • In the second paragraph, you suddenly shift to calling Gilbert "Gloucester" here without any explanation to the reader - suggest keeping with Gilbert - that's the general trend on our encyclopedia - we don't follow the historian convention of using the highest title. Keeping to one name used is part of the MOS, somewhere...
  • "After this, he seems to have been reconciled with the king, and in 1309 he acted as a mediator when the earls agreed to Gaveston's return." - Who seems? The last person mentioned was Gaveston...
  • Linkie - Lords Ordainer - there's an article somewhere...
• Escalation:
  • "In spite of his participation in the baronial reform movement..." uh, huh? What baronial reform movement? Do you mean the opposition to Gaveston? (I actually know this is the case, but most readers won't have the background knowledge to know this)
  • "The earls divided the country into different parts for defence..." which earls? The preceding sentence mentions "baronial opposition" - nothing about earls...
  • The discussion of Gaveston's death is very confused ... especially so to a non-expert in the area. I know the background enough to be able to figure it out, but it's got some context missing here - why if Warwick captured Gaveston, did Valence have custody - and then why was Valence concerned for Gaveston's safety enough to appeal to Gloucester? Very confusing to someone not knowledgable about the time period.
  • "There were still a number of great lords in the king's company, including Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Pembroke and Gloucester." The way this is phrased it implies that Bohun was earl of Hereford, Pembroke AND Gloucester - suggest rewording.
  • Any idea of the size of Edward's army? Might fit good in between these sentences: "These men were valuable to the king for their ability to raise large numbers of troops from their dominions in the Welsh Marches.[31] On 23 June 1314, the royal army had passed Falkirk and was within a few miles of Stirling."
• Death:
  • "According to the Vita Edwardi, when Edward grew angry and accused Gloucester of treason.." what's the Vita? context. Ah, I see you give some in the next paragraph... needs to be at the first mention of the Vita.
• Dispersal:
  • Was this really the end of the Clare family? Weren't there side branches?
• Sources - I don't see Barbour, Grey, or Stevenson used as sources in the article - they shouldn't be listed as sources. Also, you list the Childs as Vita Edwardi in the references - but under Childs in the sources - this makes it more difficult for the reader to find the source.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

List of feuds in the United States

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get it to Featured List condition.

Thanks, GenQuest (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Lemonade51

Thank you for your effort. Much work needs to done before putting this forward for WP:FLC, but it's achievable. My main concern giving this a quick scan is that I do believe this may work/develop better as a ordinary article, not a list. Of course I do need second opinion on this. Below are some suggestions:

• It is highly recommended not to introduce a list with "This is a list..." or "This list of Xs..."; check WP:LEADSENTENCE for more details.
• No need to bold image captions, check WP:CAPTION for more.
• There is one DAB (disambig) link, Neutral Ground.
• MOS:LEAD (Introduction) could be bigger, essentially a summary of the article.
• In Early-Hasley, remove the extra space between American Civil War and the comma.
• Sentences such as 'He was having repeated run-ins with Drew Hasley, an older local citizen who had been a staunch Confederacy backer.' need a citation.
• Ref 19 is not correctly cited. Check WP:REF for more details.
• Where is the access date for Ref 18?
• The external link, The American Storyteller 'Radio Journal' is dead. Consider replacing it.

There are more concerns (prose for instance) but this was what I picked up after a short scan. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I'll work on your suggestions. GenQuest (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Rani Mukerji

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Rani Mukerji is one of the most accomplished leading actors in India (Hindi cinema), and should thus have a decent Wikipedia article. This page had earlier gone through a peer review, but since then, a lot of positive changes have been made.

Thanks, smaro! 11:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, has everything from the previous review been fixed? See here and here. BollyJeff || talk 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of them have been fixed. smaro! 13:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Intro - says 12 FF nominations, but filmography shows 14. Sources needed to reconcile/verify.
• Intro - says she re-invented herself twice. Really?
• Intro - only mentions film career. Maybe a little less of that, and summarize whole article.
• Early life - seems a little light on sources.
• Early work - source for special jury recognition?
• Film career section is very well filled out, but more needed in other work and personal life areas.
• File:Laaga Chunari Mein Daagsisters.jpg not needed. There are a lot of pictures, and this one is probably not free.
• I will rearrange some text to avoid having a small Controversies section.
• Overall pretty good, but not quite GA yet due to lack of full coverage outside of films. BollyJeff || talk 13:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have corrected a few things. The image of LCMD is a free one. Honestly, there isn't much off-screen work to talk about. So I don't know what other information I can add. The only thing I am working on is to include her religious involvement. Other than that, I don't see any other significant topics regarding her personal life. smaro! 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the number of Filmfare nominations that she has received are 12. The 2 Critics awards that she won don't have additional nominations. smaro! 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Keep looking for more info, after all this is a biographical article, it needs more. BollyJeff || talk 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lots of dead links (many from Bollywood Hungama) - it will never pass with all of these. BollyJeff || talk 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Removed all the dead links. Updated to new and better links. smaro! 12:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Wilson desk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think it has the potential to become a GA and perhaps some day a FA. I know that I have issues with spelling and grammar so help there would be greatly appreciated. Also, the history of the desk took me a long time to dig up so alot of the article was piecemealed together. Any suggestions to make the article more clear and more well organized would be great. Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Most interesting. As I lent a hand on the Garret Hobart article, I'll be reviewing this. One thing off the bat: Did Hobart buy the desk or did the government? I would imagine Hobart, he was rich and the government had no budget for such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hatfield says that Hobart bought them. You might want to make that clearer. I checked Magie's bio of Hobart and Connolly's journal article, found nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i can make that more clear.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

• On images: As you probably are aware, the one of the Nixon Oval Office isn't so great. You might want to look at this. If you can find one from NARA that you like better, I can enquire of my contacts at the Nixon Library for the info you'll need, such as date taken, photographer, etc. The Nixon Library has in its lobby, I believe, a large desk which I think is a replica of the one Nixon used. I believe you can have one made! However, if you have a contact who lives near Yorba Linda, that might be a useful source of photographs showing the detail. Or Grand Rapids

• I never thought about contacting the museum. I will definable be doing that. I know that the picture of Nixon in the oval office doesn't show the office that well, but I do love the kind of "spying on" quality because it is of him releasing the Watergate Tapes. Also it was the only picture I could find of him at the desk having anything to do with Watergate as i spend alot of time in the article explaining the desks role in the Watergate Tapes. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lede:

• While the lede is good, the information seems a bit muddled. I would delete "misnamed" from the lede sentence, you are giving the reader that info too soon, when he has no context for it. Perhaps "The Wilson Desk was used by Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in the Oval Office. Purchased in 1897 by ...

• can do.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Have you considered emailing the White House Historical Association? They may have additional information. Because I would really want to know who made the desk before FAC.

• i never thought about contacting them either... i have alot of e-mailing to do now....--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Design

  Omit the words "wide" and "deep". The reader by now likely has seen at least photo.

• can do.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would omit the quote and express the same thought in prose.

• which quote? ""Dammit. I didn't order that. I want to leave my mark on this place just like other Presidents!"[4]" or "...heels began leaving scars on the top of it."[4]--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The second one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this review... already you have opened my eyes to alot of stuff that i need to work on.

No problem. Here is more.

Lede

• "Oval office" capitalize, please

Design and markings

• Presidential anecdotes" Caps. I really don't think the name is needed online. I would put this paragraph (which, just from what I know about Nixon, I find a bit unlikely, but as it is in a RS) as part of the history and possibly say more, if you can find it about the desk as a physical object. You really do need to be able to say who made it to advance past GA.
• I agree an article could be written about the Vice President's Room and survive AfD, if it was of decent length and quality. I do not think it is necessary to redlink it unless you plan to write the article.
• Does the VP still use the desk or room? What substituted for it or did Agnew have to write on a pad?
• Harris and Shafer is in my view, a useless redlink. Your mileage may vary, of course.
• "by each Vice President": Lower case
• I really feel the paragraphs of the history section are arranged badly. I won't suggest an answer, as the info you get from the Senate historian may affect your answer. In addition, you may do well to check the Nixon and Ford library websites. For Nixon, there's a lot of online finding aids, presidential daily diaries, etc. There are a lot of contact sheets for photos on the Ford website, you may find something useful
• Ah, I would put the story of Nixon liking the desk as VP in the past perfect, that is "had ..."

Ii'll look at it again when you have more info in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Seeking general constructive feedback on article because it's a worthy article and specific to Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I found this very interesting. I hope the following points are helpful:-

• The lead needs to be expanded from a single sentence into a concise summary of the whole article (see WP:LEAD)
• You need to check the image licences with an experienced images reviewer; I am a little hesitant in this area, though for the images of historical artefacts, I am doubtful that "Life of author + 70 years" is the appropriate licence.
• Jefferson's "composition draft" can't properly be described as "The earliest known version" of the Declaration. It is not in any sense a "version", as it includes only a small fraction of the text, much of which was later reworded.
• In your quotation from the draft you write: "Enemies in War, in Peace Friends". The capitals are not present in the handwritten draft.
• "after July 4" and, later, "submitted to Congress on June 28" should be given a year. Thereb have been no references yet to 1776 (though I assume there will be, in the expanded lead) Also, the particular significance of July 4 needs to be mentioned; not all your readers will be US citizens.
• "secretary Charles Thomson". Secretary of what?
• "including to George Washington". It would be helpful to be told in what capacity Washington was sent his copy. Commander of the army?
• "There were 24 known copies of the Dunlap broadside in 1989, when another was discovered behind a painting bought for four dollars at a flea market." The table below indicates that this find was number 23.
• "Norman Lear and a partner purchased the document at an online Sotheby's auction for $8.14 million." Clarify what is meant by "the document". I assume you mean the flea market copy, but this is not clear.
• What was the "Independence Road Trip"? Readers should not have to jump to another varticle to find out what "Declare Yourself" was.
• The information in the table is a little scrappy. For example, where and when did Nos 24 and 25 come to light? You provide this information for 23 and 26.
• "thirty years" → "30 years" (for consistency)
• Until the penultimate paragraph of the "Engrossed copy" section, the declaration is referred to as "the document". In that penultimate paragraph it becomes plural - "the documents" and "they".
• The final statement of the article is missing a citation.

