Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Backlash (2003)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA and hopefully FA.


Thanks, ~SRS~ 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Backlash (2003)/archive1.

Cacua language

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…i think it should be a featured article.


Thanks, Latinlover-sa (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you want it to be a FA, I will make comments based on helping improve it towards a WP:FAC.

  • A model article is always useful for ideas on structure, style, etc. I note that there are several language FAs, one of which is Mayan languages and may be a useful model.
  • The article as written is quite short and will need to be expanded for FA to be as comprehensive as possible. See WP:WIAFA for all the FA criteria
  • The lead of the article needs to a be a concise summary of the whole article, so this will need to be expanded from two sentences to two or three paragraphs (perhaps after the article is expanded). My rule of thumb is that every header should somehow be mentioned in the lead - see WP:LEAD
  • For ideas on what to add when expanding, look at the other language FAs. For example there is nothing on Phonology, and Grammar and Literature are combined in one short section.
  • This needs a copyedit for spelling (The speakares are located in Wacara...) and to polish the language (Another promising aspect is that even though literacy is low by international standards but still unlike most Indigenous Languages of the Americas literacy is higher in the aboriginal language around 10% as to Spanish, under 5%, the dominant national language of Colombia where all the speakers reported by Ethnologue reside within.[1] - I have almost no idea what this means) - again I would try to clean up some, but expand and then polish
  • Any free images possible - pictures of the people who speak it or their villages or houses? An image is required for FA - not sure if the map would count
  • Provide context for the reader - what does the Sample text in Cacua (Ded pah jwiít jwĩ jwíih cãac cha pahatji naáwát[5]) mean? Is it a grocery list or a history or a Bible verse? See WP:PCR
  • Add more wikilinks - things like Hunter-gatherer etc.
  • References need more complete data - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help here.
  • SIL is a disambiguation link - please fix it

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It had been very helpful, i continue to work on it, thank you for your suggestions. is there a way to put a check list on the article's talk page? why was it removed from the peer review page? how do i submit this to the league of copyeditors? would you mind if i striked your comments regarding improvements that i have implemented? what if i can't find more information on the article? for instance this language has very few speakers and there is not a lot of info out there about it? is there anywhere i can ask for others to collaborate and help?Latinlover-sa (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is OK with me to strike things in this peer review as you address them. It would also be OK to copy my items to the article's talk page. There was a problem with peer review several days ago that has been fixed. I would ask for help at WikiProject Languages or the Colombian Wikiproject (both have boxes on the article's talk page). If you can't find more information, you can't find it, but I think it needs to be expanded and cleaned up to become a FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it as a FAC soon. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Not sure on shacknews as a source. What makes this a reliable source?
  • Same for Gaming Target?
  • Same for Ultimate Guitar Archive? (note I'm NOT a guitarist at all).
  • LIkewise Bit-tech?
  • The kotaku refs, what makes the authors well known in their field?
  • The joystiq refs, same thing.
  • The YouTube ref, what makes IT reliable? It doesn't appear to be from the developers, at least from the bibliography. (Note I don't dare try to view the file over my current connection, it doesn't have the bandwith).
  • http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/10/guitar-hero-iii-problems-with.html looks like a blog? What makes this reliable?
  • http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=628006 looks like a forum post? What makes this reliable?
Otherwise look pretty decent. 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Shacknews is considered reliable by WP:VG/S. The last three refs you brought up I've already marked as unreliable with {{rs}} so I will work on those later when I find suitable references. Gary King (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gazimoff (talk · contribs)

  • infobox
    • Image:Guitar-hero-iii-cover-image.jpg needs a full url to the image source and replacability information
    • Release dates need citations
    • System requirements for PC version might be an idea.
  • Lead
    • what do you mean by third full title/fourth overall?
    • What do you mean by master tracks?
    • You mention that co-op career mode is new, but you don't mention battle mode as new as well. Is there a reason for this?
  • Gameplay
    • Four note chord - what is a rhythm guitar track? What do you mean by expert difficulty? It might be an idea to rearrange this section so that the standard gameplay elements are introduced and summarised first, before moving on to variations and changes for this version.
    • when released (by tilting the guitar controller - what is a player's mutiplier? Mention the use of score multipliers earlier on. Also, suggest starting this as a new sentence instead of a semicolon.
    • Co-op career mode - I'd consider merging this into Career merge. Make note of the fact that this is new to GH3 - you've mentioned it in your lead yet not talked about it here. Is this available through online play?
    • Battle mode - If you don't merge the two career modes together, I'd suggest merging the two multiplayer modes, as they are small sections on their own. You also mention Rockl Meter here - is this the same as the performance meter mentioned earlier? If so, explain it earlier on. Also, the attack can be caticated by tilting the guiar and pressing a button, which button is not important. Is network play the same as online play - if so, be consistent.
    • Image:Guitar-hero-3-gameplay.jpg needs full URL source and updated replacability - there's no free use equivalent. Beef up purpose - what are you trying to show to the reader that can't be done through text?
    • Wii exclusive features - I'd consider moving this into development instead of gameplay - it was a series of issues faced when the game was being developed, not things that intrinsically affect gameplay. Also, source needs to be found for the Wii 'miss' sounds and remastered disc
    • Characters - explain unlocking characters. Can a source be found with the info on characters, including variants for the different platforms.
    • Image:Gh3_bret.jpgneeds a replacability reason in rationale. Also, the rationale states it's to identify the use of a singer's likeness, yet the resolution is so low it's difficult to make him out. Is an alternative image available, or a crop of an existing one?
  • Development
    • Slash being unlocked, reword to avoid VG jargon.
    • Tom Morello is a boss - If possible avoid videogame jargon
    • I'd look at getting a copyedit for this, as there's a large number of fragmented paragraphs. The Technical Issues section should probably be merged into Reception, as it's stating that poor implementation negatively impacted how the game was recieved.
  • Soundtrack - move above Development
  • Reception
    • Bulk out with info from Technical Issues, earlier
    • Most critics have also praised the soundtrack - sounds weasaly, remove Most and add a source
    • Focus on what the feedback was and why it was given - the sources will tell the reader who said it. It also makes the section much easier to follow and more understandable.
    • Legacy - addon kits and accessories are availble for the controllers, downloadable content, Include this if possible.

That's all I can identify for now. I hope it's of use to you. I would strongly reccomend a copyedit to ensure that the article is readable and flows well. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article has the potential to be a GA with the help of a peer review.


Thanks, REZTER TALK ø 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments and here are some more suggestions for improving the article:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas for style, structure, refs, etc. I note that there are many album FA articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music, including God Hates Us All, which may be suitable models. Since you are interested in GA first, see the Music section (under Art) at Wikipedia:Good_articles for some GA models.
  • Per WP:MOS#Quotations, quotes come before punctuation in most cases - so Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu-metal,"[1] the album... should be Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu-metal",[1] the album ...
  • Last two sentences in "Album information" are uncited and need refs - see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • For references that are available online (such as the Rolling Stone album review, ref 17) I would link the review in the reference. {{cite web}} is useful here.
  • Watch out for peacock words Iowa, unlike its predecessor, saw producer Ross Robinson capturing the band's technicality as opposed to the raw energy that Slipknot is known for.[10] If someone saws they are known for raw energy, it is probably better to quote them. See WP:PEACOCK
  • Last sentence in "Music style and lyrical themes" section seems more like it belongs in critical reception section.
  • The album articles I looked at all put "listy" stuff at the end, so I would put critical reception before Track listing

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed its second WP:FAC. The article is very thorough and well-cited. However, this guy is a Reaganite and Ronald Reagan took 6 WP:FACs and 2 WP:PRs (not to mention 2 WP:GACs to achieve WP:FA. I am not a political scholar, but I imagine some people bring thier own persuasion into the promotion process for political figures. I have felt that at the conclusion of each WP:FAC process, I have substantially addressed the concerns raised, but the reviewers failed to reconsider their opinions in time for the FA promotion. I am not entirely convinced that much needs to be done to the article when I compare its quality to my other 5 successful WP:FAs, but I bring it here on the advice of User:SandyGeorgia.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jessica Alba

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed as a good article and would like to know any further improvements I could make to it for a possible FAC later.

Thanks, Hello32020 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but I think it needs some work to get to FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement. I usually pick a few examples of things to improve, so this is not an exhaustive list.

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several FAs on actresses at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - I note that Reese Witherspoon is an FA and may be a suitable model.
  • Please see WP:WIAFA - especially "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. I think that this would be the main obstacle to the article becoming FA, and the article needs a copyedit. I will try to point out some places where the prose could be improved.
    • She has received many awards and notations for her acting and physical appearance.[1][2][3][4] What is a notation? The word "notation" is not used again in the article.
    • Alba's TV and movie appearances began with her child acting in Camp Nowhere (1994) ... is "child acting" really a common verb? How about Alba's began her TV and movie appearances as a child actor in Camp Nowhere (1994) ...
    • Alba's parents married in their teenage years.[13][14][15] How about Alba's parents married as teenagers.[13][14][15]? Also, does this really need three references? Or with all these refs could you say "Alba's parents married when her father was 17 and her mother was 16"? (I made these ages up)
    • Alba was raised in an Air Force family with her brother, Joshua[16] and her grandparents until she was seventeen years old. I really am not sure what this means - did her grandparents live with her family? What happened when she was 17? Also note that references usually come at the end of a sentence.
    • She was originally hired for two weeks but her role turned into a two-month job when the actress in one of the prominent roles dropped out.[5] It seems she was also hired for a smaller role and got moved to a larger role, but this does not say that.
  • Avoid overlinking - Dark Angel is linked twice in the lead alone.
  • Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. When did she move back to California (what age was she / what year was it)? Was it when she started acting / getting small roles? When was she in Autralia for Flipper for two years? I find it odd that in Early life she has collapsed lungs twice and pneumonia every year, but in the Career section she is a diver - this seems like an odd combination
  • Per WP:MOS#Quotations, block quotes should be used for quotes of four lines or more, so I thought it was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life.[14] should not be a block quote.
  • Another big omission - since she is an actress, what sort of critical reception has she had? What have critics said about her acting in TV and films?
  • Watch for one and two sentence paragraphs (Obama supporter, for example) and very short sections (Charitable work is one sentence). I would combine these with others or expand them as needed.
  • Awards and Nominations seems to be missing somethings mentioned in the lead / article.
  • Most refs look fine, but some need publisher or date accessed or authir information. Ref 33 uses IMDb which is not generally seen as a WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to implement some of these, and have ended up finding up information that actually wasn't sourced [didn't realize it - I didn't add it]. I implemented many of your suggestions however. Though I cannot find any critical reception on her work as a whole, and I fixed one of the PCR suggestions, again could not find information on the others. Most of the Awards & Nominations are in the notes for filmography [as in the Witherspoon article] and the ones in the remaining section don't fit under a single movie. Hello32020 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be OK to use reviews from individual movies. Roger Ebert is online and so are others. Sometimes Ebert will mention an actor and say "While I liked her in X, in this Y I do not" or "I love her performance in this, so why did I not notice her in that." I do not write Biographies so I am not sure how to integrate reviews - models are useful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (comics)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so it can become a future GA and maybe even become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article with a lot of detail, obvious has had a lot of work done on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement - please note I tend to give examples of problems and that these are not usually an exhaustive list (if I give one typo, there may be many more):

  • A model article is often helpful as a guide and for examples to follow. I note that WikiProject Comics has 16 FAs, including Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which may be good models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header should mentioned somehow in the lead, even if only as a word or phrase. Also nothing major should be in the lead that is not also in the article itself - so the actors who have portrayed the Joker should also be in the text.
  • It is important when writing about fiction to maintain an out of universe perspective and to provide context for the reader. For example, in the lead the murders of Jason Todd (the second Robin) and Jim Gordon's second wife Sarah Essen. the second Robin provides context, but I did not know who Jim Gordon is (I think of him as Commissioner Gordon). See WP:IN-U and WP:PCR
  • The article has seven fair use images, which seems like it may be a bit much, especiallyy in WP:FAC. See WP:FAIR USE
  • Article needs a copyedit for grammar and to tighten prose - for example just in the lead That characterization continued through the late 1950s and 1960s before the character became [was] again depicted as a vicious killer.
  • I read the GA and GAR and agree that this is seriously under-referenced. Every quote (In the one-shot Underworld Unleashed, the Trickster remarks, "When super-villains want to scare each other, they tell Joker stories".), every extraordinary claim (The Joker is renowned as Batman's most unpredictable foe.), every statistic and every paragraph needs a citation. See WP:CITE, [[WP:V]
  • Article has realtively little material from independent third-party sources - what do comic critics and historians write about the Joker?
  • The end of the article (long bullet point lists) needs to be turned into flowing text.
  • There are several short paragraphs sections that could be combined with another section or perhaps expanded (Other media). Short paragraphs and sections break up the flow of the article too.
  • Refs look OK, but beware at FAC there are questions about what makes a source reliable. Some of the websites may be doubtful (comicvine.com? newsarama.com?) - see WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tuck

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

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

I've improved the article since the last PR. Please note that Tuck is a back-up DE (at the moment) and has been injured for a great deal of his pro career, so expansion of some areas is very difficult because there are no reliable sources found. Tuck is now a player on the rise and I have put a lot of hard work into this article.

Thanks, Endless Dan 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)

Overall the article looks close to GA. Some comments:

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments, Here are a few more suggestions for improvement for the article:

  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article and nothing should be only in the lead - per WP:LEAD. I would add the first paragraph in the lead to the Personal life section or before the high school football section. Since the lead is the most important stuff, I would not include the fact about his father building the house in the lead in any case.
  • I would also add the details about the philanthropy in the lead to Personal life.
  • Do not use & in the text unless it is a direct quote, so change Growing up, Tuck's favorite football teams were the San Francisco 49ers[9] & Dallas Cowboys[10] but his favorite sport was...
  • Awkward language (heavily waged) Due to the game's low score, opinions were heavily waged that Tuck better deserved the MVP award over Eli Manning.[17][20][21][22][23] I also think it is always better to give specifics - i.e. say who felt that Tuck deserved the MVP.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)

London

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on the references and am aiming to get it to Featured Article status. Therefore, I would like to know what improvements I need to make to the article before I take it to FAC. All comments will be appreciated, no matter how long or how short. I hope you enjoy Peer Reviewing London!

Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4.

Malware

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question. Hello, Kozuch. I see you have nominated about five articles for peer review. I'll only comment here. This article is rated Start class while peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". How about contributing to the article first, rather than asking for precious and sometimes rare peer review resources? Two things come to mind that are easy to begin. A To Do list for the article, and inline citations for every part that is lacking them. Would you be interested in working on the article? Also I suggest that maybe peer review could be withdrawn until the article is ready. —SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)

Pied-Noir

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I threw it over to FAC and withdrew after 4-5 days. One of the main concerns was the article's length (previously about 3,500 words) and focus (too much detail). These were serious concerns, thus I withdrew and started cutting down the length. My collaborators and I have managed to cut down to about 2,100 words. I was hoping the review could provide some insight on: areas which could be cut further, address any lingering NPOV issues, and add some stylistic input. General notes are welcome as well!

As always, thank you dearly for your time.

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pulmonary contusion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like feedback from someone with medical knowledge, since I'm not a medical expert, there's a chance I've introduced errors. The pathophysiology section is probably especially in need of help. Of course any other feedback is appreciated as well. Thanks much, delldot talk 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a medical student but have already reviewed some articles, so here are my concerns, suggestions:

  • How do you mean this line? "Pulmonary contusion is one of the most important factors in determining whether an individual will die or suffer ill effects as the result of an injury" I would write ...is a crucial or essential factor... instead of "one of the most important".
  • I believe these two sentences should be merged into one with one ref at the end: "The amount of energy that is transferred to the lung is determined in a large part by the compliance of the chest wall.[3] The younger a person is, the more compliant the chest wall.[3]"

PMID 17019186 might be helpful for the pathophysiology section. --WS (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will be great! Thanks so much for finding that! delldot talk 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sindy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would love some feedback on how to further improve this GA article, especially how to avoid proseline and where to find more sources.

Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement:

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current lead could be split into two paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, perhaps more could be in the lead on the development.
  • Provide context for the reader - for example, in "Development and launch" it might help to say Pedigree is in Exeter, or that Ideal was based in New York. See WP:PCR
  • At FAC someone might ask what happened between the introduction of the doll in 1963 and the next date given, 1968, when it was the best selling toy in Britain. How did it get there?
  • Aha, reading further I see that the "Developing accessories and American release" section is not chronological - it might make more sense to put this information in chronological order, perhaps just by putting these three sentences (Sindy was the best selling toy ... Sindy's success in the 1960s ... Mattel did not focus on Barbie's accessories ...) at the end of the first paragraph in the section, after the designers.
  • Could more specifics be given here During the 1970s, the foundation of marketing the Sindy doll was developing more products.[8] - how did this lead to decline (when the next section also focuses on new products, which were successful).
  • If two or three sentences in a row all have the same reference and there is not a direct quote in there, I think it is fine to have just one ref at the end of the last sentence that is referenced with this material. As it is, the article seems to have too many superfluous refs.
  • The advertising campaign for the fashion company Alexon was not for the doll, right? I think this could be made clearer. Also any idea on how it affected the doll's sales? If it was held up in a major ad campaign as a model of childishness compared to high fashion I doubt it would help sales.
  • The article (as opposed to just the lead) needs to mention Sindy's changed appearance to look more like Barbie in the Hasbro redesigned Sindy .. sentence for this to make sense: Hasbro introduced Sindy in France and continental Europe in 1994 after minor facial modifications to reduce her resemblance to Barbie.[16]
  • General comment - once Sindy was introduced in the US, I had trouble telling whether statements related to the US or the UK or both or the world or whatever. Try for greater clarity.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps Ruhrfisch, I will incorporate all your suggestions. In regards to the superfluous refs, I agree, but I thought it was best to have a reference for every sentence until the article was somewhat stable to avoid something important ending up unreferenced after a lot of stuff is changed. Thanks! Somno (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas of Bayeux

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would appreciate pointers on how to improve the writing and make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from: JamesMLane: I qualify as a non-medievalist, so here are my thoughts.

  • The introductory section should be reworked. An introductory section should help the reader decide whether to read the full article. The current version has some detail that's unimportant for that purpose, such as that Thomas was educated at Liege, and would benefit from a summary of his historical role. I suggest something like this:

Thomas of Bayeux (died November 18, 1100) was Archbishop of York for thirty years. He was a leading though unsuccessful opponent of the primacy of Canterbury, the view that the Archbishop of Canterbury should take precedence over the Archbishop of York.

Thomas, a native of Bayeux, was a royal chaplain to Duke William of Normandy, later King William I of England. After the Norman Conquest, the king nominated Thomas to replace Aldred as Archbishop of York, and he held that post from 1070 until his death. Even before his consecration, he came into conflict with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, over Thomas's initial refusal to give an oath of obedience to Lanfranc. He continued to oppose the primacy of Canterbury, but church authorities and Kings William I and William II sided with Canterbury. Thomas did succeed in securing the role of York in Scotland.

Then, of course, all the detail that's no longer in the introductory section would be incorporated into the body of the article.
  • Can't we give any information about the year of his birth? Even if it's just "Historian A guesses this and Historian B guesses that", it would be better than nothing.
  • Thomas's "profession of obedience was made verbally to Lanfranc personally and not in writing...." The use of "verbally" to mean "spoken and not in writing" is distressingly common but I still consider it substandard. "Verbally" means "by words", and his profession was verbal whether spoken or written. It was nonverbal if made without words, e.g. by kneeling before Lanfranc at a public assembly. If what's meant here is that he spoke it, then "verbally" should be changed to "orally".
  • The resolution of the boundary dispute could be clarified. The article says that the sees at issue were Worcester, Dorchester, and Litchfield, and that the outcome was to set the boundary at the Humber River. I'd like to know what that meant without clicking links to see which of those sees were on each side of the river.
  • Succession after William I's death: Our articles are inconsistent about William's sons. In Robert Curthose I read this: "In 1087, the Conqueror died of wounds suffered during a riding accident during a siege of Rouen. At his death, he reportedly wanted to disinherit his eldest son, but was persuaded to divide the Norman dominions between his two eldest sons. To Robert, he granted the Duchy of Normandy and to William Rufus he granted the Kingdom of England." That says that William Rufus was the second-oldest. The article about Thomas, however, says that William was the third son.
  • The current introduction says that Thomas helped William II put down the rebellion, but the only elaboration is that he accompanied William II on his campaigns. Was that considered significant help, e.g., the troops were much heartened or recruiting was easier because the Archbishop was along? If not, and if the only significance was that he was opposing his former mentor, then maybe just "sided with" would be better.
  • Re this passage: "While Anselm was in exile after quarreling with the king in 1097, Thomas consecrated Herbert de Losinga as bishop of Norwich, Ralph de Luffa to the see of Chichester, and Hervey le Breton as bishop of Bangor." Are the consecrations by Thomas significant because these would normally be prerogatives of Canterbury? If so, perhaps that should be spelled out.
  • Re: "In 1100 after the sudden death of King William II and the seizure of power by his younger brother Henry...." The phrase "seizure of power" is a little jarring, partly because unexplained and partly because it smacks of POV. This is tangential to the Thomas bio, so a lot of detail wouldn't be appropriate, but maybe something along these lines: "In 1100, when King William II died, his older brother Robert had not yet returned from the First Crusade. His younger brother, Henry, took the opportunity to ascend to the throne, with the support of the nobles. Henry was crowned as King Henry I three days after William's death. Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I...." then pick up the current text.
  • In the last paragraph, is "patronized" an acceptable BE spelling?

Overall, I think the article is in very good shape. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now is probably not the best time for a peer review as a lot of temporary changes are being made on an almost daily basis due to the recent release of Service Pack 3 and the aticle is somewhat unstable. It should settle down in a few weeks. Right now, improvements are likely to be a wasted effort because they could be changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important topic that deserves better than B-class rating.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy - editor already has five open peer review requests and has responded to none of them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial refueling

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It is currently rated as a start-class article as I found it, It appears to me to be much much more than this and would like to know if anything should be done before nominating it for a featured article.

Thanks, SyBerWoLff 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, very good pictures. I think it is not ready for FAC as it needs many more referencews and has some other issues - here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC:

  • Language tweak - The procedure allows the receiving aircraft to remain airborne longer and, more important[ly], to extend its range ...
  • Is it "receiving aircraft" (seems better) or "receiver aircraft" - I would pick one and stick with it
  • "carriage" is an uncommon word - the lead should be as accessible as possible
  • Avoid jargon by eliminating or expalining it - what is a "take-off roll" in Alternatively, a shorter take-off roll can be achieved ...?
  • I would not say "see later" - this is the lead, so the whole article is later - the "probe and drogue" system is to be used (see later).
  • The lead should summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that any header should be metioned somehow in the lead, but the history is not, as an example
  • Do not use generalities if specifics are given later - for example, why start the history section with Some of the earliest experiments in aerial refueling took place in the 1920s... when two sentences later we read The first mid-air refueling between two planes occurred June 27, 1923, ... and there is a photo of this too. I would start with the "The first..." sentence and use the second phrase on when it was as simple as two slow-flying aircraft flying in formation, with a hose run down from a hand-held fuel tank on one aircraft and placed into the usual fuel filler of the other. on how it was done following that.
  • Article is under-referenced - this would be a big problem at FAC. For example the first paragraph of History is uncited, as is the whole Operational air refueling section. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Provide context for the reader - what is the significance of Cobham plc in FRL still exists as part of Cobham plc. See WP:PCR
  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs - these very short paragraphs stop the flow and make the article choppy and should be combined or expanded if possible.
  • "Tanker aircraft by refueling system" is very list-y. Would it be possible to make it a separate list article - see WP:Summary style. I think as is, the list would also be a potential problem at FAC.
  • Article could use a copyedit

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • As above, the article is sorely lacking in references. I echo Ruhrfisch's comments about what needs referencing, it's good advice.
  • What references you have are lacking bibliographical information that is needed per WP:V. The "History of Aviation Part 19 1938" needs a publisher, author, and page number at the very least. I suggest using {{cite book}} and the other {{cite}} templates, which can be found Wikipedia:Citation templates.
  • When citing a website, you need to not just put in a bald link to the site, you should format it with a title, and give a publisher and a last access date.
I didn't read the prose, just looked at the sourcing as I would have at FAC. Nor did I look at pictures, but I did note that one is up for deletion. 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

God's Son

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently up for GAN and i think it contains enough information to make a FA. I would appreciate a peer review to find out where the article needs to improved to make it a FAC.

Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have heard of Nas, but do not know this album. The article has a lot of information and here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music including Enta da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which may be useful models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current lead could be expanded. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, Singles, and Production do not seem to be in the lead.
  • Article needs a copyedit - for example Inot a complete list): It reached #12 on the Billboard 200,[1] and obtained a platinum certification from the RIAA a month after it was released.[2] (obtained is an odd verb here), or Although guest appearances are made by Kelis, Alicia Keys, and others, God's Son is considered to be a personal album, in which he covers lyrical themes of his own emotional experiences[3] needs a period and could start something like Although Kelis, Alicia Keys, and others make guest appearances... - this avoids passive voice too. Or In December, Nas appeared in the video for a 2Pac single, "Thugz Mansion (N.Y.)," a song of which an alternative version was later released on God's Son, featuring two verses from Nas and only one from 2Pac. needs to be cleaned up.
  • Article needs more references in a few places - otherwise they sound like original research - for example During 2002, fans and critics speculated that Nas was still willing to make commercial music as he started associating himself with artists from Murder Inc., a pop rap distributing label. - who were these critics? cite them please Not sure if fans speculation is notable.
  • Article needs more specific info for some refs: Although God's Son is rarely considered to be Nas' best album, some consider it to be a notch below Illmatic and Stillmatic.[3][14] It is considered to be highly emotional and personal, but some consider Nas' self-involvement to be a weakness.[3] I would be more specific - who considers it to be his best album? Who considers it a notch below? etc.
  • I do not think that copy vio lyrics sources (ohhla.com) should be linked to and doubt they would be considered WP:RS
  • Ref 24 needs more information - publisher? Youtube is also not generally a reliable source.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Zorn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has expanded significantly since it's last rating and I would like some objective feedback as I progress it to GA status. I still intend to add some sound file examples as soon as I can work out how to do this and also fill in some of the red links. I would like some fresh eyes to check this article and provide constructive feedback. Thanks DISEman (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: Interestuing and generally well done article - here are some sugestions for improvement, many of which are nit-picks:

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article (per WP:LEAD). I fear that the long list of artists he has worked with is a bit off-putting and also worry about the one sentence first paragraph (FAC tends to jump on one sentence paragraphs anyway). I also would not link to Dekoboko Hajime in the lead or article since it is a redirect back here. My rule of thumb is to include every header in some way - you may need fewer headers too (another suggestion).
  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several musician FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be suitable models
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation - so John Zorn was born in New York City and, as a child, played piano, guitar and flute.[8]
  • Provide context for the reader - perhaps a little more about his parents and siblings would make He absorbed musical influences from his parents and siblings which included classical music, world music, jazz, chansons, doo-wop, and rock and roll[9]. clearer, or saying what he studied at Webster College (now Webster University) in St. Louis, Missouri ... under Oliver Lake[11]. See WP:PCR
  • Watch overlinking - Downtown music is linked at least twice in two paragraphs, for example.
  • Article nees more references, for example the last half of Early composition section or last two paragraphs of Breakthrough recordings section or the whole Music romance section are all uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example, the first two paragraphs of Etymology are uncited, or the second bg paragraph of Geography. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I also would switch the book ISBNs in the article to citations and move the ISBN to the ref. Also avoid external links in the article (Chamber Music Society of Southwest Florida) and convert to refs
  • Article has a lot of short paragraphs that could be combined or perhaps expanded with others.
  • External links looks like a bit like a link farm - see WP:EL
  • Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
  • I am not a music expert, but the level of detail seems a bit much in places - we are not told his parents names or the number or gender or names of his siblings, but we know who played violin on "Le Mômo"?
  • Since he is a musician and artist, what about more critical reception?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thinking of putting this up for FL, wondered what else I might need to do.........?

Does the word "football" need to be in the article title....?

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I think some of the text needs more references, particularly the first and third pars and the last line of the second par. I would have said some of that would be easy to steal from FA Cup, but unfortunately that is one of the worst referenced articles on here. However, I digress...
  • If you're going to take this to FLC, I'd suggest creating articles, even if only stubs, for the redlinked FA Cup seasons.
  • Is there any reference available to say why and when Scottish clubs could no longer enter - I presume those in the SFA can't?
  • I'd suggest adding football to the title, but I'd gauge wider opinion on that one.
  • Just a final minor one. Do you think it should be categorised with "History of English football" as well as Scottish? After all, it is an English competition. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article already states when and why Scottish clubs (other than Gretna) stopped entering, complete with a reference to a BBC article, so I think that one's aleady covered. I'll get on to the others ASAP..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You may want to reconsider the bolded lead sentence in light of recent discussions.
  • I'd leave the redlinked seasons as they are. Redlinks attract creators of articles. A stub like FA Cup 1996-97 adds very little to the encyclopedia but makes the potential article-creator think that season's article has already been done. Don't know if you've been following the new criteria debates, but redlinks and stubs get a mention, in WT:Featured list criteria#Revised proposal (4) and throughout that talk page.
  • Do you intend to make it sortable? If not, there's massive overlinking (as I'm sure you know).
  • I'd make the section heading Performance of ... (singular rather than plural)
  • and would include football in the article title.
  • Could you find a more obviously reliable source for it being the world's oldest competition beginning in 1871 than an agency piece in an Australian newspaper?
  • Why did Queens Park keep entering if they were only going to withdraw? and if money was a problem, why did they continue in the English Cup once there was a Scottish one?

that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your comments, I'll address them shortly, although I have found no source which indicates why QP apparently entered the draw five times only to then pull out........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Not overly keen on the columns being centrally aligned, except for the season and the ref.
  • Not sure about the mix of "Round 3" and "3rd qualifying round".
  • Blackburn Rovers is overlinked.
  • I would expand the lead image size. I think, if I remember, you can go up to 300px for the lead image per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Home Counties doesn't need the C to be capitalised.