As I am not able to watch individual PR pages (too many), please call my talk page if you want to raise any questions arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Combat Hapkido

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there were calls for this article’s improvement in 2007 and 2009, both related to citation. I, among other Wikipedians have improved the article significantly since those dates. However, I do not feel qualified to remove these tags from the article (additional citation & primary source) without some manner of review by a fresh set of eyes. In addition, I deem this at least sufficiently necessary due to the general lack of participation on the talk page of late.

Many thanks, Jdcollins13 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the "primary source" banner from the page; this problem appears to be cured, with the citations of various magazine articles, etc. I haven't decided yet on the "additional citations" one - I am bothered by the presence of some paragraphs (outside the lead) without at least a reference at the end of the paragraph. In terms of the lead, the references there should (IMO) ideally be in the main body only, with the lead simply summarizing what is already in the main body. Allens (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do run the automated peer review - it's finding some things. Allens (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --used the automated peer review as suggested and posted the results on the talkpage, after making some initial changes. Thanks Allens...

Jdcollins13 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The article does not at present qualify for peer review, having a major citations banner in place. Large parts of the article have few or no citations. This aspect needs to be addressed before the article is renominated here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Baldwin of Forde

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC, and am looking for suggestions on prose flow, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility to the non-expert. Anything and everything should be picked apart, and all suggestions are welcome!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

 Doing...: haven't done a bishop for a while (not an old one, anyway), so I'll enjoy it, but it may be a day or two before I can start. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No great hurry needed. And I should be able to do a few peer reviews in a day or so myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few issues from my reading of the lead and first section:-

Lead

• "...the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop. While archbishop,..." The repetition at the start of the new sentence is inelegant; I would suggest "...the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop. In this office,..." etc

Early life

• "...the son of Hugh d'Eu, who was Archdeacon of Totnes and a woman whose name is unknown; his mother, however, later became a nun". A couple of issues here. The placement of the first comma suggests that Hugh was an archdeacon and a nameless woman; I recommend moving it to after "Archdeacon of Totnes". The word "however" is not required. In fact, I'd run the sentence thus: "...the son of Hugh d'Eu who was Archdeacon of Totnes, and a woman of unknown name who later became a nun".
• However, the next sentence rather puzzles me, with its suggestion that what's just been said may be inaccurate. Can you clarify?
• "By 1155, however..." Another redundant one
• There is probably a medievalist's reason for it, but it seems odd to me that Thomas Becket is referred to throughout as "Becket" while everybody else is called by their first name. Why is this?
• It is necessary to say what office Becket held during this time, to explain how he had the power to excommunicate.
• "Baldwin then became a monk and then abbot..." When is "then"? Would it be better to rephrase the whole sentence: "In about 1170 Baldwin became a monk and then abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Forde."?
• We have two piped links in this section to Canon law: one from "canon lawyer" and the other from "canonist"
• I'm not certain that "remanded" is the right word here.
• At the end of this section it's 1178 and Baldwin is 53, just 12 years from his death, serving as an abbot - yet we're calling the section "Early life"?

More to come, naturally. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on this section - we refer to Baldwin as Baldwin because he has no "surname" - "of Forde" is merely descriptive. By convention, popes have no surnames once they become pope - and convention is to not use surnames for royalty. So anytime someone's name is "Xxx of someplace" it's usual to refer to them by "Xxx" rather than "someplace" (partly to avoid confusion with place names). I want to keep the double links to canon law - it may not be clear to everyone that "canonist" means someone learned in canon law. I believe "remanded" is correct here - but other suggestions are welcome. Otherwise, took all your suggestions. Hope to get to more of these later... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...and here is more:-

Bishop of Worcester

• I don't think his very brief detail justifies a whole main section. My suggestion is that you combine it with the last couple of paragraphs of the previous section, under a heading such as "Ecclesiastical office" or some such.
  • Moved. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

• It would be appropriate to say briefly why the vacancy at Canterbury arose. Obviosly someone died, but who?
• "...he would only accept Baldwin at Canterbury". Do you mean: "he would accept only Baldwin at Canterbury", i.e. Baldwin was the only candidate acceptable to him?
• I think all material related to Baldwin's dispute with the monks should be in the subsection presently titled "Escalation of the dispute". Suggestion: end the preamble after the first two sentences of the second paragraph. Begin the subsection with "During his time as archbishop...", and retitle it "Dispute with Chrict Church monks".
• "After that, Baldwin then proposed..." Either "after that" or "then" is redundant.
• The link on "secular" goes to clergy, which is not immediately helpful in explaining to the reader the difference between secular and monastic clergy – particularly as the general definition of "secular" is "not concerned with religion".
• "It is not clear if Baldwin himself intended such a plan, but it was definitely a plot by some of the other backers of the proposed church..." I feel the phrasing here falls a little short of encyclopedic neutrality. For example "it was definitely a plot..." Who says so? Presumably the source, and this needs to be clear. I'd be happier with something loke: "though according to (sources) this was clearly the objective of..." etc
• "an appointment that was widely acknowledged..." etc. Widely acknowledged at the time, or by late commentators? If the former, perhaps be a little specific?
  • I've dealt with all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Service to King Henry

• Could we have a parenthetical explanation of "servi camerae"?
• "Baldwin took the cross..." What does this mean? And I think the word "either" is missing, before "in January 1188".
• "In April 1188, Baldwin was in Wales on his tour..." Unless we are told what the tour was, the words "on his tour" don't add anything, and could be deleted.
• "although the chronicler also claimed that it was mainly undertaken by Baldwin in order to avoid the dispute with the Canterbury monks." By "it", do you mean the whole Welsh tour? I'd say "suggested" rather than "claimed" unless he made a public assertion. Also, "in order to" is verbose; simply "to" will do.
• "Baldwin was with Henry before his death, unsuccessfully taking part in efforts to negotiate with Prince Richard". Better to say "the king's death" - better still, "shortly before the king's death. And, since Richard has not previously been described as "Prince Richard" I would clarify: "with the heir, Prince Richard" (or some such).

Will finish probably tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the ongoing review. I'll await you finishing up before tackling this. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Got through here with reworkings - note that the first point in this section was eliminated by a rewrite/removal of some parenthetical stuff that crept in and wasn't citable ... i love drive by editing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The rest:-

Under Richard

• "Queen Mother" is not a hyphenated term
• "the infamous Case of Evesham." Whose adjective? If the source's it should be in quotes. If yours, it's POV
• I've never met the word "moneyers" before; is there a modern equivalent by way of explanation? (But I love the idea of archbishops needing the king's permission to have a mint!)

Third Crusade

• We need additional punctuation in "leaving Marseilles ahead of Richard along with Hubert Walter and Ranulf de Glanvill sailing to Syria directly on 5 August 1190".
• I doubt the general reader will know what is meant by "metropolitam authority". They may also stumble over "spiritualities" and "temporalities", but at least these terms have links.
• Ah, I get the idea when I read on, sort of, but maybe a little simplification of the terms would be helpful
• For sorting out: "after learning of the death of Frederick Barbarossa's death on the way to the Holy Land".
• Who was holding Acre at the time of Baldwin's arrival, i.e. who was under seige from Guy and Sybilla?
• This is a bit hard to visualise: "...the city was under siege by the Frankish forces led by King Guy of Lusignan and Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem, who in turn were being besieged by Saladin." Is it that Guy and Sybilla were sort of trapped, between the city they were besieging and the forces of Saladin forming a kind of outer ring?
• It seems extraordinary that Sybilla and her daughters should all die at the same time, unless they were killed. Was that the case? If the sources don't give the causes of deaths I think you should indicate that the deaths are "unexplained".
• ...but, more specifically, aren't we getting a little far from our subject by recounting the machinations over the throne of Jerusalem? I don't think we need this amount of detail to understand the minor role in the matter played by Baldwin just before his death.
• Capitals inconsistency: Earlier in the article we had "support for the Crusade", then "preaching the crusade", "3000 recruits for the crusade", "join Richard on Crusade", "Baldwin accompanied Richard on the Crusade", and "and died surrounded by his followers on the crusade." What is the capitals policy here? I can understand "Third Crusade", but the other usage seems arbitrary.
  • Got most of these - i've left in the detail on the machinations in Jerusalem because I can't even begin to think how to simplify this down without getting into trouble with not being accurate (this is greatly simplified as it is .. politics in the Kingdom of Jerusalem are usually described as "tortured" and go downhill from there...). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Writings and studies

• I don't think you should say "recently published" and then give the actual year; that seems like redundancy. (Some might think that 1963 isn't all that recent. Were you even alive then? I was.) It may be better to rephrase thus: "It was first printed in 1662, and in 1963 was edited and published in the series Sorces Chrétiennes, as volumes 93 and 94."
• You have "twenty-two sermons" and "22 sermons" in the same paragraph
• Try to avois repetion such as "...a work on faith.[1] The work on faith..."
• "Baldwin was known for his preaching ability, and was considered a famous preacher." This sentence looks a bit of a tag-on, in a paragraph otherwise concerned with his writings. Consider repositioning it.
• "...another group of writings connected with Baldwin was the correspondence relating to his dispute with the Christ Church monks." Shouldn't that be "is", as the correspondence appears still to exist?
• "Stubbs" should be properly introduced (as you did Barlow)
  • Got all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

• A bit thin on material in this section, and most of what you have is more a character appraisal than a "legacy". I don't think that Joseph's poems, written after Baldwin's death, have any relation to the latter's legacy. There are a few "crusade/Crusade" issues to be sorted out.
  • I'm open to suggestions for another title for this section Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have kept my review pretty much to prose and subject-related issues, and as you will have seen, have done a few minor copyedits on my way through. I've not looked at refs or citation formats, but I rather trust you on these. Please let me knoew if there are any issues you want to discuss from my review. Like you, I find it impossible to watchlist all the peer reviews I do, but you know where to find me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Shock-horror-shame! There's a disambiguation page link on "Capitulum"! Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

ODB++

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it into shape for a Featured Article nomination. Thanks, Woz2 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I've never used CAM or CAD software, but I can read and comment on this article from the point-of-view of a general reader somewhat familiar with the article's terminology. Here are my thoughts:

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find no dabs, but they find two dead URLs in the citations and one suspicious URL. See here.

Lead

• "Its purpose is to exchange printed circuit board design information between design and manufacturing and between design tools from different EDA/ECAD vendors." - Should the word "software" be inserted after "manufacturing"?