Not much else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cheers for the comments, all addressed except the column alignments, which I'll do later. I took the image about to what appeared to be the maximum size at which the quality looked OK..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Brevity

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).


Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)

Awesome job so far, very to GA. Some comments:

  • On the image in the plans section, see if you can make the caption a complete sentence instead of an image.
  • ""Without using the Tiger cubs you have taken the offensive, advanced 30 miles, captured Halfaya and Sollum, taken 500 German prisoners and inflicted heavy losses in men and tanks. For this twenty I tanks and 1000 or 1500 casualties do not seem to heavy a cost."" - Add a reference.
  • "Sources" should be "References" and "Footnotes" should be "Notes" See Stanley Cup for an example.
  • The "See also" section should come before the References section (after its been renamed from above)
  • The External links should come after the "Footnotes" section (last).
  • Can you add more categories. As of now there are only two.
  • That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the input, ive done a few of the things you have suggested and will work on the other few soon. One question though, am unsure what you are on about in your last point. Could you elaborate?

Pamela C. Rasmussen

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's passed GA,and I'd like to get to FA. I'm no expert on biography so any help welcome


Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - I didn't want to list everything she'd written, but that is a significant area. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • Address any issues related to what RJHall
  • Need a full DoB
  • "She later specialised in Asian birds describing several new species" needs a comma after birds
  • Ideally references section needs to be "notes" with a "references" section acting as a bibliography below it, but this is more my personal advice.
  • General expansion of all areas.
  • Good references
  • A caption for the infobox image?
  • Good image captions

Overall a good article. Very good referencing, not much I can pick up on. Hope my ideas help! SGGH speak! 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I've addressed the comprehensiveness bit, although there's precious little I can find on the fossils or seabirds. I've emailed for some basic bio details, but she's in Madagascar for a month, with limited internet access. I'll look at the other suggestions later. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
  • Okay, this one may be a killer. Using an archive source from the Smithsonian is verging on WP:OR. It's definitely a primary source and its definitely NOT published. I strongly suggest replacing the current ref 17 "Ripley, S. D. and Ali, S. Correspondence, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7008" with something published. Especially as its correspondence
  • Current ref 19 Hussain, S. A. ... as it's just an unpublished report may be slightly better, but published sources are the best for satisfying WP:V. Strongly suggest replacing this reference also.
  • What makes http://www.sciencecodex.com/ a reliable source?
Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look for alt sources tomorrow, I don't think ther are all needed anyway Jimfbleak (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to Die

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed as a GA and I would like to know of areas which could be improved.

Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed Nas' album. I have heard of The Notorious B.I.G., but do not know this album. The two album articles seem to me to be similar in their areas that need improvement - here are some suggestions:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music including Enta da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (both debut rap albums too), which may be again useful models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current first paragraph could be expanded from one sentence and a third paragraph could be added. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, Songs, Lyrics and Production do not seem to be in the lead.
  • I assume Big Poppa is a nickname for The Notorious B.I.G. - this has to be made clear / explained in the lead It was nominated for Best Rap Solo Performance for "Big Poppa" at the 1996 Grammy Awards. Ditto with Biggie was signed to the Uptown Records label ... see WP:PCR
  • Article is better written than my previous review, but still needs a copyedit - for example (this is not a complete list): Upon its release, Ready to Die received strong reviews,[10] and unlike other acclaimed East Coast hip hop albums released at the time (including the Wu-Tang Clan's Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) and Nas' Illmatic), such critical success was matched commercially, with sales driven by strong radio and MTV airplay for the singles "Juicy" and "Big Poppa". sentence is a snake and should probably be split into two sentences, or The album ends with "Suicidal Thoughts," a song where The Notorious B.I.G. contemplates suicide and finally commits it. Since he did not commit suicide, this needs to be made clearer. ALso needs a ref, I think.
  • Article needs more references. Every paragraph, every statistic, every direct quote, and every extraordinary claim needs a reference - see WP:CITE and WP:V - for example After a brief period dealing drugs in North Carolina, Biggie returned to the studio the following year on Combs' new Bad Boy Records label possessing "a smoother, more confident vocal tone" and completed the album. (direct quote) or "Big Poppa" was nominated at the 1996 Grammy Awards for Best Rap Solo Performance. The album boasts production from Easy Mo Bee, The Hitmen and DJ Premier. Guests on the album were minimal, with Method Man being the only featured artist. All need a ref and I think the production sentence belongs in Production. This article does a nice job in most cases identifying critics, etc.
  • External links in "Accolades" table should be inline references.
  • Refs seem decent, although I am not an expert on rap music and its sources.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBook 100

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have just completely re-written this from scratch. It is now fully referenced. I would like some feedback to make it even better (Aims: GA and then FA status) Thanks — Wackymacs (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/PowerBook 100/archive1.

Adobe Flash

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Check the use of hyphens per WP:DASH.
  • Ensure all citations, where appropriate, use {{cite web}} and contain as much information as possible.
  • For an article this size, I would expect considerably more than 28 citations (e.g. second para of History is citation-less)
  • Resolve the merge tag.
  • Write the Player section as prose, not bullet points.
  • Same with authoring tool.
  • And both sections need references for their various claims.
  • "which wants to drive rich Internet experiences and create a consistent application interface across" reads like an advert to me.
  • " Some developers reported the actual licences missing from the project documentation, but Adobe stated to address the issue." - actual is redundant, and should it be "started"?
  • Programming language section is reference-less and needs to be worked on for prose - it's currently like bullet points without the bullets.
  • "Since The Arrival of the..." - whoa, over caps...
  • Deal with the citation needed template.
  • Avoid in-line linking.

This is quite some way from GA right now, I'd suggest a thorough set of references are added and that the entire article be copyedited. Try the league of copyeditors... All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Systems

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Four short paras in the lead need work - check out WP:LEAD.
  • Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images and captions, if fragments, shouldn't have periods.
  • "In a classic failure to predict..." - POV.
  • "but a poorly produced version for Windows." - POV.
  • Company events section should be prose, not list.
  • And headings should meet WP:HEAD.
  • And four citations for the "events" is wholly inadequate.
  • Corporate leadership needs work, seems mostly trivial.
  • Products should be prose and adequately summarise all apps made by Adobe, not just a tiny list.
  • Financial info section is dull. It needs to be made into prose (in my opinion) and needs discussion rather than just bare tables of raw figures.
  • 20 citations in total? And many from Adobe themselves? Not good enough.

That'll do, right now this'll struggle for GA. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Hold Your Hand

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a great song, and is an important part of the Beatles' history.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I removed the semi-automated peer review to save space at PR (the link to it is still there, above) and to follow the directions. I also note that I thought the article had received a review from a real person because of the SAPR - I will try to make some comments on it next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the FAR for this article and agree very much with it. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • The main problem is that it needs more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, for example the last five paragraphs of "Launching the invasion" are uncited and s are many stats and extraordianry claims. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - see Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK - example: Most notably, bop-guitarist Grant Green included a stunning jazz recording ...
  • Several places read like original research - one example It could be argued that Lennon is leading McCartney, as Lennon's vocals are more prominent on the recording; ... Some of this may be the writing style. It would be better to attribute this - "Critic XYZ argues that Lennon is leading McCartney..." also not sure if the cite addresses this point or not. Or the Note: Hand claps are evident on overdub but can not be accurately assigned to all four Beatles without definitive proof. If it does not say in relaible sources who did this, then it should not be in the article WP:NOR
    • done, well not really in the article, but I know of a reliable source that could be used
  • Refs are incomplete in terms of information given. Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
  • I would try to follow chronological order where possible - now we go from the single to 1984 and airbrush out Paul's cig, then back to the early 1960s and the album
  • Two uses of essectially the same image in the article (infobox and US single cover) might be seen as abusing WP:FAIR USE - what does each provide that is unique?
  • Article has a lot of short paragraphs that could be combined or perhaps expanded with others.
  • External link article looks like it should be used as a ref instead, assuming it meets WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Rolling Stone

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get another set of eyes on it. The song is, after all, the greatest song of all time. (Rolling Stone Magazine).

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by R2

[edit]

Hey, ill add stuff here from now on.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 13 isnt formatted correctly.
    • DONE
  • Article needs bulking up - per Kodsters own assessment
  • From this bulk up we can then restructure the lead, possibly removing the quotes
  • Cover versions section is still quite stubby, try linking small sentances together
  • Doesnt have a cover picture, is this typical of old songs?

I removed the semi-automated peer review here for two reasons: the first is that it breaks the transclusion (so no one could see it at WP:PR); the second is that it is already linked above and as the directions say "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below" I will review this too, but it may take me a few days Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

[edit]

Agree this could be improved (though what is here is a good start) - here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful and there are many FAs on songs, for example Hey Jude is also a pretty iconic song and may be a useful model. Look at several FAs and see what they have and this does not to get ideas for expansion.
  • I am surprised that there is not more on critical reception - that seems like an obvious area of expansion.
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded and needs to summarize the whole article. I would also make it clearer that the Springsteen quote refers to this song.
    • done
  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up the prose - one example The song was originally written in 3/4 (waltz) time, and with a length of 1:36, was much shorter than the 4/4 version; it was later changed to 4/4.[3] repeats the 4/4 for no reason - why not something like The song was originally 1:36 long and written in 3/4 (waltz) time; it was later changed to 4/4 time and the final recorded length was a much longer 6:09.[3]
    • done
  • Watch tense - the recording was almost 43 years ago, but On the first day of recording, five takes are completed; the song is never completed fully. is present tense. It is also confusing - first it says five takes are completed, then that the song is never completed fully (isn't fully redundant here - if it is completed, it is completed). Perhaps something like On the first day of recording, five takes were completed; however in none of these was the song actually played to the end.
  • done
  • Article needs more references - for example the whole Versions section has no footnotes.
    • done
    • Other examples needing refs Highway 61 Revisited was issued at the end of August, and when Dylan went on tour that fall, "Like a Rolling Stone" took the closing slot on his playlist and held it, with rare exceptions, through the end of his 1966 "world tour," as well as during his return to touring in 1974 with The Band.
    • Martin Scorsese's recent movie about Dylan, No Direction Home, appears to show, in footage filmed backstage in 1966, that Dylan was deeply affected by the mixed audience reception at that time. (without a ref this reads like Original Research).
      • done removed
  • I think the article could say "Dylan was bemused" or "Dylan found the matter amusing" but not Dylan himself seemed to find the matter bemusing
    • done

Hope this helps, I learned several things about the song reading this, so keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll get right to that by June 12, when I come back from Europe. So, I'm just posting so that this won't be archived. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, June 12, I'm going to work on this. So get ready...LOL, just don't want to get this archived. Please don't... :( Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bot does the archiving now - after a month it will archive it if the PR is inactive for 2 days. The good news is that the PR will still be linked from the article talk page and can still be edited (archive is just a historic term). After it is archived it will not be listed here (at WP:PR). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux kernel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Firstly, can I request you don't list too many articles at once for PR? You'll get plenty of comments on which you can act, so listing three or four at once is too much really. Anyway, specifics...

  • The lead is too short, per WP:LEAD.
  • Section headings should follow WP:HEAD.
  • References, where applicable, should use the {{Cite web}} template rather than just raw URLs.
  • Explain relevance/significance of "comp.os.minix" for non-experts.
  • Avoid lists, use prose.
  • Very few claims are cited. This article could do with serious citations.
  • " Ultimately, it is likely that such questions can only be resolved by a court." reads like pure original research.
  • Trademark section entirely unreferenced.
  • Place citations per WP:CITE.
  • Kernel Panic or Kernel panic? Be consistent.
  • Version numbering section is virtually unreferenced and has an in-line citation which should be avoided.
  • "maybe others" ?! Citation or original research again.
  • Sort out the "cleanup" tagging.
  • After 2.6.16, cite the maintainers.
  • You have a redlinking "See also". Write the stub, at least.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Scottish Football League clubs

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Got some more refs to plug in, but what else might I need to do before I take it to FLC...........?

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that the Scottish Premier League is technically separate to the Scottish Football League, but it seems daft to count the current SPL clubs as former League members. I'd prefer them to be included, with the wording of lead phrased in such a way as to include them.
    • "I'd prefer them to be included" - included in the article? Or not included in the article? The two sentences of this section seem to contradict each other..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conceding eight goals appears to have its after-effects ;) I'd prefer them not to be included, as they are still part of the four division pyramid. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, however they are not members of the SFL, so to keep the title accurate they have to be included. Otherwise it would need to be renamed to List of former Scottish Football League and Scottish Premier League clubs, or something equally horrific, or else reword the lead to say something like "this lists all former member clubs except those in the SPL" and run the risk of something at the FLC saying "Hang on a minute, why the exception for those in the SPL, eh?". Having typed all that I guess I can in fact see both sides of the argument, maybe I'll ask for the rest of the football project's thoughts..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one that's similar in a way. Airdrie United may possess the league share that belonged to Clydebank, but make no claim to Clydebank's history and are in effect a separate club, so I think Clydebank (1965–2002) should be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Not keen on centrally aligned notes column, looks awful to me!
  • Lead image could be made larger per WP:MOS#Images - 300px?
  • "... legalised in 1893.[1] In 1893 a ..." reads awkwardly, flow the two "in 1893"'s better...
  • Last para of lead needs some citation.
  • "Clydebank (original club)" needs some explanation.
  • Considerable overlinking if this table is to remain unsortable.
  • Explain SJFA.
  • Not convinced about the pedigree of Historical football shirts website - I know it's been used before but can we be convinced it's a truly reliable source?

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Deal with the top tag - citations needed.
  • ONE (1)! paragraph (and a short one) for the lead? Check out WP:LEAD. I'd expect at least three, maybe four large paras here.
  • Image captions which are fragments shouldn't have periods.
  • Fair use rationale needed for ALL fair use images.
  • Deal with the [citation needed]'s. There are many.
  • "Long File Names"? This is English, not German, so remove those caps!
  • "Hybrid 16/32-bit operating systems" section unreferenced completely.
  • "64-bit operating systems" also.
  • Remove spaces between citations, per WP:CITE.
  • Avoid in-line citations as there are in the History section.
  • Timeline of releases section is unreferenced.

Basically, cutting a short story shorter, this needs work on prose, citation, WP:MOS and is well short of WP:GA. Work out the basics and then come back to PR (one article at a time) and you never know, GA may be a breeze. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Harry Potter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been accused of bias, and since it falls under WP:BLP, I felt it should be addressed by the wider community.


Thanks, Serendipodous 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look at it over the week, but at a quick read-through I will venture this. It seems to me that there is a general failure to distinguish between 'the politics of harry potter' and 'harry potter in politics'. you should have a clearly delimited section that talks about what political metaphors and references Rowland did (and didn't) build into her story lines. you can then have a separate section that talks about the interpretations that various political actors have made of it. this should clear up any implication of bias, since none of the third-party interpretations will be confused with Rowland's own acts. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A while back I asked for a peer review and got several good suggestions, then yesterday the article got nominated to Good Article status and I want to take it further so I'm requesting another review of the article now. Please note that I don't want the "Newfoundland and Labrador" portion of the title to be removed, I think it's important to include the state/province name. Thanks, NeonFire (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, since you want to take it further, I will look at it from FAC criteria. What is here is good, but it needs more material and more work to become FA. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - my concern for the article is that it seems a bit short. While length is not a criterion, comprehensiveness is.
  • If the article is expanded much more, the lead will also have to expanded to three paragraphs - see WP:LEAD
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. Navenby is a recent FA on a small community in the UK. It has several headers not present in this article - for example Climate.
  • References should be in numerical order, so for example ... the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[5][3] should be ...the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[3][5]
  • I was surprised when reading the History section that there was not a specific founding date or the names of some of the earliest settlers. The infobox says it was not incorporated until 1965, but the history section does not menton this (nor does politics). There is also nothing of the etymology of the name or the French version of it.
  • Middle two paragraphs in Geography are unreferenced, for example. This would be a big problem at FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • A map of the region would be useful for Geography
  • There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article and should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
  • How are Christians different from Protestants and Catholics (also both Christians last I checked) in Demographics? See WP:PCR
  • Great photo of drying squid, but there is no mention of squid in the article.
  • Many of the notable people seem to be potential sources to expand the article - look at their stories and expand the history accordingly
  • Article needs a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but saw several typos ("it's" for "its" was one) - can ask at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV
  • References need to be more detailed in terms of information given - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates are useful.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Sega 32X games

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've made a lot of progress with this list, and I would like to have it peer reviewed before sending it to become a featured list candidate. I know I'm weak at writing lead sections, so I could use some help there. Also, I'm not sure about a couple of my sources that I used to source the list. I have asked for comment on these sources at WP:RS/N, but I have not received any response. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Make more use of footnotes, ideally every column of each table should have a footnote.
  • Separate references and notes apart in their own sections.
  • Otherwise looks good.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've separated the references and notes. Can someone specify a little more about how to set it up so every column of every table has a footnote or show me an example, please? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply add a <ref> tag as you would do an ordinary footnote, but put it after the header text of the column. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Up Here

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially expanded it and believe it has potential to be rated as a good article.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - I know that Echo was a drum machine and once saw the Bunnymen in the lobby of a hotel (my brush with greatness) but I do not know this album. It seems fairly close to GA to me - here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples on structure, refs, style, etc. There are a large number of albums that are FA at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be useful models
  • Please see WP:LEAD the lead should probably only be two paragraphs long. The last paragraph is quite short and could probably be combined with the second paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article: my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Picture of the album cover has a fair use justification but needs the template {{album cover fur}}
  • Provide context for the reader - for example identify the band members better in "Background". Could be just adding a word or two is enough, i.e. In the liner notes to the 2003 remastered and reissued album, [singer] Ian McCulloch ...
  • In "Releases" it says It was released elsewhere on Korova's and Sire's parent company's label, WEA. but in the history table it says it was released worldwide on the Korova label - Worldwide 1981 Korova LP KOW 58320.
  • Citations are generally good, but a few statements seem to need refs - The album was [originally] released on CD on May 16, 1988. for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Please see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I do not write music articles, but I have reviewed several and I have never seem separate Acclaim and Criticism sections. Criticism is just one sentence, so I would combine the two sections and get rid of the subheaders - just have them together under the "Reception" section header. Perhaps preface the negative review by something like "Not all critics' reviews were positive..."
  • I would aks someone who knows more about music articles for advice on the refs - some seem to need more information.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brigham Young University alumni

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've never been through the FLC process before and I recently overhauled this list. A peer reviewer would please do standard copy editing throughout the body of the list and in the References section.

Thanks, Eustress (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list, clear that a lot of work has gone into it already, but still needs more work before FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I would also make sure that the information in the lists is as complete as possible - for example many of the people do not have a class year listed.
  • Similarly be consistent on what is given - if you list the school for some alums (Marriott), why not all (or at least say if no school is listed, then undergraduate or whatever). Similarly why are some degrees listed but not others "Bruce C. Hafen 1964 B.A." but "Dallin H. Oaks 1954" also appears to have a bachelors degree from BYU, but no BA or BS is listed.
  • Some of the references are web pages that do not seem to be reliable sorces. For example, the reference for Harvey Fletcher does not say he is credited with inventing the hearing aid (I do not doubt he did, just if you claim this in the list, the ref must back this up). It does mention his role in the famous Oil-drop experiment which led to a Nobel Prize for his PhD advisor (which I would list). The ref cited is just a web page and probably would not meet WP:RS - there are surely other RS for his work. This is just one example picked at random - check all refs.
  • I would not break the list into so many sub-lists - do US Senators and Representatives really need to be listed separately? Why not one list for Politicians and one for Judges, or an even one big Public Service list?
  • I would also try to avoid inlcuding red links in the list - if they are notable, they should have an article. This will help prevent alumni who are not notable from adding themselves (list cruft)
  • References are incomplete - many need more information. For example, internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed. {{cite web}} mayy be useful here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pau Gasol

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to see what else should be done to it, and what more or less should be added

Thanks, Gamloverks (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)
Thanks for taking a look! There are some different people along with me who are working on this article, albeit some don't say what they change. I'll try to work on the things above in the article. Gamloverks (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates have been fixed. Measurements have been spelled out. Linked both teams in the caption. I will work on the Person data. 2006-07 section is indeed cited. I'll work on the references for using citeweb and citenews. I'll continue to add more information as I see it, but otherwise, I still have some work to do on it. I'm also getting busy with graduation, so I've had little to no time at all. Gamloverks (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added persondata, I've also merged topics because of too minimal content. Well, it's looking pretty good. Gamloverks (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyclonal response

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I wanted to know if it could be upgraded in its quality assessment, and if it explains the intricate principles involved sufficiently well to persons not connected to the field of biology.

Thanks, Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Secret Agent

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to gain some insight into what needs expanding, or whether this is already on the right lines. My aim is to get this to FA status, but my current object is for it to become a Good Article. With this in mind, does anyone have any comments?

Thanks, Adasta 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a book I have not read. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:

  • In the lead there is a missing word in deals largely with the life of Mr. Verloc and his role as a spy in [place? war?].[1][2][3]
Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs should be in order, so ... with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[4][2] should be ...with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[2][4]
Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre lists many novels that are FA that may be useful models.
  • The Plot section seems a bit long / overly detailed. This may be my impression because the Characters section which follows it basically repeats much of it on a character basis - for example is there anything about Mrs. Verloc in Characters that is not in the Plot? Or any of the characters?
Are Character Lists required for GA status? If not, we could probably dispense with that list.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so, but you can check at WP:WIAGA - also helpful to look at some model GAs and see what they do Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is under-referenced - For example these direct quotes In The Secret Agent, she is "the only character who performs a serious act of violence against another", despite the ... and The Times Literary Supplement, that the novel "increase[d] Mr. Conrad's reputation, already of the highest." are uncited. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Fixed those mentioned, but will look out for any more.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptations section should not be a bullet list - make it prose instead.
Working on this in the near future!--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article could use a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but noticed several typos.
This is due to me trying to type as much as possbile as rapidly as possible. There are certainly typos; a copy edit is required.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be a "Post September 11" section, just as there is a Unabomber section?
Might have to get rid of this comment, simply because I don't think enough information will be forthcoming.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some books have ISBNs and others do not in the Refs?
That was laziness on my part. Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) You said you wished to go to FA with this, so I reviewed the sources with FAC in mind.

  • Per the MOS, you don't want bald links in the footnotes or bibliography. I suggest using {{cite web}} to format your web site references, so that they look uniform and all the needed information is included. Web sites need to give publisher, title and last access date at the very least, and any other information is very helpful.
  • The two newspaper article references, I'd use {{cite news}} to format them correctly.
I did not read the prose, just checked the sourcing as I would have for FAC. 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A Bayou Legend

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it offers a fascinating study of the strange yet intriguing history of a distinctive American opera.

Thanks, Ecoleetage (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting, if very short, article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on expansion, structure, refs, etc. I note that Porgy and Bess is an A class article and may be a suitable model. There are also the things to look for in an Opera article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment
  • The article really needs to be longer to even get to WP:GA. If it gets longer it will need a Lead.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs more references - for example production also received an Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Achievement in Lighting Direction. needs a ref, as does the whole first paragraph.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For internet refs, {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Any chance of a free or fair use image or two?
  • For future notice, Peer Review is typically for more developed articles - I do not have much more to say as this article is so short.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Graffiti

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andover F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for another peer review because it failed its GA nomination and I'd like to see if there's anything else that needs catching or adding (apart from one or two missing refs) before renominating it.

Thanks, Bettia (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is looking quite good. Some comments:

  • There is a certain degree of "proseline" — there is a tendency to start paragraphs with "In year, x and y happened", which gets repetitive.
    • I've gone through this quickly to weed out the more obvious examples. Will go through it again when time allows.
  • The second sentence of the lead is far too long, at over 60 words. There are also some other sentences which need splitting, such as the last sentence in the "early years" subsection.
    • Done. Again, I've gone through the whole article quickly to fix any more obvious examples.
  • In the 2007–08 season, they finished nineteenth out of 22 teams and attracted an average home attendance of 146, representing a 12.3% decrease over the previous season. A change in average attendance for an individual season is far too specific for inclusion in the lead. I don't like the precision to which the figure is quoted either. In this case a change of 0.1% represents one sixth of a person. Changing it to the absolute decrease ("a decrease of 20") would be more meaningful.
    • Done. Removed from lead, and replace percentage with proper figure as suggested.
  • they are sometimes known as The Loonies due to Andover's infamous workhouse - "infamous" is an example of a peacock term.
    • Done. I'll go through the whole article more thoroughly to see if there are any more.
  • When I tried them, all the Andover Football Club Results Archive links were dead.
    • My bad, the pagenames were typed incorrectly. All fixed now.
  • The list of club officials is overkill. Anyone other than the chairman or manager is too minor to be worthy of inclusion.
    • Done, but I've kept the club secretary in as these guys are usually important to any club.
  • They also put the memory of the previous season's cup final drubbing by winning the Hampshire Senior Cup for the sixth time, beating Havant & Waterlooville 2–0 at The Dell. something missing here.
    • Yes, that'd would be "behind them".
  • upon the restart they resumed life in the North Division - beware of informal terms. While suitable for a magazine article, they should not be used in a formal encyclopedic context. Football clubs are not alive, so "life" is inappropriate here. twelve supporters of the club joined ranks and Dubbed the '100 Club are other examples.
    • Examples fixed. I'll go through the whole article more thorough to look for any more.
  • A couple more images would be beneficial, even if its just the interior of Portway Stadium.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draining and development of the Everglades

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the third satellite article for Everglades, and it addresses human intervention in the Everglades from the 1830s to 1960s. I intend to bring this to FA, and I would appreciate any feedback on content, style, and problems with MoS. I appreciate anything you can do. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of F-Zero characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've made significant efforts to clean this list up and look forward to get it up to a higher quality. Before I go on to fix up a lot references which aren't formatted perfectly and write up any more character descriptions I would like any suggestions on improvements to the list. More specifically, comments on the structure of the list and what do, if anything, with those one-time appearance (Maximum Velocity / F-Zero AX) characters. Relisted peer review to generate a more thorough discussion. « ₣M₣ » 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this game, but will try to give some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to what might be a problem at FLC:

  • The lead is completely unreferenced - in a list there needs to be refs in the lead, since much of this material is not repeated in the article.
  • Problem sentence ...which makes the series akin to something out of an American comic book. reads like original research without a cite, see WP:CITE and WP:NOR
  • Article needs a copyedit - one example is the caption The most characters to debut in a single game is F-Zero X which brought twenty-seven new characters into the franchise. should read something like The most characters to debut in a single game is twenty-seven, in F-Zero X.
  • Provide context - identify Takaya Imamura (as is done later in The producer, Shigeru Miyamoto, wanted more ...) See WP:PCR
  • Explain abbreviations the first time, so SNES would be Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)
  • Who is Captain Falcon? IGN called Captain Falcon "one of the most important and recognizable characters from the franchise".[3]
  • First paragraph in Characters is uncited.
  • Since this is a list, why all the info on Captain Falcon?
  • A model article is often useful List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow is a FL, although a very different kind of list. List of cast members of The Simpsons or List of Harry Potter cast members might also give ideas.
  • Intro says four characters in the first game, but only three are in the list.
  • Are the Original descriptions just direct quotes? If so this seems to be CopyVio and a violation of "Fair Use" - see WP:FAIR USE
  • Small print is hard to read
  • Any reason why tables are not sortable?
  • Do the sources used meet WP:RS?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past few weeks, this article has been extensively edited to restore balance and to adhere to WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. The article is now well-referenced and substantial, and I think it might be worth looking to GA review with a view to improving this significantly afterwards. What we will need to know in advance is of issues that people can still spot with the article; as anyone looking at the edit history can see, I'm far too involved to make an objective assessment, and I would greatly appreciate all advice that can be offered.

Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The X-Files

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
In light of the new movie coming out this summer, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, I think it would be great to feature the original X-Files article on the main page on or around its release date. Therefore I'd like to get it ready for an FA nomination. Unfortunately I don't think it's anywhere near that point yet. It's too long and too weighed down with fan cruft. Please post your thoughts on cutting it down and improving it, with FA in mind. Thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Troubled Island

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it provides an insightful background to a forgotten masterwork by a great American composer.

Thanks, Ecoleetage (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Another interesting, if fairly short, article. I just reviewed A Bayou Legend and many of the same points apply here. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on expansion, structure, refs, etc. I note that Porgy and Bess is an A class article and may be a suitable model. There are also the things to look for in an Opera article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment
  • The article really needs to be longer to even get to WP:GA. If it gets longer it will need a Lead.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come directly after punctuation (no space)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Time Magazine ref needs date, page number, author if known. {{cite journal}} may help
  • Is Classics for Kids a reliable source? See WP:RS
  • Any chance of a free or fair use image or two?
  • For future notice, Peer Review is typically for more developed articles - I do not have much more to say as this article is rather short - this is better referenced than the other article, but the refs themselves need more info.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William de Corbeil

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus

[edit]

A good, well referenced article that, from my very sketchy knowledge of the period, appears broad in its coverage. There is some information that I expect is available missing, the article needs copyediting by a new set of eyes, and there are some parts that are unclear:

Some concepts are not expressed as well as needed by a general audience.
  • "he served the bishops of Durham and London" - does this mean he served as bishop in Durham and London or that he (in modern parlance) worked for them ?
  • "He was elected as a compromise to the see of Canterbury" - I think that the word "candidate" may be missing here. Either that or it should be "His election to the see of Canterbury was a compromise"
  • "Thurstan had already arrived and had presented his side" - either "his argument" or "his case"... his side gives a weird visual.
  • "It was at the same time that the Pope decided against Canterbury in the primacy dispute with York, when the forged documents that the Canterbury monks presented as evidence were dismissed as forgeries" - very unclear. Perhaps far better as say "At the visit's conclusion the Pope denied the primacy of Canterbury over York; dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries" or is this not what is meant ?
  • "and it was this persuasion that lead to Stephen's crowning" - are you sure ? I have not read the sources but I would have thought the Baron's, the other contenders for the crown etc... had a major influence.

The word "Canon", while currently linked to its explanatory article, should be explained within the article in some way Some information that I think is needed

  • In his early life the article skips from him being educated to him educating. If the sources say it would be good to give an idea of the timing from one to the other. Does the source hint at how long he taught for ?
  • He joined the service of Ranulf Flambard - something on what this service represented is needed
  • for the free election, allowed by Henry I, who were the leading men ?
  • "Cardinal John of Crema, who was now in England" - a year is better than now. Even better would be the year that the Cardinal arrived in England

There is copyediting needed to remove redundancy and correct tone problems in some places. Just a couple of examples below:

  • King Henry I's son-in-law managed to persuade persuaded
  • the papal legate of the new Pope Honorius II -> Pope Honorius II's papal legate. I do suggest that this section be rewritten so that it flows in time. Honorius appointed (1124)...legate sent (1126)...opposition to de Corbeil starts (112?).
  • William did not long outlive Henry, as he died dying at Canterbury

- Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am conducting an experiment on electromagnets. Please tell me what you think of this article.

Thanks, Professorfulop (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (30 Rock)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to begin getting it ready for FA but I know it is FAR from it now. Does anyone have any suggestions of what needs to be added, what needs to be taken away and what needs to be expanded?


Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I can improve this article with a view to taking it to FAC. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geography and ecology of the Everglades

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the second satellite article for Everglades. There will be two more, and I would like to bring all satellite articles and the one for Everglades to FA quality… Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of the Washington Redskins

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I do not know what else to do. I think I have mentioned most of the major players and events, so really i just need ideas on how I could expand or reformat the article. Any comments, criticisms, ideas helpful.

Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and very detailed article, clear that a lot of work has gone into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are a large number of FAs on sport at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation, including History of American football
  • Article seems too large by WP:SIZE - I used this tool and it has Readable prose: 60.7 KB, which is much larger than the 30 to 50 KB recommended limit.
  • Per WP:Summary Style parts of the article could be made into smaller articles with a summary left in this article. I think I would definitely make "70 Greatest Redskins" a list article.
  • Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT there seems to be way too much emphasis on the last five years. I would trim this back too.
  • Per WP:HEAD the section headers should not repeat the name of the article or a major part of the name unless absolutely necessary. So "Redskins' first years in D.C. (1937–1945)" should just be "First years in D.C. (1937–1945)" since we already know this is about the Redskins. I am not sure about "Redskins Decade" but note the phrase is not used in that section itsef.
  • 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 - 2007 and 2008 are not in the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Genreally well referenced but a few places that need refs do not have them - for example The team's early success endeared them to the fans of Washington, D.C. However, after 1945, the Redskins began a slow decline that they did not end until a playoff appearance in the 1971 season. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Several of the External links are already cited as refs, not sure they need to be in twice. See WP:EL
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, article should start with an image top right (not the TOC) and images should be set to thumb width (can also use vertical for vertical images) to allow user set preferences to take over.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I, along with the other editors at the Spotlight, have drastically improved this article and hope to put it forward for GA status by Saturday have put it forward for GA status it has been promoted to GA status. We would like to know what we can improve so we can, well, improve it! Thanks...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hoziron (talk · contribs):

  • Devote some space to detailing the central events of Kristallnacht itself. Currently we only summarize them within the article header.
  • The term "Reichspogromnacht" is nearly unknown in English. "Kristallnacht" is used. The given sources do not convince me that "Reichspogromnacht" is "the preferred term" even in German. Google estimates that, in German, it's about as common as "Kristallnacht".
  • Kristallnacht caused responses and commemorations particularly among Jews and Jewish organizations.
  • The caption for the synagogue restoration plaque takes up a lot of space.

Responses and reactions by Dendodge (talk · contribs)

  •  Doing... the first one
  •  Done I couldn't find anything on the preferred term either, I've removed it
  •  Doing... the third, just need a couple of sources and some more info
  •  Not done the last. While it is larger than it should be, it is necessary to indicate the emotional response of Jewish citizens. If you can find a better way of using the caption, I will certainly consider it...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Happiness (song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's been a GA for a while, and I'd like to get it featured at some stage.

Specific things; prose, article layout (is it clear? does it flow?) and ensuring all the sources are OK.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this a broad article and I'd like feedback about which sections need to be improved, expanded, or even removed, as well as anything that should be included that has been omitted. I think a lot of people who have worked on this are UNC students and alumni, myself included, and it would be good to get outside opinion.

Thanks, Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creatures of Impulse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a fairly new article, but has already reached Good Article status. It is a fairly minor play by W. S. Gilbert, but interesting, and it's fun doing these small plays, as we have an excellent chance of writing the best article on the internet about them. We would like to get an idea of how hard it is to get an article of this type, where the number of scholarly sources is relatively limited, to FA, and the best way is to try, so please give any comments that would help us get it up to FA. =)

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

[edit]

This article is already so much better than the last time I read it! I'm impressed! Here are my questions and comments:

  • Did the play or short story influence any later works or later artists? Can there be a "Legacy" section, for example?
    • Not directly. It might have been briefly referenced by P. G. Wodehouse (who made a habit of dropping references and quotes to even fairly obscure Gilbert plays), at most, but I don't think it had any particularly significant impact. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before taking the article to FAC, I would spend some time copy editing or ask someone like Scartol to help you out. FAC has become serious about "brilliant prose". Right now, the article has lots of slightly awkward sentences, a few missing words, and inconsistent verb tenses. This can all easily be fixed, though.
  • The first paragraph of "Background" should either be rearranged to alert the reader it is going to be about both Gilbert and Randegger or it should be broken up into two paragraphs - one about Gilbert and one about Randegger.
  • As noted below, his music for Creatures of Impulse was not praised by the critics, and much of it was cut from revivals of the piece.[4][8] - I find "as noted below" statements inelegant. Should this information not be included here or simply repeated later?
  • The multiple systems of footnotes might bother some people at FAC - I don't know for sure. Something to be aware of. I haven't seen this system before. The new is scary, you know!
  • Many of the reviews name Boomblehardt as a Jew in their plot summaries;[2][3][4] however, while Edward Righton played the role as a Jewish caricature, Gilbert's script did not use a Jewish dialect, and historian Jane Stedman suggests that Gilbert did not authorize this interpretation. - This seems out of place in the "Critical reception" section. Would it work better in the "Characters" section?
  • Check WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC for how to punctuate quotations. I saw some periods inside quotation marks and the like.
    • The periods inside quotation marks are in the original, punctuation outside them is me. =)

I hope this was helpful - most of my comments are about picky things! The article is coming along nicely. Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Debian

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what needs to be done to improve it to FA status.

Thanks, ffm 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and fairly detailed article, but still needs a lot of work to get to FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • For each abbreviation, introduce it right after the first use of the longer word - so Debian (pronounced [ˈdɛbiən]) is a computer operating system (OS) composed entirely of software...
  • The article needs more refs - for example the 3rd, 4th and 6th paragraphs in History or much of Project organization need refs. Every paragraph, every statistic, every direct quote, and every extraordinary claim needs a reference - see WP:CITE and WP:V This is probably the biggest obstacle to FA.
  • There are several one sentence paragraphs - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Do not have direct external links in the article - make them inline refs instead. For example A list of many important positions in the Debian project is available at the Debian organization web page. A deeper analysis of Debian leadership can be found in this paper by Siobhan O'Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro.
  • Article has too many bullet points and is too list-y - comvert to prose for FA. See WP:WIAFA - article needs to have prose approaching brilliant
  • Images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to set their size. See WP:MOS#Images
  • A model article is often very helpful / useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. OpenBSD and Windows 2000 are FAs and possible useful models.
  • Refs need more information in some cases - for example internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and the other cite templates should help.
  • Try to make sure all refs meet WP:RS, especially for FAC. Many of the sources are from Debian itself - try to get more independent third party sources and add some critical reception too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • References need some formatting work to make them consistent. Web sites need at the least, publisher and last access date. More information is better.
  • Some of the references seem to be to mailing lists, etc. Others are to the denebian site itself. Consider finding third-party sources for some of these.
  • When the references fixed up, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll try to look over the sources from a reliablility standpoint.
You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar energy

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

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

I'd like to get some perspective on the merits and demerits of the Solar energy page. Is the page too long? Is the material balanced and interesting? Anything missing? I'd also like opinions on the quality of the pictures and their captions. This has been a long term problem so please be blunt. Which ones are good and which ones are bad? I'm currently working through minor revisions in the Distillation, Process heat, PV and HVAC sections. I'd like to bring this group up to the level of the Solar lighting, Architecture, Agriculture and Water heating sections which I think are well written.

Thanks, Mrshaba (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cardiff

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently B-class and, given the importance of the city within Wales and the UK in general, we (the regular editors of this page) would like to get it up to Featured Article status (or GA-class at the very least) and so we would like a few pointers on how to do so.

Thanks, Bettia (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Central Intelligence Agency

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone some tremendous work since about last December, thanks primarily to HC Berkowitz, whose commitment to it has been nothing short of incredible, and I'd like to see if people think it is ready for FA nomination, or how it could be improved. As I hope you will all see, this article has already been greatly reduced in size and a huge amount of information has been created in supporting and related articles. I realize it is still a large page, but it is a large topic, and given size and scope of the topic, I think this article, as it stands, as very nearly as small as we could get it.

Having said that, I think we all look forward to any constructive criticisms or opinions you may have.


Thanks, Morethan3words (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth

[edit]
You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
  • Give ISBNs where possible.
  • When citing a book, give a page number
  • A large number of your web site citations lack publisher information. Author isn't enough, publisher is also needed.
  • Some website citations lack last access dates.
These are pretty basic needs for GA or FAC. Drop me a note when the above issues are taken care of and I'll be happy to double check the reliablity of the sources in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

[edit]

Interesting article, but needs a lot of work before FA in my opinion. I agree with Ealdgyth's reference comments. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Article is way too long - take more out and make separate articles per WP:Summary style. For example, Could the whole "Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases" section be a sub-article?
  • At the same time, summary style says there should be a summary of the article removed left behind. "Linkages with former Nazi and Japanese War Criminals" with just a See U.S. Intelligence involvement with German and Japanese War Criminals after World War II. or several other examples - this would be a big problem at FAC
  • There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow and need to be combined or expanded. Also several very short sections.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I think that the article may need fewer sections / headers too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the last paragraph of Organization and the first two paragraphs of Executive offices are unreferenced, as are four of six paragraphs in National Clandestine Service, including a direct quote. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Several bullet point lists should be converted into prose
  • I think I might put History first, before Organization. Telll how they got there
  • Per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in headers - so change "Early CIA, 1947-1952", "Abuses of CIA authority, 1970s-1990s" and "2004, DCI takes over CIA top-level functions".
  • Article either has no images or too many in a given section.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I ran this tool on the article here. It says it has Readable prose: 75.5 KB which is a bit much Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Lispector

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just completed a major revamping and would like to get any feedback about places where it might be expanded or reorganized.

Thanks, Eve.b.i (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way - I think the article has too many subsections as it is, so perhaps work on the rest of the article and then on the lead.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs on authors at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre that may be useful as models.
  • There are a lot of peacock words and extraordinary claims in the lead and article - for example Acclaimed internationally... A legendary figure... renowned for ... her great personal beauty, and her eccentric personality ... one of the two most outstanding Brazilian prose writers of the twentieth century. See WP:PEACOCK
  • Many paragraphs and sections are unreferenced - for example "The Ukraine" or "Belém do Pará" sections. This would be a big problem at GAN or FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "extraordinary claims" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Many of the sections and paragraphs are very short - a few sentences - and this breaks up the flow of the article. I would combine or expand these short paragraphs and sections. Again looking at a model article for organization ideas might help in reducing the number of sections.
  • Any sort of critical reception info that could be added?
  • References need more detailed information - ISBNs for books for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a full review for you, but I wanted to reiterate Ruhrfisch's comments about the lede. See if you can get it up to three paragraphs, and work on the number of subsections throughout the whole article. Let me know if you need advice on anything specific. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Feet (series 1)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking for feedback on this article ahead of a potential FA run. Language and prose suggestions mostly but any other comments are welcome. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have not seen. Here are some suggestions for improvement:\

  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow - I note that Smallville (season 1) is a FA and may be a useful model.
  • The lead needs to summarize the whole article - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the video and internet release are not mentioned. See WP:LEAD
  • I also think the lead should be written with the most important things about the series in the first paragraph, but we really don't get a summary The overall theme of the first series is love, sex and commitment. until the second paragraph.
  • The lead should be weighted about the same as the article - I am OK with the six lead actors, but do we need all the guest stars listed?
  • Looking at the Smallville (another show I have never seen) article as a model, it tells us the main roles in the lead, so the plot summaries make more sense. WHen I read this, I have no idea who Jenny and Pete and the rest are. Would it be possible to have some sort of brief summary in the lead or just before the epsidoe list that says something like "The series focuses on three couples: Jenny and Pete, who are married and about to have their first child; Karen and David, ... and Adam and Rachel, ... Provide context for the reader WP:PCR
  • I realize the six main cast members were cast for the pilot, but could there be a bit more on them in Casting? It seems odd to have almost nothing on the six main actors and lots of detail on supporting cast.
  • In Writing the caption on the block quote needs to be clearer - I think this is from the script as originally written, but that is not made clear. I also think the caption does not match up with the text - I read the caption first and had a very different idea of what it meant than the text said.
  • I would mention the car crashing through the shop window in the Episode 3 plot summary, otherwise the image makes less sense. Perhaps also mention in the caption.
  • Refs look OK, although I am not sure what makes for reliable sources such as Red Dwarf.co.uk. and Sendit.com here - see WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ruhrfisch Okey-dokey, I've made several changes based on your comments. Funny you should recommend using the Smallville article as a model, as I basically just stole the layout of that and changed the colours and names.

  • I've expanded the lead to include who the characters are (a bit of a daft omission) and written a little bit about what the characters do to complement the overall theme. I've also added info about the DVD and net releases, as well as a couple more notable award noms.
  • I've not added anything on the casting of the leads as it seems strange to include info from a separate production. However, I have added a link to the casting section in the pilot article.
  • Captions fixed up and plot summaries expanded to include info and context for later on.
  • Refs check out: The Red Dwarf link is an interview with Bathurst. The website is the show's official website and is run by the same person who compiles the behind-the-scenes documentaries for the Red Dwarf DVDs. As for Sendit, they're an internet shop, so their data for DVD/video release dates will be accurate. They're quite well known for having an archive of--it seems--every release date of any video or DVD ever released.

Bradley0110 (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cylindrospermopsin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a fresh set of eyes on a topic that I've worked on from within. Any comments welcome.

Thanks, Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and fairly well done article. Here are some suggestions for improvement - please note I tend to give examples of problems and that these are not usually an exhaustive list (if I give one typo, there may be many more):

  • A model article is often helpful as a guide and for examples to follow. I note that WikiProject Chemicals has 7 FAs including Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide and Paracetamol, which may be good models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header should mentioned somehow in the lead, even if only as a word or phrase.
  • Since CYN and CYL are listed in the first sentence as alternate names, I would also list them in the infobox.
  • Article seems to overuse bold (sorry, couldn't help myself) - see WP:MOS#Italics
  • Organizationally, I think the "Related toxic blooms and their impact" section could come later in the article - the article is about a chemical compound, but we learn very little about it until the fourth section (So I would make it lead, background, chemistry - you may disagree of course)
  • The figures 1-6 do not do a lot for me, but could be made more useful. While I know the chemical literature numbers figures, I have not seen this a lot at Wikipedia. Also, if I am not mistaken, Figure 1 is repeated twice more - it is the right tautomer in Figure 2 and it is epiCYN in Fig 5 (Fig 4 is also repeated in Fig 5 as CYN). So in the name of avoiding needless repetition, could you get rid of both Fig 1 and Fig 4? The caption for Fig 2 just be something like: Proposed tautomerism between the keto and enol forms, showing the hydrogen bond between the uracil nitrogen and the guanidino hydrogen. The right tautomer is the initial incorrect proposed structure of cylindrospermopsin (CYN), with its four rings labelled (A-D). The incorrect feature was the orientation of the hydroxyl group. Perhaps label the parts 2a and 2b for reference in the article? I also note the rings are not labelled A-D. Similarly Fig 4 caption could be added to Fig 5.
  • Could color or circles or some means of highlighting be used to make clearer the parts of structures being discussed in the Figures 1-6? For example could the hydroxyl (OH) in Fig. 1 be red or circled to make it clearer that this is where the stereochemistry was wrong in the initial proposal?
  • Per WP:HEAD please do not repeat the article title in Headers - so for example "Toxicology of CYN" could be "Toxicology" as we already know the article is about CYN. Also could have subheads Analogues, Synthesis, Stability
  • There are several short sections (two sentences in "Current methods of analysis in water samples") that could be combined with another section or perhaps expanded. Short paragraphs and sections break up the flow of the article.
  • Refs look OK except for the last item - what is this? A See also perhaps? National Center for Environmental Assessment. Toxicological Reviews of Cyanobacterial Toxins: Cylindrospermopsin (NCEA-C-1763)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, all your comments are valid and I think that all of your suggestions should be effected. I'll wait for some more comments if they arrive, and edit in due course. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have not already asked, please see if you can find someone at WP:PRV or the Chemistry / Chemicals WikiProjects. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a lot of passive, past tense in long sentences in this article. For example, instead of saying "Isolation of the toxin using algae cultured from the original Palm Island strain was achieved by gel filtration of an aqueous extract, followed by reverse-phase HPLC." it is clearer to say "The toxin was first isolated from an aqueous extract of algae cultured from the original Palm Island strain. It was purified using gel filtration and then reverse-phase HPLC." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Boven

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it better. My goal would be for it to someday be a FA, but I'm not sure if there is enough information available on this basketball player to make that possible. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks a lot--Eva bd 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)

Rurfisch comments: Agree with the above. Here are a few more ideas for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas for expansion, and as a guide for style, refs, structure, etc. I note that there are four FA articles on NBA players at Category:FA-Class NBA articles.
  • I would see if you can find old newspapers or old magazines that covered his career for more sources. Google Books or Google Scholar or databases might also be useful. This would be library work.
  • If my math is right, he was only 41 when he retired from coaching - my guess is that the NBA and coaching did not pay as well then as they do now - what did he do from age 41 till whenever he retired again?
  • You might want to use {{convert}} templates for units
  • What is there looks good, hopefully you can find some more sources and ideas.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Come the Warm Jets

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi! I've had several slow days in my computer lab and I've written up a lot of information for the album Here Come the Warm Jets. I'm not the best at writing even though I think the ideas are there, but I'd like to get this to be a GA possibly! How much more steps is there to take to clean it up or information to add?

Cheers, Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems like a pretty good article, so here are some fairly nit-picky suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:

  • A model article is often very useful for ideas to follow on style, structure, refs, etc. I note that there is a detailed model guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Article_body and that there are 105 album GAs to choose from at Category:GA-Class Album articles and 40 more at Category:FA-Class Album articles
  • In the infobox some of the reviews seem to be missing stars or numbers or ratings (Rolling Stone for example)
  • Lead seems OK, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Provide context for the reader - for example in Here Come the Warm Jets was recorded in twelve days at Majestic Studios in London during September 1973 by Derek Chandler.[7][8] adding "recording engineer" before Derek Chandler makes it much clearer who he is.
  • I am also not really clear on what a "treated guitar" is - obviously it sounds different, but what is the treatment?
  • I think it needs to be made clearer that Eno did not sing with the musicians when they recorded their parts.
  • The middle paragraph of Style seems more like it belongs in production
  • Release and aftermath might be better named Release and reception or at least include a subsection on Reception
  • Might want to say what journal Lester Bangs and other critics were writing for.
  • I learned a word - accessments in Modern accessments of the album have been positive,... thanks!
  • Refs look OK except for Ref 9, which is a just a bare link to music.hyperreal.org Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • I am not sure that linking to a lyrics site, which is probably copyvio, is allowed or a good idea. May want to ask at WikiProject Albums.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking to time to review the article! I cleaned up most of what you said. Many of the infobox reviews don't have star ratings officially so I can't really give them any. But otherwise, I cleaned up most of what I could. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Just a bit on Release and Reception vs. Release and Aftermath... Declaring my interest, from memory I chose that heading when dividing the-then article into new sections. For me, 'reception' is a term best reserved for reaction upon the initial release of an album, not the 'longer view' of current Rolling Stone Top 500 or Allmusic ratings. 'Aftermath' seemed to cover both the contemporary and the modern views for what was then a short paragraph. Now we have more on the initial critical reception I'd tend to agree with Release and Reception but suggest the modern views should then be broken out into a subsequent paragraph, possibly titled Legacy (Aftermath on its own I would only use if we talked about what Eno did next, but before the following album, if relevant). However Legacy would be even more appropriate if we could source some words on the album's influence on other artists, as well as including the modern assessments. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
those are good points but I think to reach GA status the parapgraphs and size level of each section should be roughly balenced and by splitting those we ruin the balence. It's hard to find specific influence on bands/artists on these things that are citable (other then I found that Of Montreal do covers of The Paw Paw negro blowtorch). And that after recording the album, some songs appeared on live albums, he toured a bit with his band the Winkies then had collapsed a lung on stage and went to his next album. That kind of stuff minus the of montreal trivia sounds best for a background on an article on his next solo album I think... Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary of Chichester

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and would greatly appreciate any comments about its prose and its comprehensibilty by non-medievalists.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Another interesting and generally well done article on a medieval bishop I am not sure I ever heard of before. Here are my suggestions for improvement, mostly fairly nit-picky:

  • Please expand the lead so it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself and my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Any chance of an image for the lead (upper right corner?) I see there are several images at Chichester Cathedral, but suspect all of them are too recent to be associated with Hilary.
  • First sentence is very short - if you had to say the three most important things about him, what would they be? Can they all fit into a new first sentence?
  • Try to provide context for the reader who is not a medieval expert. Here are a bunch of examples:
    • would it make sense to add bishop to ...promoting Hilary to [bishop of] the see of Chichester in 1146? Not everyone knows what a see in this sense is.
    • Provide years (if known) for Hilary served as a clerk for Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester as well as Dean of Christchurch ...
    • Why was his nomination for Archbishop unsuccessful? Also should the pope be indentified here Unsuccessfully nominated as a candidate for the archbishopric of York against Henry Murdac in 1146, the pope chose to compensate Hilary by appointing him to Chichester.[5] instead of the next sentence?
    • What was the council or Rheims? Why did the king not want the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend?
    • Probably need to explain that in those days there was a struggle over who decided who was a bishop - the pope, the chapter of the cathedral, the king or some combination.
    • Link Pope Hadrian IV in Battle Abbey section (I think this is the first he shows up)
    • say where this was and was present at the announcement of the canonization in 1161.[1]
    • I don't understand this All the bishops but Hilary swore, with the reservation that the customs were not in conflict with canon law. Hilary, however, added no qualifiers. Did he swear or not - first sentence sounds like he did not, second sounds like he did. I also do not understand how swearing the king's oath is thus refused to support the archbishop's party.[1][12]
  • Article needs a copyedit. Here are some rough spots:
    • After unsuccessfully being nominated to become archbishop of York, ... makes it sound like he was not even nominated (when it was the nomination that was unsuccessful, right?)
    • Awkward - isn't Hilary the bishop in Hilary spent many years engaged in a struggle with Battle Abbey over the bishop's attempts to inspect the abbey.
    • parallel construction - perhaps Known for providing for his clergy and [for his skill] as a canon lawyer...
    • two uses of probably in one sentence: Hilary was probably born around 1110, and was probably of low birth, ...
    • Probably best to break this into two sentences He was educated as a canon lawyer, and was an advocate in Rome in 1144,[2] where he served in the papal chancery in 1146,[3] and some of his coworkers were Robert Pullen, John of Salisbury, and Nicholas Breakspear (who later became Pope Adrian IV).[4]
    • Avoid needless repetition: ...the pope chose to compensate Hilary by appointing him to Chichester.[5] His candidacy to York had been supported by ... King Stephen of England.[1] He was nominated to the see of Chichester by Pope Eugenius III in 1146, pope names him to Chichester twice in three sentences as written now
    • Should there be commas here: Robert de Bethune[,] bishop of Hereford[,] and William de Turbeville[,] bishop of Norwich.?
    • Struggle with Battle Abbey is one long paragraph - can it be split into two?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Belgium

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the time went by since the first review. I think I need some more feedback of the community. Could you please check for NPOV.

Thanks, Vb (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • The major problem I see is that the article needs many more references (which was mentioned in the previous peer review). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example the last half of "Regional demographics" and the first two paragraphs of "Political borders" have zero refs. Without more refs this would not pass GA, let along FA. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Article should have an image in the top right corner - the first image Image:Flanders and Wallonia.png might be a good one, although the orange for Brussels is hard to distinguish from the red.
  • Image:Language border (Belgium and France)-en.svg is basically illegible in the article.
  • Article still needs a copyedit: some examples Before the beginning of the 20th century, this language border was not exactly corresponding to a borderline between users of Belgian French, standard Dutch and High German as it is today but between a Romance and a Germanic dialect continua. OR In Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany and, Luxembourg, the local dialects better survived at least in the private sphere.
  • It is better to attribute opinions to whoever made them, so attribute Some have suggested it become a "European [capital] district", similar to Washington D.C. or the Australian Capital Territory, run by the EU rather than Flanders or Wallonia.[16][17] - who said this? The newspaper? A columnist?
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
  • Ref 1 reads like pure original research - cite this somehow. WP:NOR
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government that may be useful as models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another user previously nominated this article for WP:FLC, which it failed. I'm hoping to nom this for FL once again, but before I do, I'd like to get a short peer review, with the focus on the episode list, and the crew/reception sections.


Thanks, Mastrchf (t/c) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a lot of the plot summaries are still unclear, and poorly worded. Many of my suggestions haven't been taken either. Try to get an independent copy-editor. indopug (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on that list of suggestion, I'm pretty sure that every one has been used except the first. Mastrchf (t/c) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps you should remove the link to Josh Wolk as I don't think an article will be created for him. Maybe you should add his title instead like "Television critic Josh Wolk" or something. Also, I don't know if it's standards but is Red the official colour used to seperate these items? It's a little hard, maybe a softer colour would be more appropriate? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red corresponds to the main episode list. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article / list, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I woud treat the FLC as a really detailed peer review and make sure every issue raised has been addressed (either fix it or have a great reason for not doing so). Then I would ask the people who made the reviews at FLC to look at the article again and see if they think the problems have been addressed.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas - I note that The Simpsons (season 1) and seasons 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are all FLs and may be good models.
  • Avoid short sentences that break up the flow of the prose - for example could The second season of the American television comedy The Office premiered in the United States on NBC on September 20, 2005 and ended on May 11, 2006. The season consisted of twenty-two episodes. be something like The second season of the American television comedy The Office premiered in the United States on NBC on September 20, 2005 and ended on May 11, 2006, with twenty-two episodes.
  • This looks like a copy and paste error from the article on the first season: The show debuted as a midseason replacement which took the timeslot of Committed,[1] and thus had fewer episodes than its subsequent seasons.[2] since the article just said there were 22 episodes this season.
  • 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 - for example Production does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Also watch out for one or two sentence paragraphs like While The Office was mainly filmed on a studio set in Los Angeles, California, the city of Scranton, Pennsylvania, where the show is set, was also used for shots of the opening theme.[8] Either expand it or combine it with another paragraph.
  • Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of Cast has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article prose still needs a copyedit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Mountain art

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after receiving a GA from Moni3, she suggested that others might provide me valuable feedback before I submit for FAC. All reviews will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, JJ (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Worlds End State Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article. We are looking for some feedback on this article before it is submitted for FA. It has been thoroughly researched and we believe that with some changes suggested in the PR process that it will be shortly ready for FA. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park which is a featured article that we worked on.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) and Ruhrfisch [reply]

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

Bloc Party

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would really like some constructive feedback on this article, with the aim of FA status. I know there's more to add, but I don't know exactly what to include in the article. Any WP:ALTM members interested?

Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sillyfolkboy Comments: This is an informative and generally well referenced article worthy of its GA status. However I feel that it could be more in-depth and the article does not cover all the aspects of the band. Also needs some copyediting and proofreading:

  • In the lead it should state "BBC" radio one DJ Steve Lamacq to clarify.
    • done
  • In mid-sentence full dates such as "February 5, 2007," need a comma following the year. I fixed the first instance of this but can see a few more in the article.
    • done, I think
  • Try to avoid referring to seasons: e.g. "In Spring 2006 they finished their tour". This can cause confusion: seasons are inverted from northern to southern hemispheres while equatorial locations climates generally have wet and dry seasons. Replace "spring" with "early" (or "winter" with "late" etc.) for clarity.
    • done
  • In the "Silent alarm" section this statement should be sourced "The band became one of the most popular new bands of 2005".
    • Removed
  • Following their first full mention "United Kingdom" and "United States" should thereafter be abbreviated to "UK" and "US".