• "It was originally developed by Valor Computerized Systems, Ltd. (acquired in 2010 by Mentor Graphics) as the job description format for their CAM system." - Two things. Generally active voice is more succinct and punchy than passive voice, and a company is an "it", not a "they". Suggestion: "Valor Computerized Systems, Ltd. developed ODB++ in the 1990s as the job description format for its CAM system. Mentor Graphic acquired Valor in 2010."

• Should "job description format" be linked to Job Definition Format (JDF)? I wasn't sure what "job description format" meant, and I'm not sure that it's the same as JDF.

• "ODB stands for open database,[4] but its openness is disputed,[5] as discussed below." - I would avoid using internal cross-references such as "as discussed below". Readers will have no trouble finding things without these asides.

• "an attempt to merge GenCAM (IPC-2511) and ODB++ into Offspring (IPC-2581).[7][8][1]" - Citations should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., 178 rather than 781.

Introduction

• "a photolithographic computer aided manufacturing (CAM) system" - For ease of reading, I'd consider hyphenating here; i.e., "a photolithographic computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) system".

• "Other formats are compared and contrasted below." - No need to say this. I'd just delete it.

File structure

• "For example, on Unix ​tar​ and ​gzip​ commands can be used." - Slightly more clear to outsiders like me might be "For example, ​tar​ and ​gzip​ commands can be used on Unix" I'd link Unix on grounds that general readers might not know what it is.

• "ODB++ covers the specification of not only conductor layer artwork and drill data, but also material stack up, netlist with test points, component bill of materials, component placement, fabrication data, and dimension data." - As an outsider, I have to guess at the meanings of some of the jargon in this sentence. Could "conductor layer artwork", "material stack up", and "netlist with test points" be linked to explanations or perhaps very briefly explained in the text?

History

• This section is awfully short and refers to details given in the lead but not here. This is backwards. The details belong in the main text, and the lead should summarize the main text sections. I would suggest expanding the "History" section to include more detail and modifying the lead to simply summarize. Nothing important should appear in the lead that does not appear in the main text.

• "Valor was acquired by Mentor in 2010." - This is another passive-voice sentence that would be easy to flip as follows: "Mentor acquired Valor in 2010."

Adoption

• The Manual of Style generally recommends using straight prose instead of lists when both are feasible. I'd recommend turning the two-item list in this section to straight prose.

• "But in fact adoption to date has been minimal." - Perhaps this would be more clear: "However, adoption of the compromise format has been minimal." If you really want to date this, "through 2012" would be more clear than "to date", but dating the claim may be unnecessary.

• "As a result and as detailed below, the industry is presently divided into two camps over a second-generation format in general and ODB++ in particular." - Delete "as detailed below".

• "As a result and as detailed below, the industry is presently divided into two camps over a second-generation format in general and ODB++ in particular." - Delete "presently", which is intended here to substitute for "now". Terms like "to date", "now", and "today" are unhelpful since the time of reading does not correspond to the time of writing.

Opposition

• The three subsections, particularly the first, are so short that I'd consider merging them and removing the subheads.

Concerns

• Nothing in the direct quotations should appear in italics unless italicized in the source document(s).

• "The application form includes a requirement to: "...Demonstrate a customer need for this integration through references from mutual customers. Provide a recommendation from a Mentor Graphics product division or demonstrate the incremental value of this integration to both Mentor Graphics and the partner company.", which implies direct competitors to Mentor will not be granted access." - Aside from the problem with italics in this sentence, it is not a proper sentence. Suggestion: The application form includes a requirement to "demonstrate a customer need for this integration through references from mutual customers [and to] provide a recommendation from a Mentor Graphics product division or demonstrate the incremental value of this integration to both Mentor Graphics and the partner company." This implies that direct competitors to Mentor will not be granted access.

Potential resolution

• "based on work by Prof. Tomokage of Fukuoka University" - The Manual of Style recommends using a brief description rather than an academic title. Instead of "Prof. Tomokage of Fukuoka University", it would be better to delete "Prof." and to say something like "(first name) Tomokage, a (something)", where "something" can be replaced by whatever he is known for that is relevant to this context.

References

• At FAC, the refs will all be checked for internal consistency. Use the same date formatting throughout this section. I haven't checked them all, but I see an outlier (Jan 15, 2011) in citation 23. The other citations should all be checked for problems with date formatting.

• Citation 1 includes another nonconforming date format: (1/22/2002 2:33 PM EST). Aside from not conforming to the day-month-year format found in most of the other citations, it includes the exact time. Some of the other citations include the exact time. Unless there is a special reason for this level of precision, I'd delete the exact time.

• Citation 19 lacks an access date. Citations 35 and 36 are incomplete, and others might be too. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The Hobbit

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks ready for an A class rating or even a featured article. The last review was in 2008 and the article has improved a lot since then. It is comprehensive and balanced with a suitable lead section, it is very well-referenced and did not have any edit wars lately.

Thanks, De728631 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• The lead's a bit on the long side - WP:LEAD recommends a max of 4 paras

• See here for dead links

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hobbit_cover.JPG needs a more complete fair-use rationale and should identify the copyright holder, if known. Also, the description refers to a key which is not present on the image page

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hobbit_runes.png: what source was used to create this image?
• Shouldn't include full bibliographic info for St. Clair in both footnotes and references. Also, missing date in references

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful about applying unattributed value judgments to characters

 Done references have been added. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs - they break up the flow of text

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "where Gandalf saves the company from trolls and leads them to Rivendell, where" - "where...where" is a bit repetitive, as is "development...developing" in "the development of elven languages and an attendant mythology, which he had been developing" - check for other instances

 Done, edited. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "where Elrond reveals more secrets from the map" - what map? To this point you've not mentioned one
• Need to explain "School Certificate" for non-UK readers

 Done, wikilinked. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in use of US vs USA vs U.S.

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "derived from the 16th Century Paracelsus" -> "derived from the 16th-century Paracelsus"

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Shorter prose quotes (less than 3-4 lines) shouldn't be blockquoted

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in the use of spaced endashes vs unspaced emdashes

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is Bilbo's title thief or burglar? Laketown or Lake-town? Check for consistency throughout

 Done thief has been clarified. Lake-town throughout the article. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Watch for overlinking - for example, you wikilink World War I twice in a single paragraph

• Don't include terms in See also already linked in article text

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not, whether publisher locations are included for books or not, how the authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...") are notated, how Times Online and Times refs are notated, how multi-author citations are notated, etc

 Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Citation formatting produced by {{ME-ref}} doesn't match that of the other templates used

 Done, changed templates. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 5: is a more reliable source available? Also FN 46, 65, 97. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the feedback. Not sure about the lead though, I've recently gotten advice that even Good Articles should sum up every section of the article in the lead and that's a lot to write about. ISBNs are a tricky thing because hyphenation mostly depends on the online source, e.g. Amazon only hyphenates 978- and nothing else while the numbers are course properly hyphenated inside the books. "See also", USA, overlinking and such can of course be addressed. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you might have overlooked that File:Hobbit_runes.png has a source named in the figure caption (Anderson, 2003). I'm going to put that on the Commons file page. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And the map is in fact mentioned in the second sentence of the Plot section, before the Elrond reference: "hen the music ends, Gandalf unveils a map... ." De728631 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oops, missed that, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Overlinking may be an issue but I don't see any problem with World War I in the Interpretation section, the second instance is actually piped as "the Great War" and the reader might not know that term. So two links in one paragraph are justified. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If we're assuming the reader does not know that term, why use it at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Because yet another "World War I", even if unlinked, would really be repetitive, and WP can be educational and diverse at once. I have however linked the very first occurence of "World War I" in the lead so there's only one link left in the interpretation part, namely the Great War. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • References: FN 5, is SparkNotes considered unreliable or dodgy? I've replace FN 46 and 65 with reliable sources but FN 97 again is in fact reliable (FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business) providing copies of court files. I don't see any problems with that one. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • SparkNotes is borderline, and generally inadvisable for potential FACs. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've fixed that. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
        

---

Selena albums discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FLC in the near future

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I might take it to FAC one day. The article is comprehensive in that I've exhausted literally every source on it in every language out there, so I'm looking mostly for comments on prose, style and clarity. Nevertheless, feel free to make any necessary remarks on the content as well—all help is appreciated! Thanks, Auree ★ 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments!

• Despite generally favorable atmospheric conditions for further strengthening - I did a brief check, and it seems that the conditions were unfavorable (wind shear specifically is mentioned).

• Good catch--sloppy on my part. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• In Martinique, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain fell in just two hours; in one instance, a station recorded 2.75 inches (70 mm) in 6 minutes. - "6" should be spelled out.
• mucky waters washed - mucky? That seems a bit odd.
• Two deaths were blamed on the storm in the country, and hundreds of people became homeless. - given that the second half is active voice, perhaps switch the first half to something like "two people died in the country due to the storm", or some other way to make both halves use active voice?

• I dunno, I kind of like the contrast here. I can change it to "The storm killed two people and left hundreds homeless in the country." Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• On its path to Hispaniola, Cindy brushed the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with rough surf and some rain. - can you brush an island with rough surf? I'm not saying it's wrong, just wondering.
• Upon forming, the depression moved to the west-northwest toward Martinique and slowed, steered by mid to low-level flow. - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "mid" should be "mid-", given that it's "mid-level flow" as well as "low-level flow".

• You're right, and I did write it like that; I think it got removed by another user. Auree ★ 05:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• " Satellite images and a subsequent reconnaissance mission revealed that the depression had developed a central dense overcast while its winds had increased to gale force, leading the NHC to upgrade it to Tropical Storm Cindy around 1800 UTC." - that is the first indication of any time in that paragraph, so you should really establish the date, particularly since the end of the previous paragraph never even said "August 14".

• I always forget to do that! Sorry! Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "However, this upper-level pattern deteriorated when the storm moved away from the Lesser Antilles, preventing it from developing much." - does the latter refer to the upper-level pattern or the storm in general?

• I noticed that ambiguity when looking over the article yesterday, but I thought it'd be evident to readers. I'll tweak it. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Over the course of August 15, Cindy continued to display a disorganized structure due to unfavorable wind shear; its center remained ill-defined..." - just a little thingy, but "remained ill-defined" implies that it was ill-defined as of some point prior to August 15, despite the previous paragraph saying that the circulation increased in organization. Pardon for me being pedantic, but perhaps "remained" should be switched to "became"?

• A good suggestion, and not pedantic at all! Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• What happened to allow Cindy to strengthen to its peak? Was there a big burst of convection? A decrease in shear? Something romantic?