  • In "A Weekend in the City" the word "leaked" should be wikilinked to internet leak for clarity.
    • done
  • "In the build up to the release of the album, BBC Radio 1 DJ Zane Lowe aired a live set from the Maida Vale studio featuring a mix of old songs and new ones on his evening radio show on BBC Radio 1". There is no need to state that he's a "BBC Radio 1" DJ considering the later statement.
  • In the same section: the third paragraph needlessly restates the year (2007) with the dates many times. The large amount of links here reduces readability already. Whilst the other links are useful/neccesary these redundant ones can be dropped.
  • "The first UK performance of their single "Flux"" should read "live performance".
  • In musical styles it would be better to split the list of bands in to: citable influences from band statements, comparisons made by reviewers/critics. Otherwise any number of acts could be listed here with little benefit to the article.
  • In the quote "some truly R'n'B styled beats, a song where [Tong] and [Moakes] play drums simultaneously [and] both eggshell-thin fragility and trouser-flapping hugeness" the quote should either be split after "beats" or the previous part of the sentence rephrased. It's ambiguous whether the first part refers to the album or a certain song. Also instead of [and] use [with].
  • All song titles should be in inverted commas e.g. Flux should be "Flux". Scan through to ensure all songs have been listed this way.
  • I would recommend splitting away parts about the future of the band from both "history" and "musical style" sections to form it's own section. It would make more sense to mention future plans there, especially in respect of the former section. (ps Have they done absolutely nothing so far this year?)
  • Lyrical styles/themes should be noted in addition to musical ones. Some information from Kele Okereke may be useful, i personally remember comparisons with Sylvia Plath's work being made in the press.
  • Comment should be made relating to differences between the sounds of their live performances and album works, if any.
  • A section describing the band's concert tours could be helpful, but just more extensive reference to their tours following "Silent Alarm" may suffice.
  • A short section should be made listing the band members and the instruments they've played for the band.
  • Apart from the template and infobox no reference is made to the former band members in the article.
  • A couple of web references do not have their access dates.
  • A full copyedit should be done. You might find a copyeditor at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV. However there is a backlog so general proofreading etc by any user is more than welcome.
  • Although a relatively new band one book, by Zoran Lalvani, has been written and this may contain further information to improve the article.

This is my first peer review so if anything seems unusual and you want to check policy feel free to do so. Once changes are made or if you disagree with any recommendations please comment beneath the specific point: starting a new line with two asterisks (**), then your comment. Strikeout recommendations with <s> and </s> once fixed.

Any additional comments or questions should be directed to my talk page.

If you found this review useful, please consider reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. That is where I found this request. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

[edit]

Greetings from WP:ALM

  • The references need formatted. Specifically, where is the author's name and publication date? Publications should be in italics. NME → NME. As of now, only ref #3 look complete.
  • Try to not use tertiary sources, such online biographies. These source their information from primary and secondary sources so their info is subject to inaccuracies and their own POV. As a tertiary source ourselves try to get info only from interviews, pieces written on the band, album reviews etc from reliable sources.
  • Are these reliable sources: blocparty.co.uk, tiscali...
  • The article tends to be a dump for every small release the band has ever done. The songs on video games, soundtracks are really uninteresting, trivial and more suited for the discog article.
  • Overall, try to make the article not just be a "band released this album, it charted so much, so many singles came out, it was acclaimed, they went on tour with XYZ". That is hideously boring. Try to make it interesting by pointing out the stuff about the band that makes them unique and different. Reduce the information about the touring, its trivial information for the lay reader. Every band tours, we don't have to mention every concert they ever held. See The Smashing Pumpkins for a really interesting and comprehensive band article.
  • What is the idea behind the music? What is the band's philosophy? How do critics rate the band and what do they think of them? On the whole, try to make a qualitative analysis of the band rather a quantitative one about they toured here, then played there in front of 20,000 people. Its more interesting that way. indopug (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary history of plants

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

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

I've recently re-written the article from a combination of my own reading and a Paleobotany course I recently attended. I know it could benefit from a good copyedit, and suspect there are areas which are a big jargon-padded, but am sure these things will be gradually addressed with time. My main concern at this stage is to ensure that the article hasn't omitted anything important, and doesn't portray an inaccurate "point of view". Any comments on its completeness or accuracy would be warmly welcome.

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and quite detailed article - here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The article is written at a very technical level. This is OK, but you might want to consider writing a separate, simpler version and linking that at the top of the article with the {{seeintro}} template. For a nice example of this two-tiered approach see Virus and Introduction to virus. If there is a good intro article, I think the jargon concerns are lessened.
  • A model article is also useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. Virus is a Good Article and may be a model for a technical vs introductory approach as noted. I also note that Evolutionary history of life is a good article and may be another suitable model.
  • By the WP:MOS there should be an image in the upper right corner of the article. Image:Crossotheca nodule.JPG is interesting and a possible candidate.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article (which I think it is, for the most part), it should be three to four paragraphs long (the second paragraph could be split at Evolutionary innovation continued after the Devonian period.), and most importatly The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible This is where the lead needs work - there is a lot of jargon in it.
  • I am not a plant person, so I have to click on the links to see what a gymnosperm and angiosperm are. I think it would be helpful to expalin these briefly as well as provide links. The explanations could be functional (gymnosperms have "naked seeds") or they could be descriptive (gymnosperms include conifers and ginkos). In any case try to both provide context for the reader WP:PCR and to avoid or explain jargon WP:JARGON. I will also note that you only have to explain what gymnosperms are once - this does not have to be repeated over and over.
  • The article also needs more wikilinks to help clarify and provide context for interested readers - just in the lead the following could be linked (and are not now): cladistic analysis, Ordovician period, Silurian period, Triassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and perhaps links to some of the concepts - so new mechanisms of metabolism could be linked to the Calvin cycle perhaps.
  • Article needs a copyedit - Further, most cladistic analyses (although these are often at odds!) suggest that each "more complex" group arose from the most complex group at the time. - the exclamtion point is not encylcopedic in tone, the sentence seems overly complex, and it illustrates a tendency to overuse words in quotations - here "more complex". Or here a word seems to be missing This may have set the scene for the evolution of flowering plants in the Triassic (~200 million years ago), which exploded [in?] the Cretaceous and Tertiary.
  • Also avoid contractions like Plants weren't the first photosynthesisers on land, though:...
  • Last three paragraphs of colonisation of land are not referenced - every paragraph, direct quote, statistic, and extraordinary claim should be referenced - see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Images are generally good and well placed. Try to make the captions more detailed - is the trilete mark the horizontal brown line? Is this a modern spore or a fossil? Or in the banded tube photo - it all looks fairly opaque to me.

I hope this helps - if you found my comments useful, please consider peer reviewing another article, especially one with no or minimal responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. My impression is that these areas are quite speculative - could you suggest links to Wikipedia articles, or better still primary sources, that I could use as a starting point to expand these aspects? Thank you, Smith609 Talk 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've just come across Plant evolutionary developmental biology which strays more onto this topic than its title suggests.
I guess that will prove a useful starting point - although there is quite a bit of overlap! Smith609 Talk 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already attained "good article" status, and I think it potentially could become a featured article. It receives a great deal of visitors, and will probably receive much more attention from the public in the coming year.

I think the text of the article is in pretty good shape, but a general review of the whole article would be appreciated. One particular issue that I would like to see addressed is the black-on-black image at the top of the article (and to the right). At my request, the Wikipedia Graphics Lab yesterday created an alternative image (at right) by changing the background color to a lighter color.[1] I believe that the Graphics Lab Image is a big improvement, at least until a better image is obtained. If the current black-on-black image is retained, will that affect our chances of getting the article featured?

Thanks, Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hopefully all aspects of the game has been covered in the article. Looking for any suggestions on improvements to the article. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions to improve it:

  • A model article is useful for ideas to follow on structure, style, refs, etc. There are all sorts of FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming that may be useful as models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should probably be longer and should be a summary of the whole article.
  • I am not a video game person, but it seems as if a bit of background might help clarify this - why is it special that Mario and Sonic are together and why is this there first collaboration?
  • Is there any reason not to list all 16 characters available in the game?
  • Ditto on listing all of the games possible?
  • I think the article needs to always be clear whether the Wii or DS version is being discussed, For example There is an unlockable version of four of the Olympic events in the game. These events are called "Dream Events". They differ from their original counterparts by applying more fictional video game attributes from the Mario and Sonic worlds. As a result, these events also have recognizable locations, abilities, objects, and support characters from both gaming worlds.[7][18] The Nintendo DS version has five exclusive Dream Events: canoeing, boxing, basketball, long jump and skeet shooting.[15]
  • Article has some short sentences which makes it choppy when it should flow better. See above
  • Provide context for the reader - for example who are the people mentioned in In 2005, Yuji Naka held discussions of a Mario and Sonic video game with Shigeru Miyamoto.[21]
  • Article seems a bit short, but I do not know what to add. A model article will be useful here too.
  • I would try to give specifics in the Reception section - for example in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games on the Wii is known for being an entertaining multiplayer experience, having colorful graphics and physically demanding gameplay,[38][28] but criticized for shallow gameplay and having complex rules and instructions for numerous events.[10][35] I would say who said each of these things. Also refs should be in numerical order - so [28][38].
  • In Reception, since this is a world-wide release, why are mostly just the UK sales figures given?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican amber

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

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

I believe it is an important article worthy of being investigated and reviewed by people who know more than I do and can help improve it if need be.

Thanks, The Singularity (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: This is interesting and what is there seems fairly detailed, plus the images are very nice. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and to follow for style, refs, etc. One possibility is Oil shale, which is an FA.
  • 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 (Baltic amber, for example). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead needs to be expanded. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Avoid one sentence paragraphs - they are too choppy and break the flow of the article. Expand or combine with others
  • Provide context to the reader - for example, give the years for the Miocene and Oligocene. Or say the amber comes from a tree in the lead, or give the full name of Santiago. See WP:PCR
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, no space between punctuation and ref either - so fix According to Poinar,[1] Dominican amber dates from Oligocene to Miocene. (ref at end)
  • Article needs a copyedit and more refs - for example The La Cumbre, La Toca, Palo Quemado, La Bucara, and Los Cacaos mining sites in the Cordillera Septentrional not far from Santiago. [3]There is also amber in the south-eastern Bayaguana/Sabana de la Mar area. There is also copal found with only an age of 15-17 million years. First "sentence" is a fragment (no verb), ref should follow the period with a space after "...Santiago.[3] There..." and the copal sentence needs a ref.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Avoid needless repetition - sites of mines are in article twice.
  • Avoid overlinking - amber does not need to be linked twice in one paragraph
  • Images should not sandwich text between them - see WP:MOS#Images

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starrcade (1983)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on the quality of the article so further improvements could be made and possibilities on promoting the article to a higher class could be considered. Thanks, 13 of Diamonds (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikki
I'm really glad you are working on the important NWA pay-per-views, and this article looks pretty good. I've gone through and fixed some comma problems. In most cases, only add a comma between two clauses if they can stand independently of one another. There are a few more comments I want to make, but I don't have a lot of time right now. I'll be back with them later tonight. Nikki311 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more specific things:

  • The lead needs to mention something from the aftermath.
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the information in the article, not provide new information...so, I think the information about the development of the event needs to be explained elsewhere in the article (maybe the background?) and briefly mentioned in the lead.

Other than those small issues, it looks really good. Nikki311 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starrcade (1985)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on the quality of the article so further improvements could be made and possibilities on promoting the article to a higher class could be considered. Thanks, 13 of Diamonds (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Article is off to a good start but while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on improvement. There are 5 FAs at Category:FA-Class Professional wrestling articles and a bunch of GAs at Category:GA-Class Professional wrestling articles that should offer several good models.
  • Biggest problem I see is that the whole Event section has two references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead may need to be expanded - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but aftermath is barley dealt with in the the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Watch for jargon - for example Flair formed the Four Horsemen stable needs to be better explained even in the lead for those not familiar with Pro Wrestling terminology.
  • Also make sure to provide context to the reader - my understanding is that wrestling matches are scripted (or at least the broad outlines and planned outcomes are). Can this be provided in some way? Why did the winners win and the losers lose? See WP:PCR
  • Refs would be better if more were from independent third-party sources. As it is many are from NWA and WWE sites.
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. For example The Four Horsemen became one of the greatest stables ever.[4] - perhaps According to source X, the Four Horsemen... Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, image sizes should be set at thumb to allow reader preferences to take over. "upright" can be used for vertical images to make them smaller.
  • Repetition error? Billy Graham defeated The Barbarian (with Paul Jones) is there twice - is this an error or did they fight twice (if second, make this clearer)
  • Article needs a copyedit - for example It was the first time an event was broadcast live from two locations. Really - in the history of the world and broadcasting? How about the Olympics? Or this is just a grammatical mess The following year's WrestleMania, WrestleMania 2, was created similar to Starrcade, being held in three locations.[6] Ask for a copyeditor at WP:PRV or ask one of the people listed at WP:LOCE on their talk page.
  • What about the next year's or next Starrcade? How did this one influence it in Aftermath?
  • Also what about Reception - were there any reviews or commentaries on the events? Was it a financial success? Any idea of ratings or viewers or tickets sold?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin of Exeter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and detailed article - seems to be fairly close to FA, although it needs some polish. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • Article needs an image in the upper right corner
  • Would it make sense to put these in chronological order: After becoming a Cistercian monk, he was named abbot of his monastery before being elected to the episcopate at Worcester. Before becoming a bishop, he wrote theological works and sermons, some of which survive. to something like After becoming a Cistercian monk, he wrote theological works and sermons, some of which survive, and was named abbot of his monastery. In 1180 he was elected to the episcopate at Worcester.
  • I know it already says in the first lead paragraph he was Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the second paragraph would it make it clearer to add Canterbury? ..and the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop [of Canterbury]?
  • Add in England for clarity here - His dispute with his clergy [in England] led some chroniclers to characterize him as worse for Christianity than Saladin. I thought when reading the lead it meant disputes in the Kingdom of Jerusalem?
  • Awkward - ...and a woman whose name is unknown; his mother, however, later became a nun.
  • Would It is possible he studied at Bologna in the 1150s with the future Pope Urban III.[2][3] or even He possibly studied at Bologna in the 1150s with the future Pope Urban III.[2][3] read better?
  • His is unclear in He attracted the attention of Bartholomew Iscanus, Bishop of Exeter who made him archdeacon at Totnes about 1161,[5] after his father's death.[1] (assume Bladwin's father is meant)
  • Watch out for short choppy sentences - can they be combined with others or expanded? For example He was well known as a canonist.[8] could be combined with the following sentence (perhaps)
  • The section on his being Bishop of Worcester is only one paragraph - could it be expanded or combined with Early Life?
  • How about Although Walter Map said that Baldwin was determined to continue writing even after his election to the bishopric, only one of his sermons can be dated to his time as bishop.[1]
  • Provide context - perhaps The monks had put forth three candidates from within [the cathedral's] Christ Church Priory ... See WP:PCR
  • I also think there needs to be more background on the Christ Church Priory - where was it, what did it do, what was its connection to Canterbury Cathedral, etc.
  • Don't need both "After that" and "then" in After that, Baldwin then proposed ...
  • Whose plan - Roger's or Baldwin's in His plan for financing the church involved soliciting contributions from donors...
  • Why King Henry in the header but only Richard?
  • Is "the infamous Case of Evesham.[24]" the whole deal with Prince John?
  • Under RIchard could be split into two paragrapsh, same for first paragraph of On the Third Crusade.
  • I would add the year of his death, as well as the place. Where was he buried? Does his tomb survive?
  • My guess is as Archbishop of Canterbury under Richard I, Baldwin has probably been portrayed in novels and films - this should be mentioned if so.
  • Needs a general copyedit - I read for comprehension, but saw places that needed commas, a missing space, and general polish
  • Since Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a subscriber service, shouldn't the ref indicate this in some way?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten it. It's about a small town in Nottinghamshire. I would like it to be GA after some tweaking.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr. Freeze

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so it can become a future GA and maybe even become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is a generally well written article, but I think it needs expansion in some areas.

  • In "Other Versions" seems pretty minimal and might not deserve it's own tiny section. Either get rid of it or expand it or incoporate it into the article. Also, the average reader probably doesn't know who Elijah Snow or Planetary is so that could be explained.
  • 1960's TV Series, Freeze's name shouldn't be bold.Both the 60's and New Adventures section seem very tiny in comparison to the Animated series information on the character.
  • Justice League section has no citations --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a great article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As asked, here are my comments. I think the article has a lot of information, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas and to follow for style, refs, structure, etc. There are some comic character FAs: Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Batman, Superman and even Watchmen, that may be useful models.
  • For a character who started life in print, there is relatively little on his comic book appearances, especially before the first Batman TV series. See WP:WEIGHT
  • There are many short paragraphs and sections (one or two sentences), which makes for choppy reading and interrupts flow. Either expand these or combine them with other paragraphs or sections.
  • Format of references looks good - needed information seems to be included - make sure that the sources meet WP:RS, for example are action-figure.com or mobygames.com reliable sources?
  • Since this is about a fictional character, make sure to write from an out of universe perspective, see WP:IN-U
  • Also make sure to provide context to the reader - explain In the Pre-Crisis continuity perhaps --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid needless repetition - the lead should summarize the article, but the story of Freeze's wife is given more than once in the article (as one example)
  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up a bit - for example Freeze has found a home in the Arctic and somewhat started a family with his adopted son, Kunac, his frozen wife, Nora, and his two pet polar bears, Notchka and Chokka. what does "somewhat started a family" mean?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem
  • There are six fair use images in the article - this may be a problem at GA or FA.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, because it's undergone a lot of expansion since Novemberish time and no one has assessed it.

Thanks, The Vandal Warrior (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

General relativity

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Through the help of a number of contributors, this article has evolved to the point where I feel we are up to FA standard. It provides a good overview of the theory, touches upon all important subjects, and all its statements are referenced. In preparation for FA candidacy, I'm putting the article up for peer review. Any corrections and/or suggestions for improvement would be most welcome.

Thanks, Markus Poessel (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Washington, D.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the page is almost ready to be renominated for Good Article status. I would like any help tidying up references, adding some where they may be needed, and general comments on the overall structure of the article.

Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Doncram You might work in a link to List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington, D.C., perhaps in the last paragraph on other points of interest. It lists 87 sites on the U.S. National Register that are further designated National Monuments, National Memorials, and various other national-importance sites, which is quite exceptional. (In particular it lists the 74 National Historic Landmarks (many of which are privately owned), and 15 National Park Service-administered sites (of which 2 are also NHLs).) That is an article which has been completed out to cover all of the sites and to include at least a stub article on each one, recently, and a local wikipedian is adding pictures and refining descriptions. I think it is worth linking to already. You might also review it to see if there are any individual sites worth mentioning, in addition to or in place of any of those individual sites that you do mention already. doncram (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Doncram. I added the link as a seealso at the top of the section. I see what you're saying about the plethora of historic sites in D.C., as a native Washingtonian as well I know there are a lot of things that could be included on that page. It's hard to make a determination as to which ones are worthy of mention on the main page and which ones aren't! Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Epicadam (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.F.C. Sudbury

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has now reached a pretty decent standard and would appreciate some other views.

Thanks, Dancarney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Here's a few things I've picked up, hope it helps.

  • In the first sentence it should be "AFC Sudbury is an English....."
  • Similarly in the second sentence, the club should be treated as a singular noun
  • Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the whole article, currently it doesn't mention anything apart from the club's location and current league(s)
  • History section, first sentence - "AFC Sudbury was formed....."
  • "Eastern Counties Premier Division" should probably be "Eastern Counties League Premier Division", as that's its actual name
  • Is there a source for the specifics of why the club did not take promotion?
  • Sentence starting "This new start" is a bit tangled and convoluted and could do with a re-write
  • No reason for commas round Mark Morsley's name
  • No need for a comma before Canvey Island
  • "As well as consistently good league performances" - a bit POV, try and re-word
  • Any sources for the first paragraph of the "ground" section?
  • Stray full stop after reference 10
  • Squad list should use the standard template seen on most other club's pages, and could also do with an "As of....." stamp to show how up to date it is
  • League history section - "Eastern Counties Premier League" is not the name of the division, the correct name should be used
  • "Source" section - couldn't this be turned into a specific inline citation and amalgamated with the references?

Other than that it looks excellent!

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful comments, thanks! I think I've addressed everything with the exception of
  • re-wording of "As well as consistently good league performances" - I see that it appears POV, but I'm struggling to think a way of changing it. Only once in the club's existence have they finished outside the top 3 in their league, when they finished 5th, which does seem to be "consistently good league performances". Would something like "consisently high league finishes" be better?
  • Sourcing the reason for the club not taking promotion - just can't find a source for this, though I believe it is common-ish knowledge. Should I just state the the club chose not to seek promotion, though they were entitled? I think I can find a source for that. Dancarney (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bettia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm new to this reviewing lark, but I've spotted some issues which could be addressed:

  • When referring to seasons, use endashes (&ndash;) instead of hyphens (for example, instead of "beginning of the 2005-06 season", write "beginning of the 2005–06 season"). See WP:MOS#En_dashes.
  • It would also be beneficial to wikilink any references to seasons to the relevant 'season in English football' article, just to add a bit more context (for example, "beginning of the 2005-06 season").
  • Could you add some info on club records - biggest wins and losses, best FA Cup runs, etc?

Hope this helps!

Bettia (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! I've changed to hyphens to endashes and linked the seasons in football, but the records bit is probably not possible. The club has not published these, so I'd have to do OR to find biggest wins and losses. The best FA Cup run is detailed in the History section, though perhaps it's not clear that this is the best that they've done in the competition? Dancarney (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is of top importance to the the Simpsons Wikiproject, and is one of the main characters in the series.


Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • For the fairly long length of the article, I'd like to see at least two paragraphs in the lead.
  • During the first two seasons of The Simpsons, Bart was the show's main character; while later episodes started to focus more on Homer, Bart remains one of the most enduring characters on the series, and has proven to be one of the most well known characters in the history of American television animation. could be split up into two sentences.
  • Almost the entire "Personality" section is unsourced. Also, some of it sounds POVish.
  • The rest is actually pretty good. That's it from me. If you found these comments especially constructive, you might want to consider reviewing an article from Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, which is where I found this article. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

My first though was "looks better than quite a few character articles". My second thought was "need to tag this for excessive plot." The "Personality" section is 1314 words of plot summary, with only a single citation. For a character article, the plot summary should be concise, and every statement cited. The rest of the article, sans lead, infobox and references, is only 664 words. That's 664 words of good, out-of-universe information against more than twice as much in-universe when, if anything, the opposite should be true. There is a great wealth more than can be said about Bart Simpson, as he meets WP:FICT and beyond, but here we have only a smattering of out-of-universe information. Bart has been the subject of university studies, papers, and all kinds of stuff. Google Books is a good place to start :)

As a whole, I think it is at a great start. I highly applaud the use of nothing but reliable sources adn the primary work (not a single fansite, yay!). :) For ways to being it up to possible GA/FA, the plot needs to be cut down, the page reorganized an expanded on the real world size, and the lead expanded to follow. For some examples of high end character articles I'd recommend being influenced by, see: Himura Kenshin, Orochimaru (Naruto), and Rukia Kuchiki. Those are all recent character GAs properly organized and with an excellent balance between real-world and in-universe information. Also notice that the plot summaries are also sourced, and written from an out-of-universe perspective rather than being only summary. I hope that helps some, and feel free to reply here if you have any questions or if any clarification is needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball uniform

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:GA's aren't written or corrected by themselves. This article needs some references, and more content.


Thanks, Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • You might want to take a good look at Kit (association football), a similar article which is featured.
  • The Baseball cap has comparatively little coverage, most of the section dscribes previous types of cap.
  • A section about the growth of commercial sales of caps and jerseys would be useful.
  • Several statements need referencing. Some examples are
    • As official nicknames gained prominence in the early 1900s (in contrast to media-generated and unofficial nicknames of prior generations), pictorial logos began emerging as part of the team's marketing.
    • the Boston Americans (an unofficial designation that merely distinguished them from their across-the-tracks rivals) adopted the Nationals' abandoned red stockings in 1908, and have been the Boston Red Sox officially ever since then.
    • the stocking colors of teams in the 1860s onward were a principal device in distinguishing one team from another
    • detachable spikes were designed and were seen multiple times until 1976 when they were prohibited.
    • Further experimenting led to innovations such as the Houston Astros of the 1970s and 1980s putting numbers on a front pants pocket as well as on the back of the shirt.
    • The team most often identified with pinstripes would be the New York Yankees. Legend has it that the stripes were adopted to make Babe Ruth look slimmer. That story is a myth, as the Yankees had already adopted pinstripes several years before acquiring Ruth.
    • It became standard practice to wear white at home and gray or another somewhat dark color on the road.'

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wright (mathematician)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article up to Good Article status, and particularly welcome comments on its general readability. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrankTobia (talk · contribs)

This is my first peer review, so here goes...

  • Lead section doesn't have any citations; some may prefer this, but it makes me wary
  • The "probably September or October 1561" in his birth date should be cited or clarified later on
  • Notes section looks cluttered; consider separating references from citations in the style of Charles Darwin
  • In the same way, the "Works" section looks cluttered
  • "It is possible that he followed in the footsteps of his elder brother Thomas" in the first section sounds like speculation or WP:OR
  • First sentence in "Navigation and cartography" section sounds like a run-on
  • On the whole the text reads well, but I suggest getting a review from a better copyeditor than I

Hope that's at least a little helpful. Good luck. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. My comments are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, together with other Wikipedians, we are planning to propose it for a featured article. We are also working on a set of articles to cover the vast collection of euro gold and silver commemorative coins of the eurozone. So far this is the result:

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Austria)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Belgium)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Cyprus)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Finland)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2002
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2003
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2004
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2005
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2006
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2007
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2008
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Ireland)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Malta)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Slovenia)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Spain)

We are currently ironing the other articles of the set (Belgium was the first one completely finished, Austria and Ireland are almost done), while we are constantly adding information on new issues. We are also searching for information to start the missing articles of the set. They will be so far:

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Germany)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Greece)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Italy)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Luxembourg)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Monaco)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Netherlands)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Portugal)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (San Marino)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (Vatican)

We might create a Portal, once we are close to finish all articles.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review) This article is excellent in both quality and presentation. Great and much appreciated. (peer review) --Buster7 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Serious lack of references in the descriptions for each coin: for example, No reference provided for "This was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released" - Same throughout article.
  • Every single coin has "Designer: ?" This seems very pointless, why not just remove the Designer parameter altogether?
  • I would suggest that you submit this to FLC, not FAC (when its ready). It is more of a list than an article with paragraphs and paragraphs of prose.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs, thanks for the review. Answering some of your comments:
It is difficult to put references to "trivia" ("This was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released" it is obvious since the euro was introduced in 2002 and this was the first euro commemorative coin ever mint by the Belgians) but I got your point, explanations like this will make the article by far easy to read. Will also search references to other descriptions.
The "Designers", we are currently looking for the information, we left it blank hoping somebody can comment on it. Other sister articles like Austria, Finland, Slovenia ... that we are currently working on, they all have the designers.
I am currently requesting the opinion of another administrator who made a similar article FA, instead of FL. You might be right about that one.
Thanks again! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Daily

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article pushed up to GA status, and a couple of reviews would point out mistakes, wording issues, or reference problems.

Thanks, Neonblak (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It is very short, but I am sure you have exhausted your sources and cannot expand it. Please check http://books.google.com, http://www.nyt.com// and http://www.time.com archives. Your local library services may have access to research databases such as Thomson Gale Infotrac.
  • Not much to say - the references are formatted correctly, the prose looks good, the layout is good.
  • Can you find a picture to add?
  • Sorry I couldn't be more useful.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out those links, and the only existing picture that is known, is located in a book, to which I don't have a scanner. It can be used due to the fact it is the public domain as published photo prior to 1923. Thanks for the review, and I will try and expand when I find more information. Neonblak (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response. Maybe a friend or your library has a scanner you can use? A picture will really improve the article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (Middlesbrough FC) for peer review because I'd like to see how it could get to FA status - if it could at all. I feel we've built on the improvements made by the last review, and was wondering whether we've done enought to get it sorted, or if its still needs tidying up.


Thanks, Mofs (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, I was the only person to respond to the previous peer review. I hope I'm not the only one to respond this time.

  • Middlesbrough Football Club (commonly known as The Boro) - I have only ever heard fans of the club itself use "The Boro", so it is misleading to say "commonly known as". You wouldn't expect "The Boro" to be used on Match of the Day, for example. On a similar note, I think using "Boro" in the body of the text is too informal for an encyclopedia. (e.g. Over the next two seasons, Boro gained successive promotions).
  • The club came close to folding in 1986 after experiencing severe financial difficulties before the club was saved by a consortium led by then board member and current chairman Steve Gibson. - This either needs more punctuation or splitting into two sentences.
  • The number of external links seems excessive, take a look at Wikipedia:External links and remove some accordingly.
  • If you take the article to featured article candidates the reliability of sources will inevitably be scrutinised. Several fansites are used as references. What makes them reliable?
  • The list of club staff seems excessively exhaustive. A yardstick I use for inclusion in these sections is "Would this person be notable enough to have an article if they were only known for their current role" (i.e. not for a being a former player).
  • Are the colours used by the club when they first formed known?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • Get rid of italics from the nickname in the infobox. If it was meant to be in italics, it would be in the infobox code.
  • I'd use commas instead of brackets, for "also known as The Boro"
  • I'd change "currently playing", as per WP:DATE, to "who play" or "who are members of".
  • There is no subject for the verb in "and have only spent two seasons outside of the Football League's top two divisions". Perhaps change to and they have.
  • "with a varying amount of white." Seems very informal. I'd change to red and white, or red with a white band.
  • Use non-breaking spaces between a number and its noun. E.g. 22 years.
  • £1000 ought to have a comma, e.g. £1,000.
  • World War I and II should be First World War and Second World War.
  • "In 1903" etc are introductory phrases and so should be followed by a comma. There's quite a lot of these reading further down.
  • I'd suggest using sixth and third instead of 6th and 3rd.
  • You've flipped between First Division and Division Two. Stick to one style.
  • wl Third Division North.
  • You flip between singular and plural verbs for the club or team. Again stick to one style. I think Engish clubs are typically plural.
  • "20 year spell". Probably better hyphenated as 20-year-spell or 20-year spell.
  • "The FA Cup saw the club never get past the quarter-finals, a feat they were still yet to accomplish in their history." This is very clumsy and I don't know what it means.
  • I wouldn't start a season with 1975-76. Perhaps The 1975-76 season
  • Either wl or explain "Provisional Liquidator"
  • wl The Football League
  • emdashes should be unspaced.
  • Perhaps hypenate locally-born.
  • The supporters section is predominantly made up of shorter paragraphs. I'd look at rectifying that if you want to push it to FAC.
  • Perhaps left align the picture of Boro supporters.
  • Why the bold in the "community" section?
  • I'm not sure you need all those "club staff" listed.
  • References should become before external links.
  • I think the lead could do with expanding a little per WP:LEAD.
  • Why are some publishers in the reflist list in italics, some not?
  • I think the reliability of some of the references may be questioned at FAC.
  • There seems to be a high use of the official website in the references. Again it may be questioned at FAC.

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard of Dover

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article needs a thorough copyedit. Some of the sentences are clumsily constructed, and punctuation is wayward. I have raised some instances below, but the list isn't exhaustive.

  • Lead
    • Second sentence has three unrelated facts, with sparse punctuation. Also, employed by Becket in what capacity?
    • "Roger, archbishop..." - surely archbishop should be capitalized?
    • archbishops missing apostrophe
    • link required first mention of papacy
    • link required first mention of canon law - you link it later in article
  • Early Life
    • Again three unrelated facts in one sentence. Information missing - when he became a monk, when he became chaplain (possibly not stated in sources?)
    • The first notice of him in history can presumably be dated
    • Can you explain or link Christ Church?
    • Prior of St Martin's priory" - would "Prior of St Martin's" be sufficient?
    • "Right before" Becket's death sounds clumsy. Immediately before would be better.
    • Same sentence: repeat of Becket's name should be avoided. In fact, the whole sentence needs reworking
    • There is a further awkward repetition of Becket in the final sentence.
  • Archbishop
    • It is not necessary to spell out in full, or link, King Henry II of England in the first sentence. "King Henry" would do.
    • Is there a possible link for Odo? There are dozens of Odos on the dab page - is one of them him?
    • It is not immediately clear to the reader who the charges of simony etc were laid against.
    • "After hearing the charges, they were dismissed" is unclear, and ungrammatical if you mean that the charges were dismissed. Perhaps: "After the hearing the charges were dismissed".
    • What is the election suddenly mentioned? He was chosen by the king - did some election process follow?
    • Unnecessary repetition of the year 1174
    • Comma missing after "Canterbury" (there are commas missing in other places, too)
    • Phrases like "in the end" sound vague and informal. "Finally" sounds better,
    • "dependent on the pope direct" is awkward. "..directly dependent on the pope"?
    • "his great predecessor" sounds POV. A word like "renowned" might be safer
    • The semi-colon before "but" should be a comma. Or, better still, divide the sentence.
    • Spelling: "acquiesced"
    • This section becomes a bit of a jumble of facts. I wonder if they could be arranged in a more orderly way?
  • Final section
    • commas required after 1184 and colic.

This has been a bit hurried but I hope gives you something to work on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a bit of a muddle, all in all. I think I'm not quite mined out on information on him, and he's in a time frame I'm not as familiar with, so it's been harder to write about him. I'm not entirely sure he will make it to FA, honestly, he just feels skimpy. Anyway, thankee for the comments, They all help! (You should know by now that commas and punctuation are an issue for me, same for some spelling (grins). Content, not copyediting!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Please look at this article and give any feedback that you may have in order to bring it to featured article status. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years' War

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we here a Spotlight usually do this. We want to get it to GA and any suggestions or contributions would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I havn't read through the prose yet, but from what I can tell at first glance most of the article is insourced. Almost every statement in an article should be referenced. I know that sounds like a lot, but that's the first step in making a quality article. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to avoid taking that advice too literally. Most statements should be tracable to a source, but not every single statement needs a separate citation. With the exception of controversial or uncertain casualty figures and the likes, I warmly recommend citing the article by the paragraph, not after every other sentence. It will usually result in more cohesive prose and improved readability. Peter Isotalo 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the semi automated peer review as it 1) breaks transclusion of the request to WP:PR (so no one sees it), 2) is against the directions above, and 3) saves space. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick run-through, I have the following suggestions:

  • The lead should not start by flat-out defining the war as religious. It started as a religious conflict, but turned political later on.
  • The article needs to handle the term "national" more carefully. The did mark the beginning of the development toward a political system based on sovereign nations, but there were no nation-states or nationalities in the modern sense in the 17th century. The political history should be described in more detail, for example under "Peace of Westphalia".
  • "Fiction" is currently just random examples of fictional depictions. Summarize it in prose and use individual examples only sparingly. If possible avoid mentioning obscure online projects like the 1632 series specifically. They're seldom notable enough to merit any detailed attention.
  • A section on development of tactics and weaponry might be a good idea.
  • The references are pretty substandard. There is tons of general literature on the war, and more than enough to cover every fact in the article without having to reference scattered tidbits in a thousand and one internet sources. Peter Isotalo 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, since its promotion to FA (Old Edit, Diff), it has expanded by 30%, several sections were added, and the "definitions" section has been completely redone. I personally see no problems with the article (thus I have not listed it at Featured Article Review, but was hoping for a few fresh sets of eyes.

Thank you kindly, RunningOnBrains 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

In light of the reason for peer reviewing, I'm going to look at this as I would an article up at FAR. The first thing I noticed is that there are a lot of images. I mean, they are great (and I have a love of looking at tornado pictures), but in the case of this article, I think a gallery might something to consider for some of the many example pictures. As it is now, there are so many pictures the scientific ones feel lost and it seems more like a page of "oh, cool tornado pictures" than providing some key illustrations. The Types section includes several examples, however many have their own articles so perhaps those images could go in the gallery? Minor note: the first image in that section has a red link to CSDed article.

Looking at one of the core criteria for FA, referencing, the article is failing as there is quite a bit of unsourced material. Here is a specific list of the ones I've found:

  • Definitions - under "Condensation funnel", the last sentence of the first paragraph
  • Types
    • "Multiple vortex tornado" , entire paragraph
    • "Waterspout"'s paragraph and second bulleted item
    • "Gustnado", last two sentences
    • "Winter Waterspout", entire paragraph
    • "Steam devil", entire paragraph
    • "Cold air vortex", second sentence
  • Characteristics
    • "Shapes", first paragraph and last sentence of the second paragraph
    • "Appearance", last sentence of paragraph three
    • "Sound and seismology", entire first paragraph
    • "Electromagnetic, lightning, and other effects", last sentence of the second paragraph, entire third paragraph
  • Life Cycle
    • "Supercell relationship", all but one sentence
    • "Formation", entire paragraph
    • "Maturity", entire paragraph
    • "Demise", second paragraph
  • Intensity and damage, entire first paragraph
  • Climatology, last sentence of the first paragraph, most of fourth paragraph (also, seems a bit long to be a summary of a main article?)
  • Prediction, first paragraph
    • "United Kingdom", entire section
    • "United States", entire section
    • "Other areas", entire section
  • Detection, first paragraph
    • "Storm spotting", first and last paragraphs, last sentence of paragraph 3
    • "Radar", first paragraph
  • Safety, second paragraph
  • Continuing research, vast majority of the section, with only two sentences in the first paragraph cited, and the short third paragraph sourced

As a note, I did not review the quality of the references that are used, only their existance. Some other quick things I noticed:

  • There are several referenced statements in the lead, when generally such statements should be referenced and expanded on in the article while the lead summaries the article. For such a lengthy article, the lead seems to be very short and I believe it fails WP:LEAD.
  • I spotted a few other MoS issues, like refs inside punctuation, or stepping "out of article" in "Myths and misconceptions" with the parenthetical see also. It is also nice when multiple refs are in numerical order.
  • The See also needs cleaning out to remove those items wikified within the article
  • ELs really need cutting down; there seems to be quite a few unnecessary links there

If this article were brought to FAR, I would sadly have to support delisting due to the referencing issues. As a whole, it seems to still be in decent shape, especially for such a popular topic, so I'm hopeful that these issues can be fixed fairly quickly. I'd also recommend having it re-copyedited, particularly the new additions, which would also catch some of those MoS issues mentioned above. I hope this helps some and feel free to reply here if there are any questions or anything needs clarifying. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll be moving down the list in the days ahead to make fixes. -RunningOnBrains 05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zab Judah

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I completely rewrote the entire article and added sources where needed.


Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Several citations need formatting properly using a {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} template (please use either one, not a combination of both types of template throughout the article).
    • Specifically, current refs 1, 2, 31 are missing full information and need access dates.
    • Also, what makes current ref 33 reliable? It is a GeoCities website. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  • There doesn't seem to be any information on his early life, childhood and education.
  • There are lots of short stubby sub-sections under the professional career section, is it possible to merge any of these to improve overall flow?
  • Add citations to the infobox.
  • I have noticed an inline URL in the Personal life section, which is not formatted using the <ref> tags.
  • Looks good overall, except for those things. I do recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of people who can help.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 WWE Draft

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has FL potential, and I would like it to be reviewed for any concerns or problems, so it can have a better chance at WP:FLC.


Thanks, SRX 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikki * For the Draft Lottery, it might be a good idea to subdivide the Notes into Date, Show, Location, and Notes.--SRX--LatinoHeat 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the idea of an infobox. Maybe with information like total number of trades, date it started, date finished, and links to the previous and following year's trades (like the PPVs in the PPV infobox). Those are just random examples, but you get the idea. What do you think?

* In the lead: announcers and commentators shouldn't be cap; June shouldn't be linked; the "-" in June 6-30 should be changed to a "–" * Background: don't start a sentence with however, don't link June; the draft is written as Draft Lottery and draft lottery (should it be cap or not? be consistent) * All the dates in the table with day/month/year should be linked, even if they are already. That way if someone changes the order with the sort function, the top date is still linked.--SRX--LatinoHeat 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Hope that helps! Nikki311 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Kinkladze

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently failed a featured nomination, so I am looking for feedback on what else is needed to reach featured standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • I'd move ref 3 to after Gio, since I presume it refers to just Gio, not Gio and Kinky.
    • I'm pretty sure there's something somewhere in the MoS which specifies placing refs after punctuation.
      • I was under the impression that implies after rather than before punctuation where it exists. If that reference is just for Gio, then I'd put it straight after Gio. Peanut4 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add some wikilinks to "When Georgian football formed leagues independent of Soviet competition in 1989". There a few alternatives at Association football around the world#Europe (UEFA).
    • Our articles about Georgian football are sketchy at best, but I've put in a link to Football in Georgia.
  • I know you've linked midfielder and playmaker quite high, but I'd be tempted to repeat those wikilinks in the "Style of play" section.
    • Done.
  • Maybe add new columns for the references in the statistics section.

Everything else from myself has previously been addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start, I offer you an apology for my bad timing. I went to take another look for problems just after the FAC was archived. Picking up from where I left off...

  • Anorthosis: "on the day of second leg of the tie against Rangers" Incorrect grammar.
  • Rubin Kazan: Don't need the club name linked here, since it is in the previous section.
  • "his corner kick was headed into the net by a team-mate" Which team-mate?
  • Don't like "in three more minutes".
  • "mistake in is choice of penalty taker" Typo.
  • Berdyev doesn't need a link here.
  • Current ref 106 not after punctuation.
  • 2006 season: Rostov doesn't need another link. Giants2008 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 WWE Draft

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article from it's previous FLC, and make sure the next time it goes to FLC, it will pass, any concerns or problems, please list them here. Thank You!

Thanks, SRX 16:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should summarize the main points developed in the later sections of the article and should not cover material that is not mentioned in the main text. This article has no lead (summary) but instead is structured like a short essay with two charts. I would suggest a re-write that moves the text sections together, re-organizes them, and tops them with a short lead that summarizes their content. I'd also move the charts at the bottom, below the text. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  • Another copyedit after the re-write would be a good idea.
  • I've looked for but failed to find any WWE articles that are GA or FA, but you might look at articles about other sports such as basketball to see how other authors and editors create articles about drafts.
  • The photo of The Great Khali is almost too dark to see. Perhaps a better one can be found.
  • Numbers larger than nine are generally rendered as digits; for example 20-minute intervals and 27 superstars.

I realize this is a short review by someone who is not a wrestling expert, but I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Overnight I realized that you were not aiming for FA but for FL. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I have never reviewed or contributed to or edited an FL list prospect before this one. Looking at WP:FL, I see that quite a few WWE lists have made FL. You might review some of them to see how other editors have handled the leads. You might also look at draft-related FL articles in other sports; an example would be 2007 NFL Draft. Sorry about the mixup. Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed at WP:GAC for the third time this year. Although many of the most recent reviewer arguments were for reasons not in keeping with policy (e.g., the reviewer knowledgeable on size policy and thought the article exceeded policy limitation), some arguments were of varying degrees of merit. With respect to size, the article is currently only half the length that is against policy at WP:FAC. Currently, according to this tool, the article is 30.2 KB of readable prose and 5350 words and WP:SIZE says articles much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is a problem. Generally, much longer than 30 of 50 KB is perceived as over 60KB. So this article could be nearly twice as long and be a WP:FA. It certainly is far short of the length of Harry S. Truman or either of the Roosevelts for example. In truth, given my experience with WP:GAC, which is about as broad and deep as any on WP, I was quite surprised given the lack of merit of some of the arguments against this article that it was not given a hold at GAC. I am somewhat convince that the common dislike of Bonds may have spilled over into the evaluation of the quality of the article. However, I concede that that as the most active editor of the article, I may be too close to see very deep problems with the article. In short, I need more outside eyes on this article that I think of as very close to WP:WIAGA to help me see points of improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bonds' article is shorter than his peer group Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further details: Jordan - 37.2 KB, 6493 words. Gretzky - 36.4 KB and 6332 words. Bonds which is deeemed too long 30.2 KB and 5350 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Barry Bonds/archive1.

Detroit Automobile Company

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I intend to submit this to WP:GA. The lack of information available about this company is probably going to prevent it from ever becoming an FA, I guess. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Since you asked for them, here are some ideas for expansion:

  • Give some examples of those "many early car ventures" that floundered.
  • If possible, explain what Ford specifically disliked about the Detroit Automobile Company vehicles. That is, what specifically did he view as "imperfect"? It would be OK to talk about car mechanics here, malformed pistons, bad lights, screechy brakes, or whatever the case might be, if known.
  • Include more details about the people in the article, something about the investors' love or lack of love for cars, something about their connections to and faith in Ford.
  • Include more about Ford's "racing". Readers won't typically know anything about his racing and might wonder whether he was a race driver at one time or whether other people won races driving his cars. For that matter, it might surprise them that he was ever a mechanic and not always a manager.
  • It would be delicious to see the exact cost analysis published by the DAC of the difference in maintenance costs in 1900 between one of their automobiles and a horse-drawn vehicle.

Here are some other observations:

  • Full dates need a closing comma after the year.
  • Please use one link for cities rather than two. An example is Detroit, Michigan.
    • Why? City and state are separate. As it is now, Detroit and Michigan are both separately linked (with Detroit a disambig link). Is there a WP policy that says otherwise? — Wackymacs

(talk ~ edits) 10:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • MOS:LINK says to avoid "two links [that] are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link..." Readers may want to see something more about Detroit, Michigan, because it is directly related to this article. If they happen to click on the Michigan link, they will get sent to an article that will be less helpful in learning about Detroit, and they may not realize why they went to Michigan instead of to Detroit. The single link solves this problem. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OK to put US in front of $ on the first instance but not necessary since this is an article about a subject in the US.
  • The following sentence is ambiguous: "Henry Ford managed the manufacturing plant at 1343 Cass Avenue, Amsterdam in Detroit, initially with no pay until he left his job at the Detroit Edison Company (DAC), when he was given a salary of $150 a month." It's not clear what his connection was to Detroit Edison or how much he was making there or how he could hold two jobs at once. Perhaps this is a place where the article could be expanded.
  • If the article expands to make room for more images, it would be better to move the delivery truck to the left side of the page so that it seems to be running into the page rather than out. This would pull the reader's eye into the text, which is where you want it.
  • It's not clear from the article who Samuel was.
  • You might translate the $86,000 lost dollars into 2008 dollar-equivalents to give the reader a better sense of the value. Ditto for Ford's salary and other turn-of-the-century dollar amounts.
  • The lead mentions "20 automobiles", but the history talks about trucks. Did the company produce trucks as well as the 20 cars?

I hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC) xplain what Ford specifically disliked about the Detroit Automobile Company vehicles. That is, what specifically did he view as "imperfect"?[reply]

Harry Trott

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this article to FAC in the not-too-distant future. Any advice on prose, referencing, MoS issues or any other matter would be welcome.

Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 06:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Current ref 11 is just a blad link right now, needs title, publisher and last access date at least.
  • Same for ref 38
  • Same for ref 42
Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All fixed. Thank you very much. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Ealdgyth's comments - I found the article to be quite well done and have some fairly picky sugestions (I am also no expert on cricket):

  • In Australia is "State" capitalized usually? eventually playing first-class cricket again for his State,
  • As noted, I do not know cricket - but this sentence seems odd to me (innings of 54 - 54 what?): His innings of 54 included a memorable hit over the leg side boundary from the bowling of leading Test all-rounder George Giffen, ...
  • missing words? His [chances for?] inclusion in the Australian squad for the forthcoming tour of England were enhanced when a number of leading players made themselves unavailable.[10]
  • seems like jargon (lbw) change to the lbw law that would aid bowlers ... perhaps spell out lbw? See WP:JARGON
  • one too many and? recording a duck in the first innings[,] and making three runs in the second, and he did not bowl.[13]
  • extra period "29.20."? Trott scored 146 runs in the series at an average of 29.20. and in all first-class matches he scored 1269 runs.[31][32]
  • the tourists?? Playing for Victoria against the tourists, the Trott brothers claimed twelve wickets and ...
  • Cricket jargon for "Visiting cricket team, especially where the team is playing a series of matches away from home over a long(ish) period. Reworded for clarity. Please let me know if it is still distracting. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List so I think it should be a colon here (not a semicolon) The team included a number of first-time tourists; Clem Hill, Joe Darling,...
  • Colon added
  • Why the asterisk in scoring 305 runs in the second innings, K. S. Ranjitsinhji making 154*.?
  • Seems way overlinked, for example K. S. Ranjitsinhji is linked twice in two paragraphs or Wisdens twice in one paragraph in "Style and personality" section. This would be a problem at FAC
  • FAC with cricket articles always seems to be a balance between linking jargon where appropriate and not overlinking. The two examples you have found are clear cut examples of overlinking and have been fixed; there are some other items that may be overlinked such as "run", "wicket", "average" etc. This is to save the reader from having to remember where the term was linked first should they wish to find out what the term means. However, your point is noted and I will have another run through the article and see what links can be removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says he was in hospital "he was committed to a psychiatric hospital for over 400 days." but Illness and recovery section says "Trott was discharged after spending 400 days at Kew Asylum." Which is it?
  • Will need to consult my source. The 400 days seems a little exact though. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • When did he start working for the Post Office? Perhaps add this so we know his employer earlier?
  • I will check my source, I would think at a guess it would have been as a boy of around 15. I think that the Post Office would have been his only employer. He was a man of modest birth and education; that is part of the attraction of his story. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt most Americans would know stone as a unit of weight - perhaps weighed 11 stone (70 kg / 154 lb)
  • While stone was linked, I agree it does not hurt to cater for the vast majority of first language English speakers :-) - now added. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Images are supposed to all be set to thumb width per WP:MOS#Images, although wide images like team pictures can have their widths set.
  • I agree in principle, however the two images where I have set a size are very small. If no preference has been set (the case for most casual readers) the images are very difficult to make out. Setting a fixed size for these two images is my compromise solution. No doubt there will be more discussion at FAC (there was when Hugh Trumble was listed)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all great stuff. Will start addressing these as soon as possible. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed some, there are a few I need to return to my sources to address. Jargon-busting was exactly what I was looking for so thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thought - as noted I am not a cricket person and despite the efforts of people I know who are to educate me, I still do not understand it very well. It seems one of the distinctive things about him is his bowling style - could a sentence or two be added early on to make that clearer? I am tempted to make a sticky wicket joke here, but will restrain myself. Too late! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I know that this article has problems, but intend to generate ideas through community participation on how to best improve this article.

Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majoreditor's comments. Too many of the sections are stubby. They need to be better developed, particularly sections such as "Government". The article also needs copyediting. Majoreditor (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I agree with Majoreditor's comments that it many of the sections are stubby (expand them or combine them with others) and that the article needs a copyedit.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. I note that Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places has many city articles that are FA, including Jerusalem, which is another capital and holy city, and may be a useful model.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. This means that 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 (the alternate name Becca is only in the lead, for example).
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so Demographics, Media, Cuisine and Sport do not seem to be in the lead (may be others). Please see WP:LEAD
  • In addition to the short sections, there are many short paragraphs - the "Etymology and spelling" section has three one sentnece paragraphs - these should be combined or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • The "Etymology and spelling" really does not tell us the etymology of Mecca - what does the word mean in Arabic? What does the full name Makkah al-Mukarramah mean (All I know is that al usually means "the")? Since the city seems to have given its name to the province it is in, should that be mentioned here too?
  • Although much of the article has good references, it needs more references, for example Mecca is governed by the Municipality of Mecca, headed by a mayor (Also known as Amin) appointed by the Saudi Government. The current mayor of the city is Osama Al-Bar. A municipal council of fourteen locally elected members is responsible for the functioning of the municipality. and On July 31, 1987, during an anti-US demonstration by pilgrims, 402 people were killed (275 Iranian pilgrims, 85 Saudis [including policemen], and 45 pilgrims from other countries) and 649 wounded (303 Iranian pilgrims, 145 Saudis [including policemen] and 201 pilgrims from other countries) after the Saudi police opened fire against the unarmed demonstrators. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I would rewrite the last example as something like: On July 31, 1987, Saudi police opened fire on unarmed pilgrims during an anti-US demonstration, killing 402 and wounding 649, specifically: 275 Iranian pilgrims killed (303 wounded); 85 Saudis, including policemen killed (145 wounded), and 45 pilgrims from other countries killed (201 wounded).
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The information given in the current references needs to be more complete. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • I would not use other encylcopedias as references
  • The current References need to be made into inline citations (not just listed after Notes). The Further reading sources ook like they would make good references.
  • I think See also is for links that are not already in the article - most if not all of the current See also links seem to be in the article already
  • Per WP:MOS#Images image widths should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to take over - can make maps or panoramas wider. The images in the article are quite nice.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odex's actions against file-sharing

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

References : First PR, FAC, GAC

This article is suffering from the The Man, His Son, And the Donkey syndrome. There are a lot of criticisms thrust at it, but nobody is willing to fix it. The single biggest problem is that there are no editors other than myself being able to copyedit it (in which an objection of FAC requires someone with a fresh perspective to review it), and not all objections on the article seem fixable. Which is a waste because content-wise it is comprehensive enough to be an addition to Featured Articles. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive2.

September 11, 2001 attacks

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently achieved good article status after years of failed attempts and I wish to capitalize on this momentum by making a drive toward featured article status. Editors have made excellent progress in the past few months, but I want to know where else we can improve. Please hold your standards high and don't be afraid to raise an issue with the most minute aspect of this article. Remember: we're striving for FA-status.

Thanks, VegitaU (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted FA status, so I looked at the sources as I would have at FAC.
  • Current ref 6 McKinnon, Jim "The phone line from ..." needs a last access date.
  •  Done Done

Current ref 9 "National Commission Upoon Terrorist Attacks in the ..." needs a publisher/author

  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 19 "Profiles of 9/11" lacks a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 20 "Broadcasting and Cable" lacks a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • You have a LOT of web site references that are lacking in last access dates. It's nice to give them even when they are just an online version of an also published report.
  •  Done Taken care of.
  • Current ref 65 "Gunaratna, Ronan "Inside Al Qaeda"" is lacking a page number
  •  Done Done
  • Current refs 68 and 69 "Al Qaedas' 1998 Fatwa" are lacking a last access date.
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 75 is just a title "9-11 Commission, Exectutive Summary". Needs publisher at the very least.
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 76 McDermott, Terry "Perfect Soldiers..." is lacking a page number
  •  Done Done
  • Stick with either using p. as an abbreviation for page or not using any abbreviation. Examples of both in the article's footnotes.
  • Current ref 98 "Making of the Death pilots" is this a book? Website? Needs more bibliographic information so it can be verified.
  • Current ref 99 "Wright, Lawrence "The Looming Tower..." is lacking a page number
I don't want to get rid of this reference, but I haven't been able to sufficiently satisfy or replace it. It'll be at least another week before I can get my hands on this book. If anyone has it on hand right now, I'd appreciate the input. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Gotten rid of. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 100 "Al-Qaeda tape finally claims responsiblity for attacks..." is lacking a publisher
  • Foreign language refs should specify that. (Example, current ref 106 La Audience Nacional dicta la prmera sentencia..." and current ref 108 "El Supremo rebaja de 27 a 12 anos...")
  • Current ref 138 "Hamilton Stuart, 11 September, the internet and the effects..." is lacking the web link that would be expected from the retrieved on date given.
  • Current ref 146 "Mendez, Juan E. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay..." is lacking a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 148 "Lieber, Robert J. "Globalization, Culture and Indentities in Crisis..." is lacking a page number
I did not check for dead links nor did I read the prose. 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was going to review this, but could not bring myself to read the whole thing - sorry. I do note the lead should probably be four paragraphs by WP:LEAD. I would probably combine the first one sentence paragraph with the second one. What I read was good Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more ideas - spell out NIST before using the abbreviation. Hoboken is a city (not a town). I read the USA Today reports on casualties at the time and I seem to recall there was a fair amount of uncertainty - some people may have died and not been reported or some missing may not have died. It is possible these issues have been better resolved since what I read. Would it make sense to add a sentence on this? It is clear a lot of work has gone into this and what I was able to read was well written. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dahl

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the quality enough so that it can become a Featured Article. I'm open to any and all suggestions but some stuff I'd like to ask about/request:

  • Personal life section: This was originally two smaller sections, with one of them opening the article and titled "Early life". But both were quite short, so I combined them. Does this seem ok?
  • General copyediting/proofreading: It should be too bad, but everything can always be better. Thoughts?
  • General structure regarding headings/subheadings: Does it seem ok/readable?


Thanks, Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Current ref 36 is lacking a last access date.
Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

  • Looks like the lead needs rewriting. It is disorganized and a bit too long, really. Try to make the paragraphs equal in length to improve flow/readability.
  • Jack FM section is short.
  • Doesn't seem to be any information about his earlier life (who was he born to, for example), childhood and education?
  • Looks pretty good otherwise.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susianna Kentikian

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a short article which was promoted to good article status not too long ago, and I am wondering how it might be improved further. The text can probably not be expanded much further, because sources for the topic are limited.