• No idea :( The TCR doesn't say, and the peak intensity was a post-storm estimate, so neither do the discussions. I'll make it sound like unusual and say "Despite the unfavorable conditions" (: Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "By then, it had begun making landfall near Barahona" - why not just.... "By then, it began making landfall"?

• The usage of "By" implies that it had already begun doing so--and it had. It weakened to a tropical depression while making landfall, but I didn't want it to become cluttered so I mentioned the weakening first. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Officials issued flash flood warnings for the island" - the previous sentence mentioned Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, so you might want to specify here.

• Woop, good catch Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Santo Domingo International Airport suspended its operations" - when?

• Mentioned. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any impact in Cuba? You mention preps.

• I looked before, but I couldn't find anything. There also isn't any impact from Haiti/the Bahamas, so I guess it dissipated before it could do much. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In a span of 2 hours, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain were recorded at Saint-Joseph, of which 2.75 in (70 mm) fell in only 6 minutes." - almost this same sentence was in the lede, but here you do numbers, not spelling out 2 and 6.

• Mostly because this paragraph is all about meteorological statistics (lots of numbers) while the lede isn't. What do you prefer? Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I think the "2 hours" and "6 minutes" should be spelled out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ask user:thegreatdr about the Puerto Rican rainfall discrepancy
• "In Villa Altagracia, one fatality was reported when a child drowned in flood waters, although the final death toll for the country stood at two." - I don't think "although" is the right word here. There is no contradiction. I'd just say "... and the final death toll..."
• I question whether a complete aftermath section is needed, considering this - "Sea conditions generated by Cindy restricted sea transport to Martinique" - is marginally impact.

• Well, that part isn't the important one; it's the bit after the semicolon that matters. I could reword it to put more emphasis on the succeeding bit. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All in all, really good work! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I've replied to most of your points; the ones that haven't been replied to were easy fixes/up to editor's preference. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

As promised, here is my less-than-expert review of a completely-out-of-my-league article. :)

• Tropical Storm Cindy was a weak but unusually wet tropical cyclone that caused a flood disaster in Martinique in August 1993. -- is "flood disaster" the correct term here? It reads strangely to me; I almost expect it to say "disastrous flooding".
• Perhaps summarize in the first paragraph that storm killed a total of four people, before saying that two people were killed here and another two people killed there in the second paragraph?
• In Martinique, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain fell in just two hours; in one instance, a station recorded 2.75 inches (70 mm) in six minutes. -- Repetition of "In... in; in... in". Reword?
• However, the upper-level pattern deteriorated when Cindy moved away from the Lesser Antilles, preventing the storm from developing much. -- "from developing much" seems rather sub par. "from further development", maybe?
• The high terrain disrupted its circulation, causing it to weaken back to a tropical depression around 2100 UTC on August 16. By then, it had begun making landfall near Barahona in the Dominican Republic...' -- "by then" is somewhat confusing, as it forces the reader to back up and re-read the previous sentence. Perhaps reword to remove the "by then" and combine the two thoughts?
• The depression became increasingly disorganized over land, and the NHC declassified it as a tropical cyclone early on August 17. -- What does "early on August 17" mean? In the early hours of August 17? It almost reads as a split infinitive as is.
• References look good, except for a few minor things:
  • Ref 1: Mayfield, Britt M. (1993-25-10). Preliminary Report Tropical Storm Cindy: 14–17 August 1993. -- Day/Month instead of Month/Date?
  • With citation templates, be careful not to list websites as under the "work=" parameter because it automatically italicizes; I see a couple instances of this, such as with Geodata.us., which should not be italicized. Use "publisher=" instead.

• Well, I was following the convention listed here, as I'm not sure if Geodata is the actual "publisher", so to speak. Auree ★ 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see what you mean. It's been a while since I've used citation templates in my own articles, but my understanding is that it's the output that matters, not how you input it. From what I can tell, Geodata and other website names should not be italicized, so however you can fiddle with the template to fix that, awesome. I've always just used "publisher=", but maybe that was wrong? María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images check out as far as I can tell.

Very interesting read, I enjoyed it. While I don't know if all of the prose can be called "brilliant" at this point, I do think the best written section is "Impact" -- it flows incredibly well and was the easiest to read for me. A bit of polishing may be needed before FAC, but I think you'll do well there. Best of luck! María (yllosubmarine) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (and it was very much expert :)! It can be hard to achieve the brilliant prose standard with technical articles such as this one. I'll give it another look through today and address your concerns. Cheers, Auree ★

Alright, applied all the changes and replied to one concern Auree ★ 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to revisit the article, and I think the prose has been much improved. I fixed one minor case of redundancy (of the... the... of the...) in the lead, but everything else reads well. Best of luck! María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Bernard Lee

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is only limited information on Lee and I want to try and get his article to as high a level as possible, despite the lack of information.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• With what information is already present in the article I'd give it a B status. Everything is neatly referenced save for the list of "Other films" and the writing style seems to be appropriate as well. The filmography should be presented by wikitables with the Bond films showing only the release year and the title and the table for "Other films" having fields including his role and occasional notes. Compare the table in Pierce Brosnan. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that: I'll make a start on the filmography, which may take a while, but will be worth the effort in the long run. Cheers! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from WWB Too

I've made some changes; SchroCat, I see a couple you have reverted, and I'm fine with those. Fair point on WP:MOSLQ, and the U.S. Amazon shows the book title includes only the one "bang", but you're right about the UK site and Google Books. Anyhow, here are some other thoughts that occurred to me while going through it:

• The final sentence of the first paragraph of Life and career mentions his career "after RADA". Did he graduate? Or simply leave? Might be good to clarify, if it can be established.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Near the end of the same sentence, it says he "played comedy"; I assume this means he appeared in comedy shows, but perhaps it could be clarified.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any more information about his stage career to be added? Military career?

• Not much, unfortunately—at least at this stage—if you'll excuse the pun! I'm still working on this, but I've not come across too much about it, although I have a few of his reviews which I will be adding in shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any more information about his family? Considering his grandson is actor Jonny Lee Miller, did any of Lee's children follow in his footsteps?

• Unknown. He only had one daughter, so I presume that JLM is her son, but I've not found anything to confirm that pathway, or if the daughter was an actress... - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of phrases appear between quotation marks without any indication as to who is being quoted:

1. Lee played the role "very close to Fleming's version of the character" ...
2. [He] came across as "the very incarnation of Fleming's crusty admiral." ...

• Now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the Death section, I've removed the material about Bill Tanner as acting head of MI6. This seems germane to For Your Eyes Only (film), not necessarily to an article about Mr. Lee's career. YMMV.

• Yep - looks better - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed one mention of Lee being "best remembered" as M, though I've left it in the lead. This seems incontrovertibly true, but it would be an easier call if a third-party source could be cited.

• I've put the phrase back in - the API reference that was there was where it was from, but I've also found a better source (The Illustrated who's who of the cinema)and referenced it in the text itself. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Other films list is awfully long, and apparently not even complete. Considering WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I'd suggest making this something like Selected filmography, but I wouldn't know where to begin making cuts. Thoughts?

• I've increased, rather than decreased the list as I now have another set of information which should complete his full background. As the vastr majority of these are linked to stand-alone articles I feel it right that they should all remain in there as to select down is to press my own opinion as to which films are moer valid than others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have any further questions, try me on my Talk page, but I'll check back here again sometime in the next day or so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits—and for your comments too. I'm going away for a few days, but I'll sort your comments and suggestions out when I return. The gap will also give me a chance to consider the "Other films" section too, although I'd be more in favour of putting in as many of his films as possible, largely on the basis that the vast majority are existing articles. I'll mull it over and get back to you when I come back from my break. - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple more of your points I still have to address, but I need to be at home with my sources before I can start editing thoem properly, which I will do shortly. Thanks again for picking up on this review - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

No Me Queda Más

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FAC in the near future

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks as always for your work on Selena related articles, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• No dabs, no dead links, and as you know I think a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow
• The English is not great - in its current state this would have very little chance at FAC. A few examples follow (not a complete list)
• Written out of jealously and rage, "No me queda más" was written by the lead keyboardist of Selena y Los Dinos, Ricky Vela; who had fallen in love with Selena's sister and drummer of the band, Suzette Quintanilla. 1) Avoid needless repetition ("written" twice in one sentence); 2) the noun is "jealousy" (the word "jealously" is an adverb); 3) the words jealous(l)y and rage are not used anywhere else in the article. Since the lead is not cited, that is a problem. Also the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and nothing improtant should be in the lead only per WP:LEAD. I also read the section in the body of the article and it does not use synonyms for jealousy and rage; 4) need to provide context and explain that Selena y los Dinos were her band (though this is linked); 5) I would use something like "unrequited love" here; 6) the part that Suzette was the drummer makes the sentence too complicated - not sure it even needs to be in the lead?
• Perhaps something like Ricky Vela, lead keyboardist of the band Selena y Los Dinos, wrote the song based on his unrequited love for Selena's sister Suzette Quintanilla, who was the band's drummer.
• I tried checking ref 1, but it is thumbnail view, so I looked at ref 2. It is used for the sentence "Vela kept his feelings about Suzette to himself until she got married to Billy Arriaga in 1993..." but when I searched the book online there are no missing pages and no mention of Mr. Vela or his feelings for Suzette (there is reference to Ms. Vela who worked at the hotel was Selena was tragicvally murdered).
• This is really a problem - I do not see any indication that the book has pages which cannot be viewed and it seems to be fully searchable. yet there is nothing remotely related to the claim in the source cited. Not only would this be a major problem at FAC, it is consistent with a pattern of sources not always backing up claims in articles you have brought to PR.
• Books should give page numbers to enable someone to find the material in question
• Ref 6 checks out
• Another concern I have is that you have said before that you do not speak Spanish (and even confused it for Italian using Google translator in a previous article I reviewed). This article has 9 refs in Spansih out of a total of 62 (roughly 15%). How do you make sure the material is correct - since at least one ref is to a tv special on Telemundo (which does not lend itself to copying and pasting in Goodle translator) how do we know that is correct?
• Needs a copyedit, but more importantly it needs to be very carefully checked against sources.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Best Thing I Never Had

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAc very soon. Last time, this is the PR it got and no offense intended, I was not satisfied because I do not think that the article has reached a stage where there are only a small number of issues. I want someone to give it a strict PR. Criticize how much you want for all I want is "Best Thing I Never Had" to be an FA one day.

Thanks, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While I understand your frustration, let me start by saying that PR is a place to identify porblems and issues, but not necessarily to fix them or even to identify each and every example of a given problem. If an article has enough language issues, then it takes more work to point out every single language problem than it does just to copyedit it (and PR is not a place to get copyedits, though some editors will do them). That said, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Having looked at the previous PR, I see there are several suggestions on changes in language which have not been acted on (changing from passive to active voice). Again, it seems odd to complain that you want more suggestions when you have not acted on the ones in the previous PR (which I agree with).
• There was also a comment on the last PR that several Byonce articles have issues with close paraphrasing etc. - I will try to check a few sources.
• OK, I am going to read now and comment as I go. In the first sentence American does not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Add links that enhance the reader's understanding and are not to words almost every understands the meaning of.
• I do not think contemporary is needed in The song was generally well received by contemporary music critics...
• Seems odd to to say the writing was completed in one sentence and then that it was modified (again) in the next After a few days, Dixon and Smith went to the studio again and completed the writing. The song was modified by Edmonds after hearing a demo; he tweaked the lyrics and added a few more melodies.[2] Also don't most songs just have one melody?
• Records does not seem to be the right word here - perhaps tracks? Or songs? There, Smith, Babyface, and Dixon wrote six additional records and recorded five.[2]
• Doies this really belong in a section called Writing and recording - what does it have to do with either? Move it to lyrical interpretation perhaps Knowles stated that every man and woman can relate to the song's subject matter because at one point, almost everyone ends a relationship because of lack of commitment by his or her partner.[7][8]
• Should it be made clearer that these are also Beyonce songs? As a kissoff-themed song, "Best Thing I Never Had" is similar to "Irreplaceable" (2006) and "If I Were a Boy" (2008).[36][37]
• Missing "the" and "female empowering ballad" just sounds odd A 25-second sample of second verse of "Best Thing I Never Had"; a female empowering ballad, ...
• Elements is plural so it needs a verb to match ("appear") Kyle Anderson of Entertainment Weekly wrote that elements of "Best Thing I Never Had" appears to have emanated
• I really dno't understand this sentence - probably needs to be split into two. I looekd up the original to see if it made more sense and do see some close paraphrasing. I bolded the stuff that is too close in the quotes below:

This article James Dinh of MTV News wrote that the song sounds like one from a Broadway musical, attributing the comparison to Knowles' collaboration with the band from Fela! to gain inspiration from the play's subject, Nigerian musician and composer, Fela Kuti.[1]

MTV article sounds not unlike a song you'd hear during a Broadway musical. That may be because, as Beyoncé has revealed, she collaborated with the band from "Fela!" for "a couple of days" to gain inspiration from the play's subject, Nigerian musician Fela Kuti.

• OK, so it is late and I need to get some sleep. This has some language issues and needs a copyedit - it is not clear to me if it has been copyedited between the 1st PR and this or not. I also am worried that the one source I checked showed some close paraphrasing. Both of these would be a problem at FAC.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks wholeheartedly for this review. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Greg Daniels

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Daniels is a very great comedy writer and has worked and created several classic series. I think he has earned a good article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement - I assume your goal is WP:GA since you think "he has earned a good article". I think it looks pretty good

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies which might be useful models.
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - The Simpsons is linked twice in one paragraph in the lead, for example.
• Also avoid vague time terms like currently (as they can quickly become out of date). It is better to use phrases like "as of YEAR" - see for example He is currently working on both those shows and is developing two animated series ...
• Any chance of getting a free image of him?
• In the Life and Career section, I would add years wherever possible - when did he attend (or at least graduate from) Phillips Exeter or Harvard?
• Or when he did he start at Not Necessarily the News, or SNL?
• Writing is OK, but could be tightened - one example He was hired in the fifth season following the departures of many of the original writers from the previous season.
• Articles on people associated with TV and movies almost always list their work at the end of the article - not in the middle
• Also the whole Credits section needs references
• IN Awards I would list all his nominations, not just his wins (and give the years)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Metagenomics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… My intention was to get this ready for GA status and I want to get a rough idea about how far away I am before I switch to working on Microbiome. It also seems like it might be sprawling away from me. Thanks, Estevezj (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am not good at judging whether things are getting too big - I will leave that to others.
  • First, you might want to take a look at the external links checker - it's indicating that some of the links are subscription-only (and/or are redirects, that may require checking), which should be noted with the appropriate template by the reference in question (if there isn't a PMC or similar alternative provided, of course!).
  • There are a few statements that lack citations - generally at the ends of paragraphs, such as on "oligonucleotide frequencies" - admittedly, it's pretty obvious to someone in the field that such should work, but not to someone outside of it.
  • Is anyone trying doing alignments of very similar sequences from within a metagenome dataset (as in, ones that might be from two strains of bacteria of the same "species", as iffy as that concept gets with bacteria...) and doing searches using that as a basis (HMMs or whatever)?
  • How about looking to see proportional abundance of organisms (and changes in this, either "natural" or from biostimulation/bioaugmentation) - anyone working on that? The metatranscriptome comes close, admittedly, but it should be easier than trying to stabilize and capture RNAs...
  • Specific examples like termites might be good in the biofuel discussion. (One of my old professors - Dr. Douglas Eveleigh at Rutgers' Cook College - works on this.)
  • I've added a Main link to Bioremediation.
  • I removed one of the See also links that was duplicated above, and suggest putting in a genomics link at the top and removing that from See also.
• Allens (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your helpful comments on this article. Estevezj (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Helen Shiller

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend eventual GA.

Thanks, Hugh (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Lead is too short, it should summarize the article, see WP:LEAD
• There should be information about date of birth and place of birth, see again LEAD

done Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Remove the flag icon in the infobox, see WP:MOSFLAG

done Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• One-sentence sections should be merged somewhere or expanded

done Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Replace {{cn}} templates with references
• The prose does not flow, eg too many short sentences which should be merged with other.

done Hugh (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid external links in text, see WP:EL.
• Avoid non-neutral words, eg "absurd ", see WP:WTA, WP:NPOV

done Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see the picture File:HelenShiller.jpg in [1]
• Do not link publishers in references; non-printed sources should be de-italicized, see MOS:ITALICS

done Hugh (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do not link the same article multiple times, see WP:OVERLINKING
• The article generally needs copediting. You can request one at WP:GOCE/REQ
• Just a few examples regarding the prose:
  • You have "Schiller ... Shilller ... Shiller's ... Shiller's" in the first section. How about you rewrite it like this: "Shiller was born to middle-class home owners in 1947[2] and raised on Long Island[3] in New York.[1]"

done Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• • "Her father "perfected fake suede."" - how is that important? Write only important aspects, and remove anything unrelated, see WP:TRIVIA

it is a quote from the subject of the article, attribution added in text Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

These are the major factors. Once you fix those, this article will have better potential at GAN. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes! Hugh (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Bipasha Basu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want help with developing the article further and raising it to GA status.

Thanks, Srinivas 11:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my quick take -

• Intro and Early life sections (and some others, but these are the worst) are lacking in grammar and punctuation.
• Debut section starts off with a ref to another section, does not stand by itself. Whole first para really confusing. No source for Consenting Adults.
• Film career section seems very complete; did not read it all yet.
• Many citations lack publisher data and dates. A few of the sources may not be considered reliable.
• It could use sections about off-scrceen work.

BollyJeff || talk 21:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything else can be fixed. But as far as off-screen work is considered, we hardly have anything to talk of. Srinivas 16:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Kitana (Mortal Kombat)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has had a lot of work done to it in the past few months or so and I feel as if it deserves to be a Good Article. But before I nominate it as one, I would like some input.

Thanks, Kokoro20 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article looks good, but I still note few problems that could happen in the GA review.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "In video games" section could be trimmed a bit considering how the first Mortal Kombat games only had story in the characters bio and the endings that contradicted the events from following games. For example, the section could start with her role in Mortal Kombat II, with the above information given to a separate section about the character's main traits.
• The In video games section have a large numbers of paragraphs unsourced.
• Some references require formatting to address author, url, date, publisher, etc.

Well, I have now added some sources for the "In video games" section. I'm not really sure how to trim it though. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend using Reptile (Mortal Kombat)#In video games as an example of in-universe details in a Mortal Kombat article. Such character has been playable ever since the first game, and it focuses only on the main events around him.Tintor2 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only because Reptile is a side character who was never important to the story at all (not in the games, not in the other media). That's to the point of him having NO STORY WHATSOEVER at first, so the first paragraph of this section is just meaningless "cruft" - imagine if Kitana's section dealt with how to unlock her in some games, like if it really mattered for Wikipedia readers (I think GameFAQs is for stuff like this, and not Wikipedia). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Len Hutton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for a long time and hope to take it to FAC. However, I can no longer see the wood for the trees! It is quite a long article but I cannot actually see where it can be cut; any advice on if and where it is too long would be much appreciated. Also a general look at the prose would help as I have been picking away at it for so long, there may be some lumpy parts. The images still need work and there are several to be added.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk 00

45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a few quick things from me, I'll try and come back for a fuller review later:

• The lead image looks too big; looking at the details, it is a 108 × 169 pixel image which is being forced up to 230 x 360 pixels: I'd suggest inserting an image size parameter into the infobox to shrink it to a more natural size.
• Are there no other appropriate images? I don't think we should put images into articles for the sake of it; but it definitely looks like it could benefit from some! We really need to get a photo of the Lord's honours board: it would be perfect for articles like this..
• I've found it useful lately to include the OCLC numbers for books, particular those that are pre-ISBN. For example, the Derek Birley book is here: OCLC, which can be linked to like so:
• Bowes, Bill (1949). Express Deliveries. London: Stanley Paul. OCLC 643924774.
• You can use the search function from there to find each of the other books. Definitely not a must, but as I say: I've found it useful!

That's all from my quick glance: as I said, I'll try to come back and have another look, probably in the new year. Harrias ^talk 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• The images need work and that won't be the lead image much longer. As such, I'm not going to tweak it yet and yes there will be more images soon (hopefully...) --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article reads well; the prose is clean and clear. Jargon is linked adequately, I think. I'm in no position to say whether the article is comprehensive, but to a non-cricketer it appears to be. I confess that I have trouble paying attention in sports articles to the large blocks of scoring details and descriptions of individual matches, so it's entirely possible that I missed little things here and there. Nevertheless, nothing big leaps out at me as needing fixing.