Thanks, EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and generally well done. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc.
    • Unfortunately, there are no FAs on boxers, as far as I know, certainly non on female boxers. I used the good article Mike Tyson as a model for the awards and boxing records section.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, with nothing important in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The current lead is decent, but the second paragraph seems a bit short - could more be added to it? For example, Professional boxing record (undefeated, 21 wins) is not in the lead but is a header.
    • It is mentioned that she is undefeated in the first paragraph, and her boxing statistics are right there in the infobox, so I'm not sure whether they really need to be in the text of the lead as well.
  • In Early life could her city of birth be mentioned? How about the names of her parents and brother? Is her borther older or younger?
    • I added this information.
  • Provide context for the reader - could the years of their first move to Germany or their move to Moldova or Russia be given? See WP:PCR
    • I included the year of their move to Germany, though the exact year for their move to Russia and Moldova are not known I'm afraid. They likely left Germany in the same year, but I found no sources for that.
  • Article could use a copyedit to clean up awkward sentences / grammar - for example Kentikian had to fear expulsion from Germany for a long time.
    • I changed that sentence. I guess there are more such sentences in the text, but unfortunately my ability to judge what might be awkward is limited, because I'm not a native speaker of English.
  • I don't understand this - if she had an amatuer 24 and 1 record, how was she "discovered"? Surely the professional boxing people were aware of her already? See Kentikian was discovered as a professional boxer at an exhibition fight during qualifications for the World Amateur Boxing Championships
    • Female amateur boxing is nothing overly popular, I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't aware of her at all, or maybe had heard of her, but never seen her fight before.
  • Give both English and metric units - for example 1.54 m - use of {{convert}} templates may be helpful here
    • I included English units.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I tried to work on your suggestions. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who will do copyedits listed at WP:PRV and WP:LOCE - I would ask on someone's talk page for help. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurstan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good looking article. It is short, which isn't a problem in and of itself unless there is more information available about the guy. If there is the article should probably be expanded in order to meet the featured article criteria. I know that's not directly written in the criteria, but it's the generally understood meaning of comprehensive. As for making it accessible to the non-specialist, I would have to agree it currently isn't, but it wouldn't be too hard to make it more so. Basically the problem is that much of the context needed to understand the article is in the linked terms. That's ok for the bulk of that material on each term, but most of the terms should be at least defined in line so that they can be understood from the context of the sentence. Yes that makes it sound a tad redundant to the specialist, but Wikipedia articles aren't targeted to specialists. Some specific examples of terms that need some explaining are see of York, maybe consecration, suffragan, Cluniac, canon, prebend, etc. Of those the see needs the most explanation. It's an elected position, but of what level, what importance, etc. That and maybe suffragan is another idea that the reader seems to need an understanding of in order to understand the article, so that may need just a bit more than a quick definition, though perhaps not, I don't know. Also the second sentence of the Archbishop section is mangled, and what does resurrection mean in that context? - Taxman Talk 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yazoo (band)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing for feedback in terms of prose, broadness, layout/style and of course references. Intending to submit to WP:GA. Thanks — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber

[edit]

Cool, new Romantic music! I strongly approve of these sorta articles and will list some things. Naughty me has started copyediting, but really need to check comprehensiveness first. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, first off, a quick scan through fails to find mention of their cool videos. I recall alot of bands really began to make alot of videos around this time and Yazoo was one of them. Mentioning something about who directed them and ideas behind them'd be good. I remember the monster one for "Don't Go".
  • Needs to be at least a little info on why they got together and why they broke up.
  • I recall Alf was particularly reknowned for her singing voice. Also was there ever any controversy about her weight? (band image etc.) I don't recall.
  • Need to get some refs too. Also, any reflections from either Alf or Vince on the band from any interviews etc. would be great.
  • Any expansion on the Yazoo naming lawsuit would be good. Pretty important issue.
  • They were big here in Australia, any idea how they went in Europe and elsewhere? i.e. make the article less US- and UK-centric.
  • Overview is a non-heading it means summary and the lead is a summary. Once longer it can be Formation etc.

That's what I can think of for starters. Once comprehenisveness and referenced, then deal with copyediting

Thank you for your comments - at the moment, I am struggling to find reliable sources through the access I have (I am using http://books.google.com and also Thomson Gale Infotrac and NYT archives). Any idea on where some of the information can be found? (I also searched Billboard.com) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to your local (or regional) library and have a look through old interviews in Rolling Stone would be a start. If it is a big library they may have a reasonably detailed archive. The city centre may have a big branch with bigger archives. Also, have a look under biographies. This is a key job of wikipedia to improve the web content by finding and citing off-web content. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already had a look on Amazon and Google Books to find the suitable books but nothing substantial coming up except for books on Depeche Mode and Erasure, Vince Clarke's other involvements. My library doesn't have Rolling Stone archives (especially since this is the UK, and Rolling stone is a US magazine). Maybe I'll be able to find other editors who can get the sources needed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I just realised...NME then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lal Masjid

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for almost a week now once I saw the potential this article had. I would particularly like to say thanks to Mercenary2k who worked on the article before me.

I already have addressed all the concerns previously mentioned in other reviews. Since I already have background knowledge on this article, I am not sure if I am leaving anything out. Therefore might I ask that particular attention be payed to the Background section. I also have some concerns about about images. Since I am not a "image-person", it has been difficult for me to find images that fit Wikipedia's policy. I would like some comments on whether the article needs more images for its appeal.

Thanks, → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed WP:GA, but it is not ready for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I don't promise I caught every minor glitch with the format of the refs, but I think I got most of them.
Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Linux

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review and preparation for future featured article status.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Lead should be expanded to have three decent sized paragraphs.
  • Citations should be placed per WP:CITE.
  • Explain GNU before using it.
  • Don't squeeze text between images, per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Image captions shouldn't have periods if the captions are fragments.
  • Many sections have no citations whatsoever.
  • Embedded devices section et seq need references.
  • However... seven citations for one claim?! (44 thru 50)
  • {{see also}} templates are typically used at the top of sections.
  • Are 15 or so "See also" links really necessary?
  • Try to use {{cite web}} for the citations.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Doncram
  • It is mentioned early that Richard Stallman heads the Free Software Foundation. Then, later, it is mentioned "Torvalds continues to direct the development of the kernel. Stallman heads the Free Software Foundation, which in turn supports the GNU components". In the later mention, I think it should be "Stallman continues to head the Free Software Foundation...."
  • The One Laptop Per Child program is mentioned as if it is all going to be Linux (which it was), but the recent announcement of a Windows version or dual boot / double version or whatever has changed that. So that passage should be updated accordingly.

That's all for me; this is outside my area of expertise, if i have one; hope this helps. doncram (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Brosnan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Faied FA only due to prose. Ultra! 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comment: I read the FAC and the comments all say that this needs a copyedit. I have scanned the article and agree. Have you asked for help with a copy edit? Try asking someone from WP:PRV or WP:LOCE for help. Once the article is as polished as you can get it, I would then go back to the FAC reviewers and politely ask them to look at the article again.

Frankly I am not sure what else Peer Review can provide you - the problem is clear, get a very thorough copyedit. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • Wikilink the other films in the lead?
  • Wikilink "US" in the lead
  • "born to a carpenter Thomas" doesn't really flow well enough.
  • "abandoned the family" is pov, we have no idea why he left unless it says so in a third party RS
  • Some of the paragraphs are short and could be merged
  • "A fire eater was teaching women how to put the flames across the chest and they had their tops off. So he thought he'd join in and learnt how to fire-eat" the first sentence seems slightly convoluted, as if the author was afraid of saying breasts, and the second sentence is a bit casual in tone, and there is a typo.
  • "the ruggedly handsome title role in the NBC romantic detective series Remington Steele" er.... is that a third party statement or the authors opinion?
  • "that Brosnan was going to inherit another role of Moore's" you havent mentioned Roger Moore before, so full name/wikilink him. [I assume you mean him?]
  • "legal squabbles" squabbles?
  • Again, some of these paragraphs could be merged.
  • I very much doubt one new sunday times article is notable enough to be in the further reading, I don't think this section is needed.

Hope these points help you! SGGH speak! 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Uranus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was expanded significantly and needs input from editors not familiar with text. Also, please, rate it. I think it now deserves B-class.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments

[edit]

Overall a nice piece of work. I only found the most minor of nit-picks.

  • "aerodynamical drug" => probably meant drag.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd that the Nu and Mu rings are spelled out, while most of the remainder are in Greek characters. I checked the Showalter and Lissauer (2006) reference, but found no mention of these two rings. So that might not be the appropriate reference. The USGS nomenclature pages do mention the new names, but they also uses lambda rather than λ, for example.[2][3] Maybe Mu and Nu could be made consistent (μ, ν) with the others?
I will need to do some reseacrh to settle this. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed them to μ, ν. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are brightest and widest 30° from the apoapsis and dimmest and narrowest 30° from the periapsis." Does this mean they have dual maxima/minima to either side of the apoapsis/periapsis? Otherwise perhaps you could clarify if this is leading or trailing those orbital positions?
The source does state if they are leading or trailing. I will try to find another source. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An em-dash/en-dash doesn't seem appropriate for "During a ring plane—crossing" (in multiple locations in the text). Should it be a hyphen? Likewise for "micrometre–sized".
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First occurance of micrometre should be wikilinked. "power law" should be wikilinked.
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole, Massachusetts

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA, but am wondering where to improve it.


Thanks, RedThunder 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Meeting transcript published by the town's historical society. RedThunder 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice something looking at the sources of this article, that every single one was available online. It is perfectly acceptable to use printed sources, and often times it's better to use them, as they will be more reliable than online sources.
Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Doncram (talk · contribs) According to List of Registered Historic Places in Norfolk County, Massachusetts#Walpole there are two sites in Walpole that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I suggest developing articles about each of these and referring to them from this Walpole article. There are extensive research resources available about any site listed on the National Register. Visit wp:NRHP and ask for help on its talk page, if you are interested but not sure how to proceed. doncram (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu House

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was my first Wikipedia article, written in 2005. It became featured in December 2005, and was on the Main Page in January 2006. Since then I've let it 'decay', and so the prose is poor, and the referencing isn't up to notch (though, I have already improved this a little bit). I'm looking for any other feedback apart from the obvious. Thanks — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few quick points:
  • The article seems to be about Xanadu Houses but is named Xanadu House. It seems that the article should be named Xanadu Houses with a redirect from Xanadu House, instead of the other way around. An admin would have to make this fix, i think.
  • There is a reference tag calling for use of in-line citations in lieu of general references, and I see you have responded by inserting in-line citations for use of the first general reference. However, the 3 other general references ( Corn; O'Neill; and Harb ) are not cited by any in-line references. It would improve the article if those sources could be revisited and used to support some specific statements within the article.
  • Hmm, maybe the last point falls in the "obvious" category that you might prefer not to have stated? Well, whatever is obvious should be fixed before peer review, else you will probably get the obvious comments. It is hard to know what you think is really obvious, vs. what someone else will think.
  • About the lead to the article: it is really up in the air about whose architectural project it is that the Xanadu Houses are part or all of. Is it a disconnected, coincidental set of houses, or is it a conscious project developed by one person or one entity in a coherent way? It comes across, in the intro at least, almost as if the houses just arose by themselves. Probably this is clarified in the rest of the article; this comment is about the lead.
Hope this helps a little bit. doncram (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supergrass discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it can be improved.I think it's a pretty good discography list.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide
  • Some of the references need formatting. Publishers, access dates, and the like.
  • "an English alternative rock band from Oxford" - do you really need to say what city they're from?
  • "The album reached number 1 in the UK where it stayed three weeks.[1] The album lead the band to numerous awards in the following years" - repetition of "the album" is bad for readability, and it'd be good to be more specific on these awards
  • Rest of the lead needs some copyediting

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough F.C. seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have created this list with the intention of a WP:FLC nomination, and was hoping to see what needs to be done before I do so. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

That should help a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks ready for FLC. Decent lead, and a comprehensive list. I started a list of prose issues, but decided it would be easier to fix them myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Selwood

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some outside comments on the progress of this article's editting, in the hope that it eventually becomes a featured article.

Thanks, Boomtish (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Supergrass

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there are ways in which I can improve this article and whether it it meets the good article criteria.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to format the references, remove copyvio links (magazine articles reprinted on that fan-site) and not link to unreliable sources (such as the strange ones FAQ) as I've done here. Try to ref as much as possible to the magazine articles reprinted on the fansite (double-check them if you can with the actual articles), and also search sites like Guardian.co.uk or nme.com. Refer to The Smashing Pumpkins for a model band article on what content to include, writing style, appropriate sections etc. indopug (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it describes an essential album, considered the greatest of all time; the album is one of the first concept albums, and...it's by the Beatles. Can't "beat" that. (LOL, inexcusable pun.) :)


Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ars Conjectandi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd really like to get this through a FAC - I realize it's rather short, but there isn't a whole lot to say on it. I've touched up the prose myself a bit, but I probably missed at least a few things, and other opinions are always welcome. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]

Yeah, hope this helps a little. giggy (:O) 10:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from supposed stalker Kakofonous (talk · contribs)

Only a few comments, but every little bit helps, right? --Kakofonous (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall

[edit]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article was failed on its previous FAC merely because of the poor flow of the prose. I've listed this article for peer review to check everyhing, specially the prose and the comprehensiveness.

Thanks, --Efe (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)/archive2.

List of Final Fantasy compilation albums

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm trying to push List of Final Fantasy compilation albums to FL, and as I've never done that before, I'm looking for some feedback first. I created this article myself, by merging in around 10 stubby articles on individual albums, adding other albums without pages, and cleaning up/expanding/referencing the lot, all by myself. Some outside eyes would be good at this stage. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: After a quick glance, I'd suggest finding some external links to add; like Square Enix's website or maybe Uematsu's since he probably composed most of the music. Maybe add a see also section for List of Final Fantasy media. I'm not sure about this, but you may encounter some problems with the number of images. Other than remove some, I don't know what to do about that. Hope this helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Done and done, I'm hoping no one has a problem with the images since there's one per album, and only in the infobox. --PresN (talk)
I think there will be. There are some guidelines outlined at WP:ALBUM#Discography and mirrored at WP:NFC#Images 2, but good luck with that. An admin removed all the images from a soundtrack list I had been working on just earlier this month.--十八 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it happens, it happens, but I'll try to fight for it. There's not reason why the images aren't fine- if one image is fine in an infobox about one cd, then 3 images should be fine for 3 infoboxes about 3 cds, and 12 should be fine for 12 boxes about 12 cds. If I started doing limited edition covers or other images I could see it, but I'm not for just that reason. Any other concerns? --PresN (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --PresN (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --PresN (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Baker

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is near Featured Article quality and I would like to learn what it still needs in order to be passed.

Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
  • We have a floating picture issue, the panorama is floating over the references on my screen. I changed the size of my browser window, and it stayed stubbornly over the references.

 Done ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH (talk)

  • The first paragraph in the lead consists of three long sentences. It would be preferable if you would split those in half so that the reader gets a break between facts.

 Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are elements in the lead that are not present in the main body. Likewise the article is not consisely summarized by the lead. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section and try to bring it in line.
  • If the Spanish were not the first non-indigenous people to see Baker, who did? The text should also confirm whether the mountain was named after third lieutenant Joseph Baker.
This confuses me. It is already stated that the local Native Americans were the first. Would you like me to find out what nation they were? Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the sentence: "The Spanish were the first to record Mount Baker's existence although they were not the first people other than indigenous natives to see the mountain." As a condition it has excluded indigenous natives and the Spanish. What is left? Did you mean to say, "The Spanish were the first to record Mount Baker's existence, although the indigenous natives were the first to see the mountain"?—RJH (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll fix it. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)  Done ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please replace "--" with an &mdash; character.

That character is not in the article. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could mention how the mountain height ranks among Washington state mountains and among Cascade range mountains.

 Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you give some information on modern climbing activity? Also some information about the environmental status of the surrounding land would be beneficial.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By this you are referring to the Snoqualmie National Forest, and the wilderness area, plus the ski area? ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added further comments to your talk page.—RJH (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
  • The very first sentence seems unwieldy to me. I'd put the volcanic material in a separate sentence and maybe elaborate a little.

This is not up to me. I guess Black Tusk could help.

  • It is also especially visible.. - 'prominent'?

I admit this is awkward, but prominent won't work either. I'll remove the especially. ~Meldshal42 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Joseph Baker made an observation of Mount Baker.. - does this mean he saw it? Or measured it or...what? Is ambiguous to me. If the first can be said more succinctly.
Well, i replaced it, but i don't like how it's coming out. ~Meldshal42 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a quote from the journal from one of the resources we already have. ~Meldshal42 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isaac I. Stevens, the first governor of Washington Territory, wrote about Mount Baker in 1853. - what did he write about it. Sorta left hanging.
Found what he wrote from the same resource as the other quote is from. ~Meldshal42 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Street (Chicago)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC. The main reason for the fail was the use of the new {{multiple image}} template to incorporate about 30 images into the article. The images are arranged so as to take up less than 400px width and since most view at either 1280 or 1024 wide and many view with even wider resolutions when the article is viewed on almost any full screen there will be no squeezing. I used an additional template to box the images to make them seem more organized and less cluttered. I am looking for ways to improve the article other than by removing images because I don't think that would improve the article.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

New York State Route 32

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC and need some listed errors and grammar fixes. I need it majorly reviewed here so I am not bugged with problems at FAC.


Thanks, Mitch32contribs 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references, at least the first time they are used.
You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Sources look fine though. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I've completed a copyedit that concentrated on issues related to WP:NBSP, metric conversions, punctuation, and prose flow, and I left a note on the main contributor's talk page about WP:NOR questions that crossed my mind when I read about nice views from the roadway. Finetooth (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Ealdgyth and Finetooth's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. I note that there are several FAs that are highway articles, including Chickasaw Turnpike and M-35 (Michigan highway).
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - compared to the models mentioned, this seems to be too detailed in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I would also include general information about directions in the lead - identify the northern and southern termini and say it is a north-sout highway.
  • There are numerous short (two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with other paragraphs or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • One or two pictures of signs would be OK, but I really don't see what five of them add to the article.
  • Also make sure image widths are set to thumb per WP:MOS#Images to allow user preferences to set image sizes.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit I've never peer reviewed a road article before, so I feel a bit at sea here. Overall, I felt the article had a lot of detail but that the choice of images could be better.

  • I wasn't sure if the article was missing anything on major improvements to the road or construction projects over the years.
  • The map of the route should identify the road in some way - either with a sign for the road or a caption indicating that the road is the red line.
  • If the route runs by the Catskill Mountains, why not include some beautiful pictures from that area of the road? The current picture is hard to make out.
  • Why not include an image of Schunemunk Mountain or the road going by it since you can say something significant about that image?
  • I'm not sure what the images of the signs add. One, perhaps, but three? What is interesting or exceptional about these signs? One of the first signs might be interesting, for example. What about a picture of Albany or the terminus instead?
  • Could you get some historical images from the nineteenth century for the "Old Roads" section? The New York Historical Society might have some relevant images.
  • I would doublecheck whether all of the redlinks can be made into articles. For example, I have my doubts about the elementary school.
  • Farther north, NY 32 shares a routing with U.S. Route 4 from Waterford (north of Albany) to Stillwater (southeast of Saratoga Springs) - I find the phrase "shares a routing" slightly awkward.
  • This is the commercial strip north of the city, featuring the Mid-Valley Mall and another large shopping plaza built around a supermarket anchor. - Starting a section with "this" is confusing - what is the "this" referring to?
  • At what seems to be a conventional four-way intersection regulated by a traffic light, both highways turn, and it is necessary to turn to the right to stay on NY 32 headed north. - This sentence suggests that such a design is unusual - is this true?
  • From Rosendale, 32 climbs up out of the Rondout valley and veers east into the hidden hamlet of Maple Hill, where it crosses over the Thruway once again. - Why is it "hidden"?
  • It thus has the interchange with NY 199 immediately east of the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, after which it passes Kingston-Ulster Airport. - awkward wording

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APOEL F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how other people feel about the general style of the article. The section that needs the most improvement, in my opinion, is the history section and I would appreciate any guidelines on how to make it more useful and easier to read. Any comments on any possible bias, missing information or references are also greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anarxia (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  1. Introduction does not conform to Wikipedia:Lead section. It should summarise main points of the article
  2. History section looks dreadful, Why do you need a separate subheading for every paragraph, it's like a tabloid newspaper?
  3. If you are aiming for GA, you will need to fully reference the article with in-line citations
  4. aim for at least three sentences per para if possible
  5. stadium image should be on right. i wouldn't specify a thumb size since it overrides user preferences
  6. some headings have incorrect capitalisation
  7. why don't you use <ref name="namehere"> format, so you repeat the reference elsewhere if necessary formattted as <ref name="namehere"/>? Also {{el icon}} (in Greek) is an alternative to language =
  8. I don't like the style for website publishers, for example at ref 1 I'd put the publisher as APOEL FC, and 15-17 I'd just put EUFA
  9. External links, i wouldn't use (in English) on en-wiki

I might come back with more later. jimfbleak (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much for the review and comments.
  1. The introduction should be better now. I think all major points are summarised. I also put more emphasis on the football club rather than the club in general since it matches what the article is about.
  2. The history section still needs a lot of love. I agree with your point about the subheadings. My intent was to avoid people adding content with no respect to the chronological order but in the end it made the section worse for little gain. I will try to reduce the number of subheadings. I tried it without any subheadings but it became very difficult to read.
  3. I added a few more citations, but a lot more work is needed in that area.
  4. Will do, after the history section is reorganised.
  5. Stadium moved to the right and removed thumb size.
  6. Fixed the capitalisation in all sections I could see.
  7. Started using it in a few places. Thank you for the tip! I find el icon easier to type.
  8. Changed for APOEL FC and UEFA. The other sites I left as is because it is easier to identify them.
  9. Removed en for english links and moved language to the end for more consistent visual layout.

Once again thanks for the review. Feel free to point out anything else you might find. Anarxia (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. With the language bits, there is some inconsistency. The Greek alphabet bit is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, the Roman transliteration is plain text, I think should be italicised, and the translation in quotes: e.g. Κύπρος, Kýpros, "Cyprus" I won't swear this is MoS, but I've not had it challenged at FA.
  2. Ref placement - should immediately follow punctuation so it reads as eg Cyprus.[12]
jimfbleak (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thanks. Anarxia (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian, Mississippi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the article is on its way to GA or even FA status. I would like comments on the general layout of the article (aesthetically and informationally) and suggestions on what to do with the Historic Districts in Meridian section. As of now, the section seems lacking to me, but I have no idea what to do with it. Suggestions on other sections of the page are welcome as well. Also, the statement about Hurricane Katrina evacuees is unsourced, and I can't find anywhere to source it to. I've heard city officials and citizens of the city (I live here) talking about how much the population has risen, but I can't find anywhere on the internet. I'd love to find a source haha :)

Thanks, Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Washington Irving

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… we are hoping to get this up to Good Article status. I have been collaborating particularly with User:Federalistpapers, who is sorta new to the Wiki world but deserves all the credit for the improvements to this article in the last several months. Let us know what you think. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have just partially copyedited this (only up to the end of the Early years subsection). I don't have the time to do the rest, so I advise a complete copyedit by someone new to the text. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of copyeditors who can help you.
  • I noticed it is listed at LOCE, but that will take forever - contact individual editors yourselves through their Talk pages by asking nicely, and you'll get plenty of help very quickly.
  • I did come across some sentences which could be expanded. For example, "Prior to its publication, Irving started a hoax akin to today's viral marketing campaigns; he placed a series of missing person adverts in New York newspapers seeking information on Diedrich Knickerbocker, a crusty Dutch historian who had allegedly gone missing from his hotel in New York City."- This doesn't seem to add anything to the article unless you explain why Irving decided to do this, and what resulted from it.
  • "With residents and city officials buzzing in anticipation" - Seems like a generalization, are you completely sure this is an accurate statement to make?
  • Overall, very good job. Submit to WP:FAC after another full copyedit has been completed.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for the feedback! I don't have time right now to take any action but I wanted to acknowledge the time you took to review. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for the helpful feedback! I'll make a start at expanding on that one section that's mentioned -- it is an important part of Irving's story, and shouldn't disappear in the wash, so I'll expand on it. We'll give the article a scrubbing to see if there are other places that need some work.--Federalistpapers (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit - It is always nice to see that people are working on important author biographies! They are hard work! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • I am not a fan of infoboxes in biography articles - they are tricky to present in an objective fashion. If you decide to keep the infobox, I would remove the subjective fields, such as "Occupation", "Literary movement", "Influences", and "Influenced". These fields are not informative and highly debatable.
Agreed, at least on the influences/influenced section. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that some of the biographies used as sources are quite old - were they read with the appropriate skepticism and checked against more rigorous sources?
As User:Federalistpapers would quickly point, all biographies of Irving are old with the exception of two published in the past couple years. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last major biography of Irving was written in 1935. Apart from some literary criticism in the late 1970s, there have been no other biographies until the Burstein/Jones bios of 2007-2008. We're working from a relatively short bench, when it comes to sources, but have actually incorporated citations from most of what resources exist.--Federalistpapers (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is missing a substantial discussion of Irving's works. Much more research needs to be done regarding his writings. The article has the biography sketched out well, but not a description of his writings or his writing style. See Mary Shelley for an example of another author biography. One section of the article deals with the "life" and another with the "works". The "works" section is sourced to literary criticism on Shelley. The same needs to be done for Irving. The most helpful database for literary criticism is the MLA database.
Noted, and we'll begin doing some work on his work as a stand-alone section, I think. Dreary, what do you think?--Federalistpapers (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded to be a true summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Not much is said about his life right now.
  • The president blessed young Irving,[3] an encounter Irving later commemorated in a small watercolor painting, which still hangs in his home today - Is it possible to obtain an image of this painting?
Probably not under a free usage. Historic Hudson Valley owns the original image, and charges for reproduction.--Federalistpapers (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some stubby paragraphs, particularly in the "Bracebridge Hall and Tales of a Traveller" section. These could be fixed by briefly describing the books and the critics' reactions.
Easy enough. I'll get on that.--Federalistpapers (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Return to America" section is a bit choppy - the paragraphs need to flow into each other better.
  • The "Literary reputation" section focuses on the 19th century - a bit more on the twentieth century would be good.
Again, Irving rather "fell off the mantlepiece" in the 20th century. The Burstein book may have some information on this, and I'll review the sources I have on hand as well, to see if we can include some more updated assessments -- but the pickings are relatively slim.--Federalistpapers (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Impact on American culture" section is WP:TRIVIA and should be deleted.
I disagree, particularly because the fact that Irving creating the modern version of Santa Claus and d nickname for New Yorkers which is still used today don't seem that trivial; it seems pretty big to me. Maybe it needs to be incorporated better? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Commemoration" section is approaching the trivial and is definitely a prose list. This should be rewritten to flow better.
I do agree with this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a good copy editor help polish the article would be a good idea at a later stage.
We have a request out there at LOCE. Whatever good that does. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA-class, but I'd like some more feedback first.


Thanks, Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Bill

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… subsnative and important topic, but in desperate need of undivided attention from users --Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is intended for high-quality articles. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... no... it's also intended to help make articles into higher quality articles. I don't think your comment is particularly helpful, the article is not in anymore a bad state than most articles on wikipedia, and if a user doesn't get help in improving an article, then how can it improve? I have to say I find that kind of comment very unhelpful, and almost uncivil. SGGH speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Footnotes need to go after punctuation per WP:MOS
  • Merge some of these 2 line paragraphs together
  • You need to expand the footnotes, rather than [www.google.com] or www.google.com use [www.google.com Google] retrieved June 2 2008
  • Need to increase the number of citations, any statement made in the article needs to be cited ideally.
  • The end order of the sections needs to be (ideally) "notes/references" then "further reading/references" and then "external links"
  • Obviously all the citation needed tags and [citation needed] markers need to be furfilled.
  • Are there any suitable images?
  • you dont need to bold font the prose in the content section
  • "time limit/eligibility" I would suggest finding some alternative to the /

Thats all I can see at the moment, hope it helps. SGGH speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've now included a title of episode titles, per Ruhrfisch's RFC suggestion. Now that the series finale has aired in Germany, I wonder if we're all ready for the triple crown yet?

See also this FLC page to see what went wrong last time, and tell me what still needs to be worked on.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: OK, here we go. I am going to go through each section and make comments.

  • I think a copyedit is the most pressing need. I don't really do copyedits on other's work, but the problem I see here is that some of the phrases are so unclear that it would have to be an interactive process - the copyeditor would ask you what was meant, you would reply, and the copyeditor would make the needed changes. The FLC highlights a number of these unclear places.
  • Copyeditors can be found by asking at WP:PRV or by asking one of the people listed at WP:LOCE directly.
  • A co-production between France and Canada, it is based on the Beechwood Bunny Tales books by Geneviève Huriet, Amélie Sarn and Loïc Jouannigot. Would it be better to identify the television channels, so A co-production between France's TF1 and several Canadian companies, it is based on the Beechwood Bunny Tales books by Geneviève Huriet, Amélie Sarn and Loïc Jouannigot. ?
  • Suggest something like TF1 has been involved in the show's production since its premiere, with Valérie Baranski as the series writer, Patricia Robert as producer, Moran Caouissin as director for the first season, and Eric Berthier for the second and third.
  • The third paragraph of the lead is confusing - perhaps it could be rewritten as something like

The first four episodes of The Bellflower Bunnies premiered on TF1, then ran on its children's channel TFOU TV (formerly TF! Jeunesse), and has since appeared on France's local Playhouse Disney. The series has also been broadcast on CBC Television in Quebec, KI.KA in Germany, Portugal's RTP in the Azores, and in several other countries. As of June 2008, 52 episodes have been produced, with four episodes airing in the first season, 22 in the second, and 26 in the third.[3][4] The complete series has only aired on KI.KA, where the last fourteen episodes appeared in May 2008,[3][6] while the first 38 episodes have aired in France.[5]

  • I would then go on to briefly explain the first list (of titles in French / German / English) in the lead.
  • Another idea would be to give the titles in the list of episodes, always in the same order, so Episode 1 might be something like
Episode # Original title (French / German / English) Air date
1"Le déménagement / Ein neues Zuhause / Room to Move"December 24, 2001[1]
The Bellflowers move to a new home, but Periwinkle has trouble adapting to the change.

and Episodes 27 and might be someting like

Episode # Title (French / German) Air date
Broadcast Official
27027[2]"La fée Pirouette / Quinie, kleine Fee"April 4, 2007[2]
A fairy from Aunt Zinnia's childhood book comes to life and gives her powers to Violette.
  • This would allow you to combine the French and German epsiodes lists from Season Three - just leave an n-dash – for the unknown French title and unknown official number in the "German" episodes.
  • If you choose to do something like this, the first list could be cut back to just a list of the thirteen episodes based on the actual books.
  • If possible, I would list the episode numbers for the DVD releases. For example, the first North American DVD has episodes 1 and 2.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodiles (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added to it and would like to get it to GA.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on structure, style, refs, etc. There are many album FAs at [[4]] that should give some useful ideas.
  • The lead seems a bit sparse, although it does cover pretty much all of the major topics in the article.
  • Article gould use a copyedit, for example I think "by" should be "from" in The album received favourable reviews by the music press, receiving four out of five stars by both Rolling Stone and Blender magazines. and The LP did not include two tracks, "Do It Clean" and "Read It in Books", which were recorded for the album[,] because the managing director of Warner Bros., Rob Dickens, thought that they contained swear words – although they were included on the cassette version of the album.[2] this sentence should probably be broken into two sentences. Without the comma I added [,] in brackets, it reads as if two tracks were recorded because the director thought they contained obscenities (which seems a better word choice than "curse words"). Perhaps it could be something like Two tracks, "Do It Clean" and "Read It in Books", were included on the cassete but initially omitted from the LP version of the album because the managing director of Warner Bros., Rob Dickens, thought that they contained obscenities.
  • Generally has good references but a few places still need them: Dickens realised his error and the tracks were included on the American version of the album, which was released by Sire Records on December 17, 1980. The two tracks were included with the UK release as a limited edition single.