Lead

• "he became the first professional cricketer of the twentieth century to captain England" - Use digits for numbers bigger than nine, in this case "20th century"?

Career after the War

• Lowercase "war" in the head?

• "tried to keep out of the clashes between members of the Yorkshire team" - "Among" rather than "between" since the clashes involved more than two people?

Early life

• "made his first appearance for the club's second eleven aged 12"- I first took this to mean that the second eleven consisted of boys who were all 12 years old. Slightly more clear might be "made his first appearance at age 12 for the club's second eleven".

• "recommending that Yorkshire take a look at him as a good prospect... " - Tighten to "recommending that Yorkshire view him as a good prospect... "?

• "a former Yorkshire cricketer now responsible for assessing and coaching young players" - Delete the vague word, "now", which might be taken to mean "in 2011"?

First years with Yorkshire

• "Hutton made his first-class debut for Yorkshire in 1934, at the age of seventeen... " - Digits for 17?

• "an unbeaten fifty runs in his second match and followed this with another fifty" - Digits for "50" unless traditionally spelled out like "century", "hundred", and "eleven"?

• Kept this as fifty: as you say, it is traditionally spelt out to avoid confusion with an exact score of 50. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tour to South Africa

• "From October 1938, Hutton toured South Africa with the MCC under the captaincy of Hammond... " - I'm probably just not seeing it, but has the MCC been mentioned before this? What is it? Marylebone Cricket Club?

• My mistake: clarified and added a note about what it was too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wartime injury and recovery

• "including one at Lord's" - Not sure what "Lord's" refers to.

First tour to Australia

• "was taken ill overnight with tonsillitis" - Link tonsillitis?

Series against South Africa..."

• "However, injuries severely affected that team, and its captain Gubby Allen for reinforcements." - Missing word? Maybe "... its captain, Gubby Allen, called for reinforcements"?

Bibliography

• Since you've included hyphens for some of the ISBNs, you'll probably want to do the same for the rest. A handy converter tool lives here.

• You might want to include OCLCs for the books lacking ISBNs. WorldCat usually has these. Here's the item for the Bill Bowes book: Express deliveries.

Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged for your comments. I've done them all except the "fifties" one. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Test cricket is linked twice in the lead.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's a Cricketers' Almanac, not a Cricketer's one...

Oops... --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems odd that cricket itself isn't linked until the fourth use of the word "cricket" (or one of its derivatives).

I'm not too sure how to get around this. I took out Yorkshire County Cricket Club to make it easier, but the first mention is "Test cricketer" which links better to Tests. It may be better now?

• "in a Test match " is repeated quickly, maybe use "in Test match cricket" or just "in Test cricket" or something to break the monotony.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think (but I could be argued with) that we usually refer to the The Ashes as The Ashes always, and not the Ashes...

A quick check of Wisden gave me "the Ashes" rather than The Ashes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• " to break the Test innings record in only his sixth Test" repetitive, and what do you mean by "innings record"? Not clear at all.

Tried to clear it up; left it now as "his record 364" as the previous paragraph describes how he scored the highest individual innings. Better?

• "However, during the war, he received a serious injury to his arm and took a long time to recover and this affected his batting afterwards." as a result of being involved in what aspect of the war? And naturally it would be "afterwards", it couldn't be before, so this is redundant.

Had a go but may still need work. What do you think?

• " England's tour to Australia in 1950–51" probably a link for this?

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• " the batting relied very heavily on him" nope, England relied on him for his batting.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "but with his batting making a large contribution," picky, but needs reword, you mean to say his contribution to the team was significant as a result of his successful innings with the bat, but you need a better way of putting it than the current phrasing.

Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Hutton continued as captain, although his leadership was at times controversial, until 1954–55." reads odd, maybe "Hutton continued as captain until the 1954–55 season, although his leadership was at times controversial."

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• " from all cricket." -> "from all forms of cricket".

Actually went for "regular first-class cricket" as he continued to play occasionally in f-c and other games. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Link "knighted" in the lead.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "As a batsman, Hutton was cautious and his batting style was built ..." do you need to reiterate "batting" here as you've introduced this with "As a batsman"?

Probably not. Gone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "depended greatly on him " maybe "depended on him greatly"

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "conscious of responsibility" you mean he knew there were expectations of him? Needs a re-word.

Any better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Even so, Hutton remains..." why "Even so"? He was a good batsman, yes he knew he was relied upon, but why would that need an "Even so"?

Gone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "best of Test batsmen" in the world or just England?

World. Tried to clarify but not sure if I have done it. Trying not to be too clunky. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lead ends rather prematurely. What happened to him after cricket, after selecting etc?

A little more added. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the lead, I could carry on if required, so let me know on my talk page. Hope this helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These will be a bit sporadic, as and when I can find a little time. Just on the lead:-

• I don't think it's particularly accurate to describe a playing career that lasted from 1934 to 1955 as being "in the years around the Second World War". Suggest amend to "before and after the Second World War".

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• For non-cricketing readers: "scoring 364 runs"

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a serious injury to his arm taking part in a commando training course." Needs "while" before "taking part"

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to mention his 1952 captaincy and the 1953 Ashes win in both the first and second paragraphs

• Changed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unnecessary switch to passive voice: "Hutton was cautious and his style was built on a sound defence". Suggest "Hutton was cautious and built his style on a sound defence".

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• The organisation of lead material is slightly odd. Having reported Hutton's death at the end of paragraph two, the lead ends by going back to the early 50s and the (fairly inconsequential) information about his avoidance of dressing-room squabbles. I'd rethink this.

• Tried to rework the last paragraph into the others. Is it any better? To be honest, I'm not thrilled with the lead generally and any other suggestions would be gratefully received. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Back, as and when... Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have copyedited the Early life and First years with Yorkshire sections & will carry on with this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've copyedited two more sections, but would like you to deal with the following:-

Test match debut

• Where and when did he make his Test debut? Where and when did he make his maiden Test century? Dates and locations are important in these articles. Also, exactly how many did he score when making his maiden century?
• Likewise, where and when was Hutton's debut Ashes match played?
• Against whom and where was Hutton's finger broken?

• All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Test record score

• Say where/when the final Test was played - crucial to the story.
• Is there a link to explain "cut"? (Otherwise "Hutton passed Bradman's score with a cut off Chuck Fleetwood-Smith" will read mysteriously to Americans)

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Will continue Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

---

George Washington

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important article, particularly in American history, and I'd like to know which areas need improving so as to get it ready for FAC.

Thanks, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:29pm • 05:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• G'day, I took a quick look at the citation density. Generally it looks good to me, but I think at FAC you might get asked to provide citations for the following sentences:
  • "The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon, near Alexandria, where he took up the life of a planter and political figure.";
  • "In 1917, the 886 Washingtonia asteroid was named in his honor";
  • "As president he made a point of being seen attending services at numerous churches, including Presbyterian, Quaker, Congregational and Catholic." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this but please be patient. It's a long page and I'll be working through it slowly. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'll be adding comments slowly but here is a beginning:

Infobox

• Presumably this is the style used for American presidents but the infobox on this page is extremely long and distracting. I'd suggest trimming as much as possible. Certainly the flags should be removed and delink, per WP:Overlink, as much as possible.

Lead

• Try trimming down the lead. It will be hard and might have to be done word-by-word
• Probably don't need to link to List of Presidents of the United States - be careful of overlinking
• Because this is a summary article with many sub-articles, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. As such, I'd suggest removing any statements in the lead that require citing - the lead should be a summary and reflection of the article as a whole.

Early life

• Is it necessary to mention the different dates? I can see an argument for it, but it's a lot to read through in the first few sentences. Perhaps all of that can be better summarized and shoved into a note?
• Perhaps the section about the deaths of the siblings could be simplified and perhaps the details shoved into a note? Again, a lot to get through here early on.
• I thought Lawrence was his father's heir and inherited the estate. If that's the case should be explicitly explained.
• Cite needed for sentence that Thomas Fairfax became a formative influence. Just out of curiosity, how did this come about?
• What happened to the mother after his father died? Again, I seem to have some recollection that because Lawrence was heir, George's mother and children were in financial difficulty. If that's the case, it should be mentioned.
• The bit about joining the navy is vague - what did his mother learn that prevented her from allowing him to join? If it's too much to explain maybe take out the piece that she wouldn't allow him or shove into a note.
• What happened to the Washington estate after Lawrence's death? Did George inherit or Lawrence's children?

Seven years war

• "Washington was at the center of its beginning." > I think this is a bit exagerated. I'd suggest simply explaining that the French were in current day western Pennsylvania, the area the Ohio Country wanted to develop, and the Dimwiddie sent George to Fort Le Beouf with a letter. Also should mention that Washington went with Christopher Gist in the dead of winter. This entire event is very interesting and could be expanded - certainly the crossing of Allegheny River on his return, when he almost drowned, should be mentioned. I think that's in Anderson's book. Washington also kept a journal of the event, as did Christopher Gist, and although primary sources, would be okay to pull out a quote or two in my view. If you haven't access, I have both and would be happy to add.
• Chronology: should probably be spelled out a bit better. Wash traveled from Williamsburg north with Gist in Nov/Dec - stopping at Logstown where they met Tanachrisson, and then north to Fort Le Beouf. Then back south to Williamsburg. Returned in the spring with the militia - ostensibly to support William Trent, but he lost control to Trent's fort to Duquesnes so Washington was stuck at the Great Meadows which led the ambush at Jumonville Glen. Conversely I think the Jumonville Glen material could be summarized: simply that there was an ambush, Washington & native allies, and the French were killed (assassinated? ). The result was that Jumonville's brother marched on Great Meadows the battle at Fort Necessity.
• "However, he was allowed to return with his troops to Virginia." > this glosses over the fact that the men were badly outnumbered, stinking drunk, many many were killed, and Washington in fact had to give up command to George Mackay. It was Washington who signed the surrender document. Again all of this should be summarized somehow.

Braddock disastor

• Explain why Washington was only an aide-de-camp. In fact after Ft. Necessity he resigned from the militia and as a colonial was not allowed to join the British army.
• Should probably mention that he fought bravely during this battle which was disastrous - I don't know how true and would need to look at sources, but remember that he had at least one horse if not more shot from him.

Commander of Virginia regiment

• I'd suggest finding a more recent source than Flexner (from 1965) for this section.
• What was his position in Forbe's army?

Lessons learned

• "Although Washington never gained the commission in the British army he yearned for, in these years the young man gained valuable military, political, and leadership skills" > I think it's really important to emphasize that as a colonial - and born in the colonies - he was ineligible for commission in the British army.

More later .... Truthkeeper (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Between the wars

• Should probably mention that Martha was older than George in a parenthetical phrase
• "As a respected military hero and large landowner, he held local office and was elected to the Virginia provincial legislature, the House of Burgesses, beginning in 1758.[46]" > I can't tell whether this is repetitive. Is the local office the same as the provincial legislature or a different office?
• "Patsy Custis's death in 1773 from epilepsy enabled Washington to pay off his British creditors, since half of her inheritance passed to him.[51]" > who is she and why did he inherit money from her?
• I think something should be done about combining the three short stubby paragraphs at the end of this section.

American revolution

• The section begins with a pronoun > needs Washington's name somewhere in the first sentence for clarity]
• "which called for the convening of a Continental Congress, among other things..." > can probably do without the "among other things" otherwise they should be explained

Commander in chief

• Does that need to be hyphenated?
• I think it needs a transition from the Continental Congress to the Battles of Lexington and Concord > that's a really big jump for a lay reader
• How was he chosen Commander-in-Chief? Adams nominated - was there then vote? Also where was the 2nd Continental Congress held? Were these all in Philadelphia?
• I'm a little lost in the 3 roles section and there's a short para, a long para, and another short para. I'd suggest trying to restructure a bit here

Victory at Boston

• I think that should be moved up to be with the Lexington / Concord bit beccause that was jarring.

to be cont... Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Defeat at New York

• "These victories alone were not enough to ensure ultimate Patriot victory, however, since many soldiers did not reenlist or deserted during the harsh winter." I misread this the first time so probably should be reworded slightly. Also is Patriot a common term - only asking because I'm curious.

1777 campaign

• This fine but there are four short section in row here: "1777 campaign", "Valley Forge", "Victory at Yorktown", and "Demobilization". I'm wondering if any of these can be combined - for instance tack "Valley Forge" to the end of the 1777 campaign, and maybe have a "Victory at Yorktown and demobilization" section.

Demobilization

• Try combining the paragraphs to avoid short choppy paras

Constitutional constitution

• Another short section here - but honestly this should be it's own section and I can't think how to fix this, so it's probably fine if the short sections above are fixed

Presidency

• Single sentence paragraph for second term should either be developed more or combined with another paragraph

Foreign affairs

• Awkward sentence here > " Washington, warning and mistrustful of the influence of Illuminism that had been so strong in the French Revolution (as recounted by John Robison and Abbé Augustin Barruel) and its Reign of Terror, demanded the French government recall Genêt, and denounced the societies.[108]" Also, why is the parenthetical statement in smaller font?

Death

• I'm not sure where it is, but there's a policy against using pull quotes, so those should be removed.

Legacy

• I'm not crazy about opening with the large text box, particularly so close to the pull quotes. I'm not sure how to suggest fixing though - it's a good quote and should probably be kept. I'll think about it
• I'd suggest moving the entire "Legacy section" to the very end of the article and combine with the "Postage and currency" section. Possibly add the "Paper" section there as well.

Personal life

• I"m on the fence about this section. On the one hand it might be nice to deconstruct it and sprinkle these details throughout the article from the beginning since it's a biography instead of stuffing all together in a section at the end; on on the other hand, it does summarize daughter/sub-articles so I can understand why it's done this way. I might revisit these sections at a later date.

I'm getting there! I think the sections above are the most important; I've quickly scanned the last few sections and my general comments are that they could use some trimming but will be back with more specific comments regarding those sections.

Btw - this is a nicely done article on a very difficult topic. It does need some work, but I doesn't seem insurmountable to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally done! Hope these comments are helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Labyrinth (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly expanded various sections, and would appreciate feedback on the additions I have made. Labyrinth's page was very thin on detail, and featured very few citations. I have added citations where I can, and created sections covering the different aspects of the film's production. I want to see if it can be upgraded on WikiProjectFilm's quality scale, as it is currently only Start Class and I feel the additions I have made mean it deserves a higher ranking. I'd appreciate thoughts on this, and if you agree it should be upgraded it would be good to have some idea of what grade you feel it should become.

Thanks, Rachael89 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead needs to be expanded to at least 3-4 paragraphs.
• Plot section looks good, meets the WP:FILMPLOT criteria of 400-700 words.
• Production looks great as well, covers all aspects of the production
• Reception looks great as well, but box office section can be expanded upon.
• Home media release may need to be added as well.

Hope these comments help. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Amon of Judah

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to improve the copyediting, scope, and really any other issues found within this article.

Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 15:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Overlinking - no need to link "assassination" Also, generally it's not a good plan to link more than once in an article this short (not including the lead section). You've got two links to Manasseh at least - as well Josiah

 Done Magister Scienta^talk 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Generally, not a good idea to link within quotes.

 Done Delinked everything within the quotes. Magister Scienta^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• NOt a fan of saying "Alhough the date is unknown, scripture records that he married Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah..." better to use the full link - like "Alhough the date is unknown, the Hebrew bible records that he married Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah..."

 Done Used Hebrew bible instead. Magister Scienta^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Concerning the above - what date is unknown?

The date of the marriage. Magister Scienta^talk 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Who are Albright and Thiele and why do we care what their opinion is? Are they historians? Biblical scholars? Egyptologists? Give a bit of context.

 Done I added a little info to the article about them. Magister Scienta^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Once you've established that the dates are BCE - there is no need to keep using BCE after every date - given that it's a biography, it can be assumed that the dates remain all BCE.

 Done Removed BCEs from everywhere but the lead and infobox. Magister Scienta^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Better make it clear that II Kings is a book in the Bible - same with all the other biblical books.

I'm not totally convinced that's necessary, a) most people know what it is, b) the sentence before clarifies that it's part of the bible c) it's linked, so for those still unsure all they have to do is click and d) I think it would sound pretty choppy to say II Kings, a book of the bible, states... when the phase "the Hebrew bible records" was used just above. Magister Scienta^talk 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also sections do not include links to things that are linked in the article

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Derek Jeter

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since this article's first peer review in 2009, I got this article listed as a GA, but failed to get it listed at FA three times. The first time, I withdrew because there was more work than I had thought. The second and third got stymied mostly by prose quality. I think I got the prose very close at the end of the last FAN, but I ran out of steam and it closed, since it had been open a while. I need help getting this as close to FA as possible now, so that the fourth review won't be so problematic. Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I've purposefully avoided trying to review this too deeply at FAC since I'm a die-hard Yankees fan, but for purposes of finding weak areas before another FAC I should be somewhat useful.

• High school: "Jeter's baseball talents drew the attention of University of Michigan". Feels like "the" should be in there before "University".
• Draft: Would be a good idea to mention what spot Jeter was drafted in (sixth, I believe). Although I like the Hal Newhouser story very much, his draft placement would make it clear that the Astros weren't the only team that passed on the opportunity to draft Jeter.
• Minor leagues: "Manager Gary Denbo benched Jeter in the season's final game to ensure his average would not drop below the infamous .200 mark, known in baseball as the Mendoza Line." I remember some jargon concerns from the previous FAC, and fear that "infamous" could be another one. It's not clear to a non-baseball fan why this is infamous, and I'm really not convinced the word is even needed. The sentence seems just fine, and understandable, without it.
• Is there a link for South Atlantic League?
• We have "Class-A" and "Class A" in this section. Make up your mind on whether or not the hyphen should be in there and stick with it.
• Not sure if Topps needs italics or not.
• "The Yankees reportedly offered Jeter the opportunity to work out with the replacement players in Spring Training prior to the 1995 season, but he declined to cross the picket line during MLB's work stoppage." I'd remove "the" before "replacement players" and decapitalize spring training.
• "Steinbrenner approved a trade that would have sent pitcher Mariano Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for shortstop Felix Fermin, but general managers Gene Michael and Brian Cashman convinced Steinbrenner to give Jeter an opportunity." Bob Watson was the general manager in 1996, not Michael or Cashman. Michael had a scouting position at the time, while I don't remember for certain what role Cashman had. I think he was the assistant GM, but wouldn't swear to it. The article is incorrect, either way.
• The "and hit his first major-league home run that day" part isn't backed by the Baseball-Reference page. Should be relatively easy to find a source to put here, if the previous one doesn't already cover it.
• Excess "a" in "Jeter hit a fly ball to right field that was a ruled a home run by the umpires."
• "and the Yankees defeated the Atlanta Braves in the 1996 World Series to win their first World Series championship since 1978." Couple things to note here. First, the second World Series could be considered a prose redundancy, and the sentence seems to flow nicely even without it. Second, the FAC reviewers aren't fond of bare year links like the 1978 one appears to be.
• "and 84 RBIs, and for a team that won 114 games during the regular season and is widely considered to be one of the greatest of all time." First, remove the "and" before "for a team". Second, I'm not convinced that one source from the team is enough verification that the 1998 Yankees were among the greatest baseball teams in history. There are many who say that, so it shouldn't be too hard to find one or two supporting sources.

Overall I think this has come a long way from when it was first at FAC, but I do still see some rough edges to sort out. In addition, I still sense some choppiness in the career summary, though I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. Don't think it's that far away, however. Please ping me if you want me to review further. For an article as close to my heart as this, I'm definitely willing to put some more time into looking at it. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments

• Ensure that all references are consistent. Ref 116 and 117 use a different format to the rest.
• Ref 143 is dead.