The album was first released on CD in May 1989 by WEA in the UK. It was released on CD in the US by Sire Records the following year, 1990. The track-listings of these versions were the same as the original LP releases for each country.

and Scottish band Idlewild covered the track "Rescue" on their single "These Wooden Ideas" in June 2000.

  • 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 found the Background and recording section difficult to follow. Since this was band's debut album, I think it would be useful to give a few sentences on how they formed and came to their label and to making this album.
  • I like the information on the album cover, but it seems odd that there is more information in that section than in the Background and recording or Music sections - these should be expanded if possible.
  • Background and recording expanded. I've included the limited sources I was able to find for the music section so I've combined it with the Cover section so it doesn't look as odd. --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a free picture of Ian McCulloch performing in concert on Commons, why not include it?
  • Is there any reason the Notes could not be one section instead of two?
  • Watch out for short paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article. I also wonder if the short Covers section could not be combined with another section as it is only two sections.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it certainly did help. Thanks for your thoughts, --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it was helpful - I am not as familiar with music style, so apologies for any incorrect suggestions Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fountain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is well on its way to becoming a FA. I would like some second opinions on this, as well as ANY comments that could help get the article to FA status.

Thanks, Torsodog (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the support. I have nomed this twice at WP:FAC and it has failed. I have tried PR and did not get much feedback to improve the article. When you nom at WP:FAC let me know and I will sign on as co. I am the leading editor by edit count. I think the article may need some technical expertise that I don't have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a well known artwork. Here are some suggestions for improvement, most of which are failry nit-picky, with an eye to potential problems in FAC:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are 68 FAs at Category:FA-Class Architecture articles and some of them may be useful model articles.
  • Since the lead is a summary of the article (or should be), refs are not really needed in it except for direct quotes. See WP:LEAD
  • One of the most difficult FA criteria for many articles to meet is to have prose that is professional and near brilliant. The biggest problem I see is that the article prose needs to be cleaned up some. See WP:WIAFA
  •  Done I have not heard of the Loop being referred to as a "community area" before - is this common? If not, is there a better word that cold be linked to the article? See Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain in Millennium Park, in the Loop community area of Chicago ...
    • All of the community areas except the Loop would be most appropriately referred to in this way. This is how the Library of Congress image collection (Chicago Daily News Collection) describes each photo. The loop is so unique among the community areas that it is known outside of Chicago by its name without the term community area following. It makes the general rule hard to handle. I wold prefer to use the proper term, neighborhood is incorrect and area is imprecise. However, for the Loop it is a tough call.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tone needs to be more encyclopedic in several places - frolicking in ... makes the fountain a place not only to go to see others and to be seen frolicking with friends and family ... or
  • Another problem is general wordiness - FA prose is supposed to avoid redundancy. For example, this sentence from the lead
The fondness of the public for the aesthetics of the fountain caused several elements of Chicago's society to voice a unified public opinion against the controversial use of surveillance cameras, which resulted in the immediate removal of the cameras.[8]

could be modified to something more like

When surveillance cameras were installed on the popular fountain, a public outcry led to their immediate removal.
  • Article needs a copyedit - some examples follow:
    •  Done normal usage seems to be "the Governor of Illinois", not "the Illinois Governor"
    • "reputed" does not seem to the right verb in The fountain and the entire park in general are reputed for their universal design.[9]
    •  Done use photographed or filmed instead of "shot" in Of the original 1,051 subjects shot, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.
  •  Done I like some of the multiple images in one frame, but they seem overused. For example Image:20070616 Crown Fountain.JPG by itself seems fine to me - no need to put a second image beside it. In general articles are only supposed to set single image widths to thumb to allow reader preferences on size to take over - see WP:MOS#Images
  •  Done Have a zero before a decimal "0.25" not ".25"
  •  Done Some things seem illogical - Plensa decided to use four-minute videos for each face and one minute of spouting water.[7] Thus each display is five minutes,[3] makes it sound like there is no face video when the water spouts out, but the photos and other descriptions make it clear this is not the case. Or The water is filtered and pumped from the underground parking garage. - makes is sound like cars are parked in the fountain reservoir.
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themselves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Any negative criticisms of the fountain?
  • Overall this gets most things right - the refs look good (although you might want to check that all meet WP:RS, there is a lot of information and great pictures. It just needs some polishing of the language.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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.) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A second look from Ruhrfisch As requested, here is a second look at the article. I replied in a few places above, here are a few other thoughts:

  • I checked a reference at random, choosing the sentence The fountain has been praised by both city residents and trained architects for its artistic contribution to Millennium Park.[4] in the lead. I looked up the New York Times article and this was all it had to say about the fountain: At the Crown Fountain, kids of all ages screamed and scampered about under jets of water squirting from two tall oblong towers covered in L.E.D. screens that displayed the faces of ordinary Chicagoans. No mention of architects or artisitic contributions. Hopefully this is an isolated case, but refs have to back up what the text says.
  • The article still could use a copyedit to polish the prose
  • I still find some word choices odd - "Loop community area" (see above), calling a drainage slit a "crack" (crack sounds like something accidental / unplanned to me), or including the "®" symbol in "Electronic Theatre Controls (ETC) Emphasis® control system" - Coca Cola is ®, but the article does not use the symbol.
  • I would aks for copyediting help at WP:PRV or from one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE (ask on the editor's talk page, LOCE is very slow / dead?).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, because I would like to know how to impore it towards featured list status.

Thanks, Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list. Here are some suggestions for improvement towards FLC:

Country Nom.
Rank 		Nom.
IMF[3] 		Nom.
Rank 		Nom.
WB[4] 		Nom.
Rank 		Nom.
CIA[5] 		PPP
Rank 		PPP
IMF[6] 		PPP
Rank 		PPP
WB[7] 		PPP
Rank 		PPP
CIA[8] 		PPP
CIA Year
 Afghanistan 168 323 — — 171 311 171 724 — — 172 1,000 2007 est.
  • Lead needs references as lists are different than articles - see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • This is one list with three sorts of data in it, not "three lists"
  • Table does not sort properly as is - for example sorting on rank gets 1, 10, 100, 101-109, 11, 110, 111 - 119, 12, 120, etc. I think you can use {{nts}} to make it sort. See List of Pennsylvania state parks for examples of this in action.
  • The Year column is not clearly explained - I think it is the year of the CIA estimate, but this needs to be made very clear.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, because I would like to know how to impore it towards featured list status.


Thanks, Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Killervogel5

[edit]
  • First thing I can see that needs to be addressed is that there are no inline citations or references for anything in the lead section of the list.
  • Don't have links in the bold section of the lead. Link them at their next occurrence.
  • If you can get updated information (2007) from the World Bank, it would help immensely. Right now, the data can't be considered viable across multiple years in that way, especially considering that in the lead, it says "results can vary greatly from one year to another based on fluctuations in the exchange rates of the country's currency."
  • "The Bahamas" and "The Gambia" should be sorted under B and G, respectively, rather than T.
  • The article does not include three individual lists. It is a single list that is bringing together multiple groups of data. The lead should likely reflect that.
  • There are some commas missing in the lead; i.e., P2 (Therefore, these figures should be used with caution, etc.)

Hopefully that's some stuff to get you started. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Bradman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… after a lot of work by a lot of editors, the article's getting close to readiness for another run at FAC. And just in time for his hundredth birthday.

As I write, I'm aware that there's still 5 outstanding citations needed (flagged). There's been a mammoth amount of citing of late, which means the article has >200 refs.

I'm particularly concerned about hagiography and comprehensiveness. A number of 'daughter articles' have been created to deal with WP:SIZE issues; the article is still over 100Kb long, but I'd argue it needs to be to reflect such a very long and outstanding career.

Thanks, Dweller (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of the Alamo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Battle of the Alamo is a very significant part of Texas history, possibly the reason the state of Texas even exist right now, so I'm looking to get this to FA class Antiarchangel (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've been working on this article for several months now, and I still have a pile of research to add into the article. I've asked Antiarchangel to withdraw this PR; if he chooses not to, I will warn reviewers that only the following sections are "completed" in terms of the research I've found: February 23, February 24, February 25, Final Assault, Aftermath, Legacy. The remaining sections need to be either written or rewritten. Karanacs (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for The Hague

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done a lot of work on it and I want to see what people think of it.

Thanks, Red4tribe (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

[edit]

As I said on the talkpage of the article, a great deal of it seems to be directly copy and pasted from the website used as the primary reference, right down to the bullet-points in the final section. This is a copyright violation and needs to be fixed as the primary concern. Skinny87 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structural engineering

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a huge amount of work on it, and think it is now pretty comprehensive, and it would be good to get the opinion on others on what further work might be needed.

Thanks, Tkn20 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

  • It's a great start. Since it's a technical topic, work to make sure most technical terms can be understood through the context of the sentence. For example in the plastic and elastic sections, what's the difference? 1) The lead section does give a good introduction to the topic, so I hate to say it, but it doesn't really properly summarize the entire article which a good lead section should do. See WP:LEAD. In this case you don't need to describe each of the materials for example in the lead and can stay closer to the type of lead you have, but it does need to summarize the article. 2) The most difficult part will be that the bulleted lists need to be converted to prose. I know it's really hard to think of how to do that once they have been started as bulleted lists, but you'll find once it's done and properly works together as prose, it's a much better encyclopedia article. 3) The picture of the Segovia aqueduct is a great addition but it's blurry. I'd have to image we have clearer pictures of that aqueduct or similar ones on commons somewhere. Also there are too many images in general. While this topic definitely lends itself to a bit more than the usual number, it should still be held down to about one per subsection that best illustrates the idea at hand. 4) The short subsections in 'Structural elements' should probably be just merged into one section. As they are they are stubby sections and if you expanded them the article would be too long. You have to prioritize space in the article based on what's most important to the overall topic. - Taxman Talk 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I read this article is starting to take shape as a really good article. I made a few adjustments however only got up to the history section before I stopped. Hopefully I will have some time to come back and do some more work later. I moved the history section to a sub-article because it was too long but the summary I left behind is probably too short. I also moved the etymology section to an inset so it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article. I hope this helps. I also don't entirely agree with most of Taxman's points (specifically 1, 2 and 4), there is definitely room for improvement in the article and many of Taxman's points could improve the article but simply changing the article to address them specifically could make the article a lot worse. I think the trick is to think creatively about how the underlying issues Taxman raises can be solved. Many of his points are taken directly from Wikipedia's Manual of Style but Wikipedia's policy is to ignore all rules if they don't result in better encyclopaedia articles. Cedars (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be careful when you give reviews. 1,2, and 4 are based on years of experience at WP:FAC and consensus of what makes great articles. Of course if done poorly the article would be worse, but that's true for basically any advice. I give people credit for knowing how to do it well once they know what needs to be done. - Taxman Talk 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may just be different perspectives. I will admit that featured article status is the last thing on my mind when I peer review an article, rather I'm thinking how can I make this article easier to read? I feel a little cheated that you did not seem to consider my experience (around four years' worth) or my previous reviews (there are many) when writing the above comment. Cedars (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appaloosa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine would like to take this article to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how best to do this. Probably needs some checking for jargon also.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nicely illustrated article with a lot of information - here are my suggestions for improvement (mostly polish, a few more serious):

  • Expand the lead to three paragraphs - could probably just split up the current lead and perhaps add a bit. See WP:LEAD
  • Any way to avoid "breed" three times in this sentence: However, a small number of dedicated breeders kept the breed alive for several decades until a breed registry was formed in 1938. ? - Done Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a copyedit - "the the" in the lead, for example
  • Per WP:HEAD do not repeat the title in the headers, and do not use "The" so "The Appaloosa and the Nez Perce people" could just be "Nez Perce people" perhaps - Done Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "in general" in Horses in general had reached the Pacific Northwest by 1700. ? - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images should be all set to thumb width to allow reader width preferences to take over. See WP:MOS#IMages - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:AppyPlate.jpg has a bad license - it is the work of a state government, not the US govt and is almost certainly not free.
  • Also do not sandwich text between images please
  • Avoid Today for stats likely to become outdated, use the year instead - Today, the Appaloosa breed is one of America's most popular breeds and there are over 670,000 Appaloosas registered by the ApHC.[23] - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward - I know what is meant but there has to be a better way to say it: Appaloosas can have brown, blue or hazel eyes, and may have eyes of [two?] different colors.[26] - Done Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon - explain or wikilink if possible The physical conformation - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide other units for furlongs - middle distance horse races up to 8 furlongs.[29] {{convert}} works well here. - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try for concise captions - for example This photograph shows the difference between a Pinto horse and a Leopard Appaloosa. The Pinto is on the left, the Appaloosa on the right. could be A Pinto horse (left) has different markings than a Leopard Appaloosa (right).
  • A few places need refs - the five recognized spotting patterns (assume it is [32] again, but should have a ref at the end of all that, at least. Also Appaloosas are also crossbred with a number of gaited horse breeds in an attempt to create a leopard-spotted ambling horse. Because the ensuing offspring are not eligible for ApHC registration, their owners are forming a number of new breed registries to promote gaited horses with spotted coats. - Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few very brief sections - do Nez Perce horse breeding today and Influence on other breeds really need their own sections or could they be combined with others - better flow of the article.
    • Moved "influence on other breeds" into "uses" section. Not sure what to do with the "Nez Perce horse breeding" one...could it possibly be put into the "influence on other breeds" section, since it's mainly talking about the new breed that they've created using the Appy? Dana boomer (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current Ref 67 needs a source - The PHBA does not allow Lasix within 24 hours of show. Only allows Acetazolamide for HYPP horses and seems incomplete as is. - Done.Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Tutu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working hard on this article I'd like assistance in turning it into a Good Article. Input would be appreciated on sections to enlarge, include or remove.

Thanks, --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Midnightdreary

I think the length of this article is solid (and might lean towards too long rather than no long enough), and there has clearly been plenty of work done. Here are some suggestions, sort of at random:
  • First things first, I think the lead needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD.
  • I'm also confused by the list of references: none of these works seem to be referenced in the footnotes. Should they instead be "Further reading"? My suggestion is to just remove them as the article is already full-cited.
  • I also noticed a minor discrepancy in the infobox - the date style (i.e. October 7, 1931) does not match the style the article introduces in the first line of the lead. Under "Chairman of The Elders", there's another date that doesn't match, and another under "Role in South Africa". I guess it's worth checking through the whole thing for consistency. And remember to wikify full dates (see WP:DATES).
  • There's also at least one spot (footnote 32) where the footnote comes before the punctuation (it should be after).
  • Get sources for all of the information in the "Honours" section. There are other unsourced facts throughout, including his marriage.
  • Consider making brief paragraphs (i.e. those that have only a sentence or two) either longer or incorporated into the preceding or following paragraphs to bulk them up.
  • Under "Church reform" there is a block quote that needs to be introduced.
  • Under "United Nations role", there is a lengthy quote that is unsourced. I wonder if "Political views" should be a section rather than subsection?
That should get you started on further improvements. Best of luck with this one! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Have sorted out some references now and moved some quotes to wikiquote. "Political views" was originally an independent section but became too big so shortened it a lot to put it into proportion as these views date from max 10 years ago, i.e. the rest of his life deserves as much consideration. Thanks again. --Cazo3788 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Mew Mew

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it stands and see if what additional work may be needed before attempting to nominate it for GA or FA class.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - seems like it is already pretty close to GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicky:

  • A model article is useful for ideas to follow.
  • Article needs a copyedit, examples follow:
    • Italicize magazine title in "A two-volume sequel to the manga, Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode, was also serialized in Nakayoshi."?
    • Sentence just ends oddly Heavily edited and dubbed, 23 episo.des of Mew Mew Power aired on the 4Kids TV channel in the United States and on YTV in Canada, with 3 more. 3 more what?
    • Why is Ultramarine Lorikeet capitalized, but the other animal names are not?
    • Why "the" in After saying their goodbyes, the Kish, Pie, and Tart return to their own world.?
    • To be consistent, shouldn't the power / animal of Berry Shirayuki be given in the sequel plot?
    • The first paragraph of Characters seems to repeat much of the material from the Plot on the five girls.
    • Production makes no mention of the sequel (but should)
    • In the Manga section, is the plot of the sequel needed (already given in Plot) - avoid needless repetition
    • Weird parenthesis in however ten of the 4Kids episodes have been released to Region 4 DVD in (Australia and New Zealand) by Magna Pacific
    • In Video Games the first game gets two sentences and the second gets much more coverage. I would try to add more on the first per WP:WEIGHT and introduce the second better (parallel construction suggests "The second. title, was released... "
    • Does this sentence really need FIVE refs? The individual character song discs were released as standalone CDs on September 4, 2002.[32][33][34][35][36]
  • Per WP:QUOTE, to be set off as block quotes, text should be at least four lines long.
  • Some refs need more information - for example ref 59 is missing the publisher. 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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing :) I used the MoS as the model for the article. Will see if someone can copyedit. LoCE seems dead, though, so may take awhile unfortunately :( Items 3-5 fixed. Will work on rewriting the characters. For production, I hadn't included the sequel because she doesn't discussion its production much, but will recheck. Fixed next two items. For the video games, unfortunately, that is all the sourceable information available on the first game. The second has so much information because the manga author discusses it in the author notes, but never mentioned the first one. For the last, yes...one ref for each of the five CDs. Quotes fixed. Ref 59 fixed, can't believe I missed that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are copyeditors listed at WP:PRV and I understand that although LOCE is nonfunctional, asking editors listed there for help on their talk pages often works. I am also fine if you want to strike or respond under my original points (or leave it like this), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Meanwhile, my fellow editor G.A.S. has redone the character section. Do you think that is a better version? (I'll be adding references to it this evening). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes of 2007

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I'm interested in trying at least to get the article as a good article nominee.


Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • A decent article. Needs some work for GA or FA, though.
  • Given the length of the article, I'd realy like to see the article expanded some.
  • Per MoS, remove the link in the bold title in the first sentence of the lead.
  • Make sure there are non-breaking spaces after all numbers.
  • Per MoS (?), remove the Synopsis section and add it to the lead.
  • Sourcing is overall weak. Make sure every single entry has at least one reference.
  • Why are the Fujita ratings in bold?
  • Prose needs a copyedit, especially to remove unencyclopediac writing, redundant words, and such.
  • Make sure all of the references are in {{cite web}}, or a similar format.
  • I havn't done an in-depth analysis of the prose, but that should kep you busy for a while. If you found this review usefull, you might want to review an article at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, which is where I found this article. Cheers! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Shelley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We have listed this article for peer review because we would like to hear the comments and advice of objective reviewers in advance of a submission for FAC. Many thanks to anyone who takes the trouble to review the article: we will attend to reviews promptly. qp10qp (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Walter O'Malley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC mostly for lack of having generated commentary. Thus, feedback is needed. I intend to incorporate information from several books that I have checked out from the Chicago Public Library, but the current article may have some problems that are causing people not to want to take an interest. I think maybe there may be some organizational issues that are keeping readers from getting into the article. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Operation Varsity

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through two previous peer reviews by the Military History project, as well as a GA and A-Class review, but I would like a wider group of editors to look it over before I evetually put it towards an FAC. Any and all comments are welcome, as it all counts towards making Operation Varsity a better article!

Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good. (I fixed one typo in a reference).
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.) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Iloilo International Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just went through a failed FAC. I hope to receive more input on it before sending it out again to another FA nomination. Comments and suggestions are most welcome. Thanks! --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Since the FAC is a very detailed review (I checked), it is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this in its curent state. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically I was able to address all remaining comments from the FA reviewers before it was closed (in fact, before it was closed, the last replies were responses to suggestions for rewrites and corrections). To be honest, I didn't know that guideline exists. But, given the guidelines, I guess this PR can be re-opened after the period designated in the guidelines. However, will I be able to still submit this article for peer review by the Aviation WikiProject? --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial by Jury

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

Trial by Jury is the subject of Wikiproject Gilbert and Sullivan's current FA drive, and we've attempted to use every source at our disposal, including a visit to a major research library.

We would like any and all recommendations to get this to FA.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This peer review discussion has been closed.


Brianboulton comments: This is a well-written and comprehensive article. I have two general issues, and a number of queries/suggestions relating to fairly minor points.

  • Images: some of the images are rather large, and a bit disruptive to the presentation of the text. I wonder if it would be worthwhile reducing these, and relying more on the thumb for enlargement? Again, does the Punch illustration need the full three verses of the related satirical poem? Also, two left-aligned images appear to violate WPMOS#images, appearing directly under subsection titles.
They were adjusted with respect to a high-resolution monitor, so I've gone through and reduced anything that does not have good reason for large size, e.g. to make text readable, or to bring out important detail. Are they still too large? The Bab Ballad version and Sullivan's musical sketch for the opera certainly need to be a decent size if (in the first case) the text is to be made out, and (in the second) if it's to look like anything significant at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance: the article is somewhat unbalanced by the exhaustive performance history detail. To give 13 different cast-lists for repertory performances, and seven cast-lists for gala performances, seems to me excessive. This sort of detail might appeal to a G&S specialist historian rather than to a general reader—the performers’ names may mean a lot to knowledgeable Savoyans, but to most of us they don’t mean much. It might be worth noting in the text that, in gala performances, Gilbert himself often played the role of the Associate.
Gilbert and Sullivan has the odd situation where it was dominated by one company for a long time, and the performers in that company became very well known. If necessary, the lists could always be spun off to a list article, but I'm uncomfortable doing that until there's definite consensus it needs done, since I'm a little loath to remove potentially useful information =). Also, the text does discuss Gilbert playing the assosciate, or did you mean in a previous section to the benefits one? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we do spin one off, I would leave the original cast, maybe one or two other famous ones and I would not spin off the benefits casts, since that was a special situation that only affects Trial. If we do make a spin-off article, we should spin off ALL the shows, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor points
    • Production and aftermath:
      • Suggest mdash in para 2
        • Done.
      • Para 3: nbsp required in "30 minutes"; suggest delete the words "In the end" in last sentence. In the end of what? It’s not needed.
        • I think it's useful - we discussattempts to get them back together again. In the end, these attempts failed, and they went their seperate ways.
    • Synopsis: "Edwin suggests…he is willing to marry both women" – we need reminding about this other woman; suggest "…to marry both Angelina and his current flame" – or something similar.
    • Musical numbers list: Is this necessary, since you have mentioned every number, in sequence, in the above synopsis. You could put the numerals into the synopsis if you wanted (e.g. No.1: "Hark the hour of ten is sounding" etc.) but an extra listing is surely not required.
      • It's not required, but the "Analysis of music and text" section, perhaps unsurprisingly, references the song numbers and such heavily, so it's probably easier for the reader if it's also set out simply and clearly. We could probably cut the mention of the numbers in the synopsis, though, you know.
    • Reception: The "Wagnerian" quote is given verbatim in the lead, and cited. It doesn’t need a full repetition here (with citation). Likewise, the "juxtaposition" quote is previously given, with citation, in the Production section. Also, could you check the spelling of "humor" in the Ainger quote? I raise this because the book appears to be a British publication.
      • I don't have Ainger to hand, but I suspect you're right. I've checked, "humor" is correct. As for the repetition, I think it's probably useful to keep it all together, so I cut the earlier uses instead.
NOTE: For some reason, Ainger uses US spellings. Probably owing to the agency of an ill-natured marketing fairy.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis of music:
      • The statement about G&S tenor arias usually being in 6/8 time – due you have a source for this?
        • It's common knowledge in the field, but I'm surrounded by Gilbert biographies at the moment, and nothing that covers Sullivan in any depth. It's probably in Ainger. It's perhaps over-emphasising Trial in this case, though - 6/8 was, as far as I'm aware, Sullivan's preference for tenor arias long before Trial. I think I'll comment it out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m not especially knowledgeable about G&S, but is "When I, good friends" really a "patter" song? I thought patter songs required the kind of rapid rhythm associated with, say, the Major-general's song, or the Lord Chancellor's nightmare song in Iolanthe? Put me right about this, by all means.
    • Trial intiates…: "…the plot and the action must be discovered through the music". Sounds like a quote, or a part of a quote. Can you cite it?
      • This whole paragraphoh is summarising a lengthy argument on Crowther p. 76-78. The bit you mention is not an actual quote, but summarises part of a lengthy argument on Crowther, p. 77, which is cited a few words later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Production: First sentence of the middle para is an exact repetition from the lead. All the info in this middle para has previously been given.
You cannot include anything in the LEAD that is not explored somewhere in the body of the article. I hope you didn't cut something that is in the LEAD? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably needs a good MOS check. Overall, though, I found this good-quality stuff. I hope my suggestions help. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I see these peer review comments before? Would you please alert me to stuff like this if you see that I am not participating? I totally missed it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • I think so, because it is only being used for the purpose of supporting the assertion that Anna Russell says this in her comedy routine. If you listen to the album, she certainly says this. I suspect that there are other references for the same point, however, and will keep an eye out.
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.) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[This Peer Review discussion has been closed.]

Japanese alias

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

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

I was in the process of severely editing this article, and made that clear on the Discussion page, when someone came in and tossed out a lot of the baby with the bath water. Understandably they may not have seen the Discussion page. In any case, please review this so I know how much, if any, is inappropriate, and I can make the appropriate edits before someone tosses out a lot of the good stuff again.

Thanks, Mak Allen (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: May I first point out that if you think the material that was "tossed out" is valid, and can be verified, you are entitled to restore it, as indeed you can with any removed stuff.

  • My main problem with the article is that I could barely understand a word of it. I was quite unable to follow the Registration method section, and got similarly lost with the In practice section. I couldn't understand, either, why you brought Koreans and Chinese into the discussion, in the Typical Uses section.
  • You only have one in-text citation, and that to a Japanese language source. The vast majority of Eng-lang Wikipedia readers won't understand this source and will have no way of assessing its reliability. Please see WP:Verifiability#non-English sources.

I realise that this review may not help you much, but basically I am saying:(1) if you want to restore useful verifiable material, do so, (2) try to get more clarity into your prose so that it easier to follow, and (3) increase the number of in-text citations, using sources capable of being verified by English language speakers.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Archive: 4X - Spring 2008

Re-listing this article for further review. Article has been re-organized over the past few months, and reached B-quality status. I've taken it upon myself to reference a lot of the information to reliable sources. I'm interested to hear more detailed criticisms and suggestions, perhaps to prepare this article for GA assessment. Let's be ambitious. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Here's my comments and such from reading the article:[reply]

  • Mobygame's 4X definition excludes Starcraft and Age of Empires—but why is their definition of 4X so important?
  • I would remove "Examples of 4X games" entirely, since people will just want to add in their own games. If the games are mentioned in the body, that's fine; I just feel that if they aren't, why does it matter?
  • WP:RS- what makes "Home of the Underdogs" reliable?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's comments raise issues which need further discussion. I expect some of the issues may be fairly common in computer games, and it might eventually be helpful to summarise the conclusions somewhere and link to the summary in e.g. the header block of games' Talk pages.
  • There are difficulties in the definition of "4X", largely because of developments in games since the term was coined in 1993. Moby Games tries to deal with these difficulties - unsuccessfuly, which is itself a good indication of how difficult it is to define "4X" rigorously.
  • Re "Examples of 4X games":
    • What's wrong with people adding in their own games? If you're concerned that Wikipedia may be used as an advertising medium, I suggest you should trust watchful editors. Such additions in any case will alert us to new developments, which will help keep genre articles up-to-date.
    • Because it's so difficult to define "4X" rigorously, definition by examples will probably help readers.
  • There's little point in looking for academic / professional institution sources for game-related articles. Game-related articles often have to rely on less formalised centres of expertise run by gamers who know and care about their subject. I think Home of the Underdogs meets that criterion.
    More generally, we probably need guidelines on the use of "self-published" content in game-related articles - forums, blogs, modders, etc. And that's a tough issue, as many online discussions rapidly degenerate into exchanges of insults (Starcraft vs Total Annihilation discussions are very prone to this) but some are the best centres of expertise about a game (e.g. - Master of Orion II Online).
    It's tempting to say, "Stick to reviews and articles in established gaming mags", but I think that's a dubious policy:
    • I've seen very professional reviews and articles in less well-known sources. For example if Gamespot says one thing about a game and Tea Leaves says another, I'm more likely to believe Tea Leaves. If you look through Tea Leaves you'll see that the authors are experienced computer system designers / developers, know a lot about the theory and practice of UI design (one article cited Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things while commenting on the UI of a game), and know the history of computer games better than most reviewers on big-name mags.
    • There have often been complaints about the quality of reviews in big-name- mags, see for example Why video game reviews suck: part one, Why Videogame Journalism Sucks. Conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for example Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a word of caution, because of the nature of Home of the Underdogs with respect to abandonware, we should only be linking to it in an article about the site itself, or if there is a notable (free/shareware) game there and that is its only known distribution point. Any other use of HotU needs to be avoided to comply with WP's policy on external linking. --MASEM 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL says, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources," and I would interpret that to mean that WP:EL is no bar to my using HotU as a source for the facts that "beer and pretzels" is a common gaming term and that 2 games mentioned in the article are of that type. Or am I missing something? Philcha (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by AO.