– Lemonade51 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! If anyone else wants to chime in before this gets archived, I'd greatly appreciate it. I can use all the help I can get here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I along with other editor's have worked hard for the article and kept in the watch. I just want to hear some thoughts on how is it doing for now on getting ready for good article when it is released. Is there any problems that needs to be fixed or is there something missing for it to be qualified etc. Thanks, Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you wait until the movie is release? Once it does, the article will be updated frequently and will be unstable. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not finished or not ready for GA. I among other editors will keep watch that it will be a reliable article. I just wanted to know is it stable for the time being. Does it pass every guideline etc. It seemed like a good idea at the time but I feel like it can wait and be archived if there will be no other thoughts about it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, words such as "skinny" and "spandex" are common words and don't need to be wikilinked. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Impressive that it is this far along before the film has been released. I'll try to do a full review in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comments: (Note that I haven't worked much on film articles before, so I am unfamiliar with some of the details of how these articles usually work.)
• I think the article could use a general copyedit. You could try listed it at WP:GOCE/REQ, but they're so backlogged it could take months before someone looks at it. The best idea would be to find someone who has experience getting articles on similar subjects promoted and ask them to take a look. Also, User:Tony1 has some helpful writing exercises on his page.
  • I do plan to request copyediting after the film's release. I love the suggestion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Make sure that you follow WP:MOSCAPTIONs.
• The use of the word "currently" is frowned upon, best to say "As of May 2011" (or whenever).
  • Just to save time to look for it where are you talking about if I never find it before you answer it? I would like to note that currently does seem to be more common on film articles though. But to be on the safe side I would change it once I know where it's at. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the one I saw was in the Music section. It says he is "currently in talks" and was posted in September. I would assume the talks have concluded by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to make sure you use logical quotation (it is tricky though).
  • Did you notice any of that on the article? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did notice "the villain's wife." You might want to move the period outside the quote there. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have noticed it if you haven't mentioned it. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to cut down on the use of the word "Also". Maybe do a control+F and then see how many you can remove without changing the meaning of sentences.
  • I will be hunting for that word. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There's less of that word now. I hope the substitute words will do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent with the use of serial comma.
• Watch for consistency with commas when beginning sentences with time statments, i.e. "In February 2011,"
  • Fixed. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe use a wikilink for Reboot (fiction)?
  • Added that. I think it was removed once for being accused of being a common word though Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Garfield was 27 after being cast as Spider-Man, which raised concerns about his ability to play a high school student." This isn't clear to me, did he turn 27 after getting the role, or do you mean he was 27 when he was cast?
  • Is it clearer now? :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overall, the article is pretty heavy on the quotations, maybe try to trim them down a bit.
• Also, I'm not sure of the guidelines, but I don't know if all the information in the Cast section is a good idea.
• Check the names of websites for compliance with MOS:ITALICs
• Generally, you should use someone's first and last name at the first mention, then switch to just the last name. In "Pre-production" you have "Rhys Ifans" twice.

I fixed that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's a fairly long quote in the Video Game section, I'm not sure that's necessary.
  • I agree. Made it less longer. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Check the references section for consistent formatting. There's no need to put a period after months or state the day of the week.
  • Did you notice any of that or is that just a caution? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• It might be worth double-checking that all the sources you use meet WP:RS. I don't know much about sourcing in this area, but it might be a good idea to see if they're used on current Featured or Good articles. Or check the archives at WP:RSN.
  • Alright, I think this article is coming along fine. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, it looks like [2] and [3] are dead links. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping to find the archives of those. I even asked a certain editor for help on finding them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• RE: your question on my talk page. This is more of a suggestion on my part than a rule or guideline, it may not make that much of a difference in a GA review. Although, GA reviewers do have varying standards. I'm looking at Spider-Man (film) and it doesn't look like there are quotes in the cast section. I'd probably cut the last quotes for Garfield, Stone, and Ifans though. Maybe try to paraphrase some quotes in the last section of Filming and Video Game, as well? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• • This article and this article is more of what I had in mind when creating quotes on cast sections. Spider-Man (film) has been a good article for a while and could be outdated for one while these article's have recently been GA's. I will think about doing some paraprasing though.... ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I guess your version is closer to the normal size than I had thought. I'll make a mental note of those articles. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Alexis Bachelot

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd appreciate a peer review here, the article passed a Good Article review on the 25th and I'm curious what would be needed to get this to Featured Article status. I've never taken anything to FAC, so I'm a bit unsure what would need to be done here. Feedback on the prose quality/clarity would be particularly appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Doing...: Sorry for the wait. This will be a review of prose and presentation rather than content, as I am unfamiliar with the sublect area. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Glad to have you as a reviewer again. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting and, to me, completely unknown story. I have indicated a number of ways in which the prose could be improved, and would like to read the article again after these changes have been effected.

Lead

• "Bachelot, however, was able to quietly minister to a small group of Hawaiian Catholics for four years." Presumably he "converted" them first, since Bachelot's mission was "the first Catholic mission to the Kingdom of Hawaii"?
• I would introduce Kaʻahumanu as "Queen Kaʻahumanu", to clarify her status and gender. This will help later on.
• "After being forced to leave, Bachelot traveled to California..." Save a few words thus: "Bachelot then traveled to California..."?
• "By 1837..." → "In 1937..."
  • I'm fairly certain that would be inaccurate :)
• "After arriving in Honolulu, he learned that King Kamehameha III had changed his mind and would not allow Catholic priests on the island." .The sentence could end after "had changed his mind", to avoid a repetitive effect
• Likewise, in "before being freed from the ship after the French and British navies...", the words "from the ship" are not necessary.

Early life

• For the benefit of non-Catholoic readers, can you pipelink professed Look for other possible links, especially for ecclesiastical terms or offices

Hawaiian mission

• "assigned them with the task..." The word "with" is redundant
• "The priests were faced with a necessitous situation because of the absence of Rives' patronage." I would not use "neccesitous"; it's a pretty obscure word, and a situation of dire poverty" would be much clearer.
• "he would pay for their passage" Clarifty "he" (Rives, presumably)
• There are rather a lot of names in the short passage: "...after the death of King Kamehameha II in July 1824. As King Kamehameha III was a child at the time of the death of Kamehameha II, Kaʻahumanu ruled as Kuhina Nui." Can you find a way of simplifing this? You should explain the relationship of Kaʻahumanu to the old and new kings. In the lead we have "kuhina nui", here it is capitalised. Maybe this office should be explained, rather than expecting readers to rely on the link in the lead.
• "years earlier" gives a wrong impression of many years earlier. According to Bingham's article the conversion was four years previously, and this is what I would say.
• Again I wonder how, if Bachelot's mission was the first to Hawaii, they met Boki who was already a Catholic?
• "The captain, however, refused to do because..." There seems to be a word missing.
• "where the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace was dedicated in 1843". Tense error; 1843 was in the future, so "would be" dedicated.
• "the group avoided drawing attention and studied the Hawaiian language". Drawing attention to themselves?
• Why is lack of fluency in English relevant?
• Again the mystery: "Hawaiians who had been converted with Boki"
• I think you "obtain" taher than "attain" seeds

Persecution

• "Though she steadfastly opposed his work, Bachelot viewed Kaʻahumanu as a good person..." would read better as: "Though Kaʻahumanu steadfastly opposed his work, Bachelot viewed her as a good person..."
• "appertained" → "appertaining"

California

• "By that time, the ship was running very low on food and water". Is this detail relevant?
• "the next year" → "the following year"
• "...asked the Catholic leadership in Santa Barbara to prevent him from leaving, but he insisted on leaving". Slightly rephrase, to avoid the repetition

Later life

• Not an appropriate section heading - he had no "later life". "Final years" would be better.
• "...they spent 13 days on the island before being confined to the ship on which they had arrived" Reads slightly oddly; I'd make that: "they spent 13 days on the island, but were then confined to the ship on which they had arrived,.."
• "the HMS Sulpher" - needs a bit more detail: "the British naval vessel HMS Sulpher..." (Are you sure of this spelling of "Sulpher"?)
• "The ships were commanded by Edward Belcher and Dupetit Thouars" - insert "respectively" after "commanded". Then, "who each tried..." etc
• "After negotiations proved futile, they blockaded the harbor in mid-July and allowed Bachelot and Short to come ashore." This ic confusing. Does it mean that the captains, by blockading the harbor, enabled Bachelot and Short to land? It's not at all clear how this could work.
• "By November 1837, he recovered..." Some recovery! I would modify to "By November 1837 he had recovered sufficiently to leave Hawaii".
• You give the year of Bachelot's death as 1987
  • It was a very long voyage :)
• "freedom of religion", rather than "the freedom of religion".

As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• You have a good eye! Thanks for the review, hopefully I'll get to this soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I think I have implemented your suggested changes. I think your feedback has helped the article a lot. I'm interested to see the reception that this would get at WP:FAC. I have a couple questions though: is this change correct? I get confused about those two phrases. Also, when saying "a position similar to queen regent", "queen regent" should be lowercase, right? I did a brief look through Google books and it seems that "Kuhina Nui" is capitalized by some authors, but not by others. Our article has it capitalized so I stuck with that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm generally happy with what you've done, though I still have one query. Do I assume that kings Kamehameha II and III were either brothers or perhaps half-brothers? This follows from Kaʻahumanu being described as a wife of their father. I really would like to see these relationships clarified. I don't see why this article shouldn't go to FAC (there's a logjam there at the moment so it might be best to wait for a week or so), as long as you are satisfied that it meets the featured article criteria. Let me know what you decide to do. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll clarify that. I'll probably work on another article's FAC first before nominating this one though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Tay–Sachs disease

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this to become a FA in the future for Metzenberg (or at least GA). I have been working with the article. It seems strangely that something is missing. This PR will straighten it out I hope.

Thanks, ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Writing could be tightened up. 'There is currently no cure' - well, could just write 'there is no cure' because if there ever wars, the article would be updated PDQ, and it would be better located after 'death by age four'. ('How horrible', the reader thinks, 'can nothing be done?') This observations applies to the whole article.
• "The variant forms reflect diversity in the mutation base." ???
  • Removed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Muscles begin to get atrophy and then paralysis."
  • Clarification needed. Changed a bit. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Genetics: might be explicit that one copy is recessive and causes no problems. (Kind of funny that 'autosomal recessive disease' is defined only after it's been used a couple times.)
  • Done. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• The 'Pathophysiology' section might be moved up.
• 'Diagnosis': the long anecdote making up half of it seems kind of odd.
  • Removed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Couples can call a hotline If both are"
  • Clarification needed. Typo fixed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• I realize the history section has a separate article, but more could be quoted from it, IMO.
  • Doing. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overall, I think the writing needs to be tightened up as mentioned, jargon needs to be explained the first time it appears (for example, the discussion of founder populations in the Genetics section precedes the good founder effect diagram in the Epidemiology section), and thought given to what an ordinary reader (who may only fuzzily remember high school biology) will understand at each point so one avoids inferential distance. --Gwern (contribs) 16:10 7 January 2012 (GMT)
  • Explain more? (Note that I'm very bad at detecting and fixing typos and such). ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the Guild of Copy-Editors could help? Allens (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Requesting. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        

---