Sorry for the late peer review, I've been busy.

  • "One of the best known examples of the 4X genre is Sid Meier's Civilization series, which has sold over 8 million copies." This should probably be at the end of the lead, not in the first paragraph, where the genre in general is being explained.
  • "Many typical features of 4X games had appeared earlier, in board games and in 1970s computer games." Needs a reference. Although, it is preferable if the lead is not referenced at all (provided the information in it is referenced further down).
  • The lead should be longer, and should mention all the important points in the article (see WP:LEAD).
  • The "Definition" section shouldn't have subheaders; the topic is narrow as it is, and the subheaders create choppy paragraphs and sentences.
    • The "Classic definition" subsection should be made into writing, rather than a list.
    • The "Difficulties in definition" subsection rambles too much.
  • "Most games which are widely recognized as being of the 4X genre have most of the features described below" in the "Other typical features of 4X games" section: avoid telling the user to read further down.
    • "However, these features are not regarded as part of the genre's definition, because few 4X games offer them all, and some non-4X games also include some of them. In particular, the " beer and pretzels" sub-genre of 4X often omits or reduces features that are common in the "full-size" instances" in the same section; this is awkwardly stated, I suggest a more direct, less rambling explanation, maybe just one sentence.
    • "Empire setting" is a stub; either expand significantly, or merge.
    • The "Technology tree and research" section contains several short paragraphs; merge where appropriate (they're all on the same subject, anyhow).
    • "4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres, including trade, diplomacy, espionage, and sabotage. The player must pay constant attention to these and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre" in the "Depth of gameplay" section. The first sentence is okay, but needs to be followed by a more detailed explanation. As it is, "the player must pay constant attention to these [what does "these" refer to? A bit vague.] and to research and the economy" and "Long-term planning is vital" are the only specific mentions, but are hardly enough to follow it up with "This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre."
    • "Long playing times" is a stub section; either merge, or delete (giving only a short mention, where appropriate).
    • This quotation in "Micromanagement" should not be given without mentioning who said that (or the website, at least): "A common flaw of 4X games is its ability to quickly become overwhelming from its micromanaging. (Later in the game), expect to spend a lot of time taking care of small details."
    • The "Peaceful victory conditions" should be made into one or two paragraphs, rather than a list. Also, if possible, generalize rather than give so many specific examples (else give fewer examples).
    • "Diplomacy with non-teammates;" expand or merge.
    • "Reduced emphasis on combat;" expand or merge.
    • "Constraints on growth and warfare" should be a paragraph, rather than list.
    • The "Races" section (previously "Racial advantages," I just renamed it) should provide more information; as I understand, this is a very important aspect of the genre.
    • "Less emphasis on graphics" is a short sentence... and not a very important one. Delete or merge.
  • "The fifth X: eXperience": is MOO3 the only example of a 5X game? If so, I suggest deleting the section, and briefly mentioning that a spinoff "5X" genre was created.
  • In "Early years," the list should be a paragraph.
  • In "Golden age," there's too much focus on the RTS genre; the same thing could be said in fewer words. The parts that do refer to 4X (only about half of the section) read like a list.
  • "Examples of 4X games" is not needed; I'd recommend deleting the whole thing (it would take me near-infinite amounts of time to find the MOS page that says such lists are unhelpful in articles, sorry). Maybe merge with List of strategy video games, and then link to that.
  • "See also" sections are discouraged. Most of those articles are already linked to in the main text: add in the rest, then delete the section.

Overall:

  • Years should not be linked, unless they form part of a date (ex: do not link 1996, unless the day and month are given).
  • Grammar can improve throughout.
  • Don't give so many examples of "such and such game has x feature, and y gameplay style;" it's better to be more specific: "Most 4X games have x feature, and some expand on it, by including y gameplay."

Hope that's helpful. · AndonicO Engage. 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance by Jappalang

  • The lead mentions Alan Emrich as the originator of the term. However, Classic Definition fails to mention its conceptor. I would suggest giving a short version of how Emrich coined this term in the Classic Defintion section.
  • I feel the "Victory without extermination" and "Diplomacy" sections come across as original research. It is not the lack of sources but rather... why is the article making MobyGames out to be an authority on classifying video games? I certainly see no reliable sources stating MobyGames as such.
MobyGames is apparently the only site that recognizes the blurring of the original boundaries and tries to deal with it - unsuccessfully when it was written, and even less unsuccessfully now that the conquest-only games Sword of the Stars and ("RT4X") Sins of a Solar Empire are widely described as 4X games. I'd be delighted if someone could provide other sources that recognize and try do resolve the definition problem. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a problem in itself, but you cannot solve it by promoting a site as an authoritive figure when it is not. Jappalang (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nix the "popular" pre-fixes in the examples section and trim them down. We have a category for 4X games and having the "popular" tag is likely to ensure fans to add their favorites in there.
Agreed. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will! Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Archive: 4X - Summer 2007

This article has come under recent scrutiny, with one editor complaining that the topic isn't sufficiently sourced to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. Please see the Talk:4X page for details. --Alan Au 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's several suggestsions for improving it:
  • I think you've got a good listing for sources for the 4X term and thus the necessity of the page. However, when you talk about defining features of the genre and history of selected games, these are aching for sources. I realize this part's a lot harder, but as written, there's good chunks of the main text that lack sourcing and appear as original research.
By "defining features" do you mean "Classic definition", "Difficulties in definition" or "Other common features"? I've added the ref to "Classic definition". Some parts of "Difficulties in definition" are based on forum discussions (often long, rambling and occasionally uncivil), but the Moby Games citation shows that one reputable source acknowledges the problem, although its attempted solution is unsuccessful because of Age of Empires. Re the "History" section, I agree, but someone else may have to do the work - I'm involved in some other big edits at present.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the "Other common features" that I was considering.
  • In the same vein - I would strongly limit how many features you're calling as "common". You almost spell this out at the top: it's what the 4X stands for. I would be very very scrutinizing of any "feature" outside of the 4Xs unless you can state with verifiable sources that this is in all 4X games.
The lead para of "Other common features" says, "Most games which are widely recognized as 4X games have most of the features described below. But they are not included in any definition because: few 4X games offer all of them; some non-4X games also offer some of them," i.e. no single feature described in this section is present in every game which is widely regarded as 4X. There are refs for many of the features, and the games manuals (referenced by the games' names) are the ultimate authority for the rest. And again I've trawled forums and these are the most commonly discussed features.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"4x games have *most* of the features", the word "most" here is where I think the problem is. maybe rewrite "Games recognized as 4X games have a subset of the features listed below".
All the sources I know of apart from game manuals are web pages, and I think using citation templates for web pages is a sledgehammer to crack nuts, especially since correct use of the simpler external link syntax gives the same layout.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how much of a PITA this is. Unfortunately, if you're going to want this to get get GA or FA, it has to be done. I believe AutoWikiBrowser can help convert raw external links in ref tags to the right WP:CITET format, you would have to fill in a few more pieces.
  • I would consider using other genre articles like first-person shooter as a template for some of the latter parts of the article - you want to have selected notable examples (with citations) to describe the history of the genre. The fewer, the better.
I've just looked at first-person shooter and its history section has far more examples; so I'm not sure what you mean.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the FPS article has far more descriptive lists and also narrows it down to those games that really have made an impact. Now, my best guess is the # of FPS games out there is much larger than the number of 4X games, so obviously it won't be as long. However, if you can figure out a logical grouping (by history, by genre, or something like that), and move most of what you have as your list into those sections, or if this is not possible, stepping through your raw list there to explain why each one is a notable 4X game, would help to make this section look like its more that just listing things and instead that consideration has gone into it.
  • Along the same lines, I would create a category for 4X games, and use that to create the list rather than to maintain a complete list in the article (as anonIP will continue to add examples you probably not want to it).
I see your point about anonIP, but don't know how to create a category for 4X games and suspect that would then entail either looking for articles to add to the category or waiting for enthusiasts of game X to add it to the 4X category. It also creates the risk that someone might incorrectly or dubiously add a game to the category, e.g. Heroes of Might and Magic or Age of Empires. And anonIP can do much worse things that adding inappropriate entries to a list.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are easy to create and is appropriate for the game types. You can also monitor categories and purge games that don't below easily (again, AutoWikiBrowser helps with this.)
Hope that helps --Masem 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - please don't take my responses above as ingratitude. I suspect that the difficulties in definition will make it extremely difficult to get this article to formal GA status, and I'm happy if it simply helps readers.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be the hardest part is the non-original research side. Most of what you have is technically fine, but its needs the outside help. --Masem 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to FA status. Any information that should be included for this article, and any areas that need improvement?

Thanks, Monobi (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I did notice something looking at the sources of this article, that every single one was available online. It is perfectly acceptable to use printed sources, and often times it's better to use them, as they will be more reliable than online sources.
Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Doncram (talk · contribs)

  • I notice that the previous peer review complained about there not being more history coverage after 1870, which seemed partly unfair, as Chambersburg's involvement in Indian wars was interesting and its direct involvement in the American Civil War was quite dramatic. It would be hard to top that and come up with anything comparable for involvement in World War I, World War II, etc., as a peer reviewer wished for. Certainly no invention or overstatement of significant post-Civil War history should be attempted, if nothing really happened since then.
  • However, I do also note with interest the included list of 10 or so sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the borough (drawn from NRHP.COM, a private source serving up copies of public domain information on National Register sites). These sites are also listed at List of registered historic places in Pennsylvania#Franklin County, for now all as red-links except for the college (but whose article does not explain its listing on the National Register). Each one of these sites meets wikipedia notability standards and deserves an article that describes the site's historical significance. It would advance your knowledge of Chambersburg in general to work to develop articles for each one of these, and then this article on Chambersburg could refer to them. WP:NRHP is an active wikiproject; you could start by beginning to develop stubs for each of those red-links and ask for assistance on sources and on inclusion of infoboxes at the WP:NRHP talk page.
  • It is especially important to develop the Chambersburg Historic District article, and to use information from it and its sources in this article on the wider town. Search the state of Pennsylvania's ARCH system for photos and documents about each of these using the ARCH search here; you can search on all sites in Franklin County or in Chambersburg. Specifically, a 24 page PDF file of the National Register nomination form for the Chambersburg Historic District, which includes a map of the district marked on a larger map of the town, is available here. By the way, that source states that Chambersburg is the only major Northern city that was burned in the American Civil War, which should be mentioned in this article if it is not already. Certainly you should browse the materials available on all of these historic sites.
  • Models can be very helpful. An article on Meridian, Mississippi that is currently undergoing peer review may provide a good example. Its history section is greatly advanced by discussion of each of that city's NRHP historic districts. The peer review (still open) discusses options for creating maps to show the historic district boundaries which would be relevant here too. In general, a way to describe the history of a town is to describe the history of its components. For the components that are NRHPs, there are good sources available to enable those stories to be told.
  • Hope these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WVhybrid (talk · contribs)

  • I think this article is in pretty good shape, but I’ve added a few notes for consideration.
  • Almost no mention of transportation is made in the article. Chambersburg is located along I-81, a major transportation corridor. Only one sentence mentions the highway. The completion of that road (probably in the 1960s) no doubt had an effect on the economy, the population, and the history of the town that could be described.
  • Why is old US 11 mentioned in the lead, but the more modern I-81 not mentioned?
  • The demographics section seems to be a dry recitation of facts. Can the writing in that section be improved with a rewrite, a table, or an infobox?
  • I hope you find these comments useful. WVhybrid (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Polynesian Resort

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've completed a major overhaul on this article, and am trying to figure out how else I could improve it. I am working on developing a potential historical section (prose, not list), but that aside, what else can be done?

Thanks, csaribay (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments My primary observation is that the article is written mainly in passive voice, rather than active voice. You can resolve this in part by putting the "action" words at the beginning of sentences. Some examples are noted below, along with some suggestions for tightening the prose:

  • "...and originally opened with 492 rooms"
Did it close during the renovations, or did it stay open? If it stayed open, then "originally" is not needed.
  • "...has seen two major expansions; the first in 1978..."
Start a new sentence here, because the second expansion is dealt with in its own sentence.
  • "...has a collective 847 rooms and suites..."
Simplify to "has 847 rooms and suites..." You might want to add the number of buildings in the complex to the end of that statement (as in, "...847[guest] rooms and suites within XX lodges...").
  • Spellcheck note:
busses - sloppy kisses on the cheek from boisterous great-aunts who know Jim Beam personally
buses - mass transit vehicles whose wheels go round and round
  • "The resort is on the Magic Kingdom monorail loop, providing transportation..."
Try "The Magic Kingdom monorail loop stops at the resort and provides transportation...." (passive to active voice)
  • "No rooms are contained in this building, instead several lodges, longhouses, house all guest rooms..."
try "This building contains no guest rooms; instead, guests stay in several lodges called longhouses..."
  • "As of 2008, Disney's Polynesian Resort is certified green lodging property with the state of Florida."
"The State of Florida has certified...."
  • I don't think that "irremovable" is a word. Simply say the modular rooms could not be moved once the building settled.
  • The first sentence of the "Longhouses" section reads awkwardly.
  • "10 of the 11 longhouses..."
If the sentence starts with a number, spell it out, per WP:MOSNUM
  • Include metric conversions for the size of the rooms. Since the building is in the United States, the square footage comes first, with meters squared afterward in brackets.
  • I'm not quite sure if there may be a copyright issue with the photo that includes the bedspreads; they are specially designed for Disney, according to the reference sources. Perhaps speak with someone who has extensive copyright experience, for example someone who is an admin or bureaucrat at Commons. Users Lar, Giggy and Durova all have expertise in image copyright, and there are several others here as well.
  • If you are planning to move this article to FAC, you will have to rewrite the sections on dining, shopping, and recreation into straight prose; bulleted lists are not generally acceptable.
  • "...varieties of grilled skewered meats cooked on an oak-burning fire pit along with family-friendly live entertainment."
Please tell me they are not cooking the entertainment in the pit too ;-) Try something to the effect of "Family-friendly entertainers perform while..."
  • Spelling note II:
à la carte (three words) not ala carte. It's quite possible it was misspelled in your reference source as well.

I think the article is very comprehensive, and that the area with greatest opportunity for improvement is the use of the active voice. I often recommend Tony1's guide to writing brilliant prose, as I've found it very helpful to me in improving my writing style; it even includes some practice exercises. I'd also suggest you try to pair up with someone else who has an article here on peer review, or who has written an article you really like, and offer to swap and provide each other with feedback. After a certain point, all of us lose the ability to "see" where an article can be improved. Your work is definitely heading in the right direction. Risker (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Yip

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one that I started and worked with terrible Babelfish translations from Chinese Wikipedia's sources in order to write. I am still looking for ways to further improve the article, though I have no idea where I would find a free picture, after the fair use one I submitted was deleted.

Thanks, Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done everything mentioned in the automated peer review but find a free-use image. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be an interesting article. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are 28 model FAs at Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles that may be useful.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. First off, 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 (so the fact she is te eldest of two sisters should be in the article, for example).
  • Since the lead is a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - currently the talent scout is not in the lead, nor are her CDs. Lead should probably also be at least two paragraphs - please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example last two paragraphs of Film career: first phase (and most of the first paragraph there) or all of the Discography section are without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Also make sure that references are reliable, see WP:RS and if a source is in a language other than English that should be mentioned too.
  • Article needs a copyedit - there are many very rough spots with poor grammar and odd word choices. For example - returned to the screen in 2001 with a cameo role in Heroes in Love after Chen failed to pay her allowances.[9][10] I believe "alimony" is meant instead of "allowances". Or the lead at Discography is not even a complete sentence.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the challenges when you are using an automated translator is that when words like "allowances" come up it's difficult to know if such terminology is the culturally-appropriate word or something that you need to change. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

London Borough of Croydon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has improved dramatically since the last Peer and GA review. I have listened to what the editors have said and believe that it is in line with other pages which have been granted good article status.

Thanks, Pafcool2 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, the article looks very good. Without knowing much about London, I can't say anything about comprehensiveness and such. Right now I have just two issues:
  1. Every single table in the article is differently styled - maybe this is the standard for tables of each type, but it doesn't look very good in the same article.
  2. One image on the left, one on right - maybe it looks better on widescreen monitors, but certainly not on 1024x768, the most common resolution.
That's it, keep up the good work :)
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article, with 9,500 words of text (excluding tables and images) is way, way too long. There's simply far too much detail - it numbs the brain! I'll limit my comments to a few random observations, but I think the main task is to cut the article down to a reasonable size.

  • The first sentence begins: "The London Borough of Croydon is a London borough in South London..." This is clumsy and repetitive; something like "The London Borough of Croydon is a district of South London" would give a smoother entry to the article.
  • "regenerate" does not have a hyphen. Nor does "prehistoric" later on
  • "which is hoped to attract..." is ungrammatical
  • Phrases like "carried on through the ages", and particularly "got into brewing" sound too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • There are typos, missing commas, stray commas. "In the 1900..." is one typo
  • This sentence is unclear, poorly punctuated, and awkwardly phrased: "The current Assembly member is Steve O'Connell a local councillor who was elected with an increased majority of 43% from Andrew Pelling's time in the seat". This is a sample from many sentences that need surgery.
  • Re European parliament, Croydon cannot be "represented by" the London constituency - I assume you mean it is "part of...."
  • Later on in the article I saw that "Purley Way is a major employer of people". Following the link I found that Purley Way is a road. So I think that statement needs rewording.

As I say, these are random remarks, not a full list. I'm sure there is much good in the article, too, but rather deeply buried at present. Please give careful consideration to how you can slim the article down. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Constanţa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, Mario1987 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think it will take a little bit of work to get it up to GA status. Here are some suggestions of things that might help.

  • You need to indicate where all the material in the article comes from, ideally by providing inline citations to reliable sources.
  • The title of the article (and of any redirect to the article) only needs to be bolded the first time it occurs.
  • I think the first sentence should clearly state where the port is. As the article stands, all I find out is that it is the main Romanian port, until I get down to "General info". A map along the lines of [5] (a free version of course) would be good.
  • General info is a bit too informal for a section heading, however there is a more serious problem with this section, namely that it seems to be taken directly from [6] and [7]. This section needs to be rewritten to avoid violating copyright.
  • The satellite picture is nice, but a diagram showing the extent of the port, and perhaps its different components would be useful.
  • Regarding the satellite ports, is there any reason not to call the first section "Port of Midia", for consistency with its first sentence, and also with "Port of Mangalia"?
  • Is there enough content to warrant separate articles on these satellite ports? If not, remove the {{Main}} templates. Maybe these should be removed anyway since the articles don't exist.
  • "Other links" should be called "See also", per the layout guidelines. However it is not immediately clear why these articles are related, unless one has done some reading to find out that Tomis was the ancient name of Constantza, and that Dubai Ports is the sole owner of one of the container terminals. I would either incorporate these into the text, or just remove the section.
  • It might be worth providing alternative transliterations of Constanţa; Google searches give results for Constanta and Constantza.
  • In the History section the bulleted list should just be a sentence. Corn drier should be explained, or wikilinked if there is an appropriate article. Why was it the "official" beginning of construction? "Surface area" sounds a bit strange in this context. Why did the port decline after 1988? A quick google search reveals a 16 million Euro loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to build a new barge terminal. Is this worth including in the article. There were also a couple of explosions on ships in the port in 2001 according to some old BBC stories; are these also worth including?
  • Single years, eg 2007, should not be linked.
  • The first two paragraphs focus on the favourable geographical position of Constantza, however the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, so maybe this could be moved into its own section.

Hope this is useful. Dr pda (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I didn not get any helpful response when my first peer review was written for this aritcle. I wish to know how close the article is to being a good article candidate or if it can be a good article candidate. Magiciandude (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last paragraph of the lead is rather short and could be grouped with one of the other paragraphs. This goes for some of the paragraphs in the Nintendo section.
  • For the Competition with Sony and Microsoft section, past tense should be used. "6 months" should be "six months".
  • The Awards and recognition section has the structure of a list and should either be presented as a list or combined into larger paragraphs.
  • Current activities section: do not use contractions, references after punctuation. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Review from Jappalang (talk · contribs)
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the main article's content. Content mentioned in the lead should be verifiable through the references supplied in the main text. Therefore, why are the following mentioned in the lead but not in the main article?
    • his mention as the "father of modern video gaming"
    • the concept of the games he designed
  • Please condense all one, two sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs with ideas that smoothly flow into one another. This is a piece of good advice to be taken from WP:PROSELINE. The chief culprit is the Awards and recognition subsection, but such issues are also in other (sub-)sections.
  • Per WP:MOS,
    • References should be after punctuations, and there should not be spaces in-between.
    • Do not use contractions such as "doesn't".
    • Use en- or em-dashes, not hyphens.
    • Abbreviations (NoA, U.S.) should be noted besides the full name on its first usage. Abbreviations should only be used if it is used several times in the article.
    • No periods are to be used for sentence fragments in captions (including in the infobox).
    • "most of which are still active." Use precise language and avoid stating information as current events; what might be active now may not be active a few years later.
  • I doubt the entire Nintendo sub-section is sourced from a two page E3 report. Several points in Awards and recognition are also unsourced.
  • I think "Delays" is a bad section title for the content concerned. "Miyamoto Test" would prove more interesting and specific to the content.
  • Ensure your references are consistent in formatting. #5, #12, and #19 are references that need work.
  • Consider dropping the MobyGames and N-sider external links if most of their contents are already in the Wikipedia article.

Following these, a good copyedit should boost the quality of the article greatly. Jappalang (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U2 3D

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article from scratch and would like to know how to improve it from its current condition to reach GA-status. Thank you for you help. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide comments

  • This isn't really too far off GA class. Some minor work and you should be able to get there.
  • The setlist ("Track listing") generally goes at the end, just before the references section.
  • Something about the first sentence doesn't really click... it's kinda awkward... I dunno, try reformatting the lead somewhat...
  • I don't think the ratings table belongs in the production section...
  • Considering the amount of information you have on development on stuff, it's surprising there's that little on reception...
  • Some of the external links would work better as inline references.
  • I'd be happy to do a prose review (ie. a GA review) when you nominate this for GA - just ask!
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dihydrogen, this is great feedback. Others, please provide more! Dream out loud, since you're the one driving this (and deservedly), my recommendation to you is to make sure you follow up on Dihydrogen's offer to copy edit prose - this is possibly the hardest thing to get assistance on. The offer is thus gold. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain how useful this might be, but here's another source from one of the camera operators. Let me know if you need any technical jargon "translated". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video game

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Yeah, why the choice of image?
  • Image captions, if fragments, do not have periods.
  • Split ref section into Specific and General sections.
  • In general, the article suffers from lack of reference.
  • "The term "system" is also commonly used." - prove it.
  • Second para of Platforms is citation-less.
  • As is Genres and Types.
  • Development also. Plus resolve the [citation needed] tags.
  • "Duke Nukem Forever is the quintessential example of these problems." quite possibly the most original piece of research I've read lately.
  • Cheats and Glitches sections need citation.
  • "Simply put, ludologists reject traditional theories of art because they claim that the artistic and socially relevant qualities of a video game are primarily determined by the underlying set of rules, demands, and expectations imposed on the player." - original research alarm bells ringing!
  • In-line citations in the Demographics section need to go.
  • Benefits section needs to be reworked - prose is bad, it reads like a list.
  • 12 "See also"s? Really?

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway review from Jappalang (talk · contribs)
  • Would it not serve the article better if the representative image shows someone playing a video game with the input and output devices clearly visible (including what is on screen)?
  • Disregarding that, the current image caption under SMB image would need a {{As of}} since SMB could be displaced as the world's best selling game at a certain point in time.
  • The opening sentence "A video game is a game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." might contain terms too technical (user interface, visual feedback) for the general reader and scare them off. I suggest "A video game is a game in which players play by interacting with input devices and video displays."
  • Why is Overview after History?
  • There are various redundant sentences or words.
    • "The electronic systems used to play video games are known as platforms; examples of these are personal computers and video game consoles. These platforms are broad in range, from large computers to small handheld devices.": The phrase "examples of these are personal computers and video game consoles." is redundant with the second sentence. The second sentence could incorporate the examples instead.
    • "William Higinbotham's interactive game called Tennis for Two in 1958" -> "William Higinbotham's Tennis for Two in 1958"
    • "(the game was featured in the 1973 science fiction film Soylent Green)": This is pretty non-notable unless it was an important part of the film's plot.
    • "while publishers are constantly on the look to" -> "while publishers aim to"
    • "an unlimited amount of some resource" -> "an unlimited amount of resource"
  • Certain copyedit suggestions:
    • "which varies across platforms" -> "which varies in design across platforms"
    • "The formulative years of video games consist of basic games that made use of interactive electronic devices with various display formats." -> "The early years of video games saw the creation of basic games on various electronic instruments with visual displays."
    • "The two ??? filed" -> Researchers? Scientists? Engineers? Stating their profession here can help the reading experience.
    • "that allowed a user to control a vector drawn dot on the screen to simulate a missile being fired" -> "that allowed a user to control a vector drawn dot on the screen and simulate a missile being fired"
    • "Each game used different means of display" -> "Each game used different methods to display its content"
    • "In 1971, Computer Space was released and was the first commercially sold, coin-operated video game." -> "The first commercial coin-operated video game was Computer Space, which was sold in 1971."
    • "it also used a standard television and game generated video signal": What does this mean? From what I read on the Odyssey's article, "it could work with any standard television set" would do.
    • "These include advergames, educational games, propaganda games (e.g. militainment), and others. Many of these fall under the category of serious games." A bit of elaboration on their purposes would be fine.
    • "like altered game colors or graphical appearances." -> "like changing the appearances of the game's contents."
    • "For example, Aarseth" -> "He"
  • Per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, the following can be done:
    • "utilized" -> "used"
    • "need to be able to" -> "need to"
    • "in order to" -> "to"
    • Do not use "and/or".
  • "Typically, a video game console development team can range in sizes of anywhere from 5 to 50 people, with some teams exceeding 100.[citation needed] The growth of team size combined with greater pressures to get completed projects into the market to begin recouping production costs has led to a greater occurrence of missed deadlines and unfinished products; Duke Nukem Forever is the quintessential example of these problems." Disregarding the Duke Nukem OR, this sentence needs a copyedit and a rethink in its logic. I fail to see how a growing team and pressure to push a game out early can lead to missed deadlines and vaporware. A growing team (new members) can lead to delays per Brooks's law but the pressure? Pressure would likely result in unpolished releases rather than vaporware since they would ignore resulting delays and simply push out a product. Sources should be given for this viewpoint at the least.
  • "such as the (previously) Half-Life mod Counter-Strike": What is this "previously" about?
  • "may be later corrected if the developers release a patch." Explain what a patch does.
  • "Murray puts video games in the context of the Holodeck, a fictional piece of technology from Star Trek, arguing for the video game as a medium in which we get to become another person, and to act out in another world. This image of video games received early widespread popular support, and forms the basis of films such as Tron, eXistenZ, and The Last Starfighter." How does the Holodeck, a device mainly imagined for ST:TNG starting 1987 get used as a basis for 1982 Tron and 1984 The Last Starfighter? Please re-examine the paragraph as it seems to be implying something for which is not true.

I have reviewed up to Theory, but would like to see the above rectified before proceeding to the rest. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher in the Water

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

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

The article cannot expand any further, I have exhausted all sources. I need more sources or rather someone to point me in the right direction. The article is short but that is about the most information I have come across. The article has failed pass GA three times and I am desperate for someone to tell me what to do about the article. Since Spoo has made it why doesn't this article, it's more factually based. I need a guide.

Please do not tell me get more sources I need somepone to point to some sources that have merit. If not then I am open to any suggesstions and general feedback on how to improve.

Thanks, LOTRrules (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Hmmm. I read the article, read the talk page, and three failed GA reviews. I think the article can be improved and that perhaps it may be able to get it up to GA status. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • Spoo was made FA in a different era (August 2005) and has twice been through WP:FAR and has been up for deletion too. I strongly doubt it would make it through WP:FAC today. The bottom line, though, is that Spoo has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Whether or not it is FA or deleted, Spoo does not matter here. This article has to make GA on its own merits and nothing else. Complaining about Spoo just detracts from your work here and does no good. Let it go. See WP:Other stuff exists
  • I agree this article needs more sources. I do not agree that you have exhausted all sources. I did a very simple search on Google books and found a large number of potential sources here. Here are just two that look good (there are a lot more there):
    • J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator by Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull - Tolkien drew the Watcher and they talk about it.
    • Postmodern Medievalisms - Page 73 by Richard Utz, Jesse G. Swan, Paul Plisiewicz - this compares Tolkien's book, Jackson's film, and George Lucas scene with a water monster in Star Wars
  • Google scholar also has some things about this, although it might be harder to get some of those sources.
  • There are a fair number of books on Tolkien and his works, which I would think probably at least mention the Watcher. FOr example if you search for books on "Tolkien analysis" at Amazon there are many books that have the search inside feature - could look for Watcher and see what to try and find in a library and/or get through interlibrary loan.
    • I found this at Amazon - The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull that way - it mentions the Watcher.
  • In short, get thee to a library! ;-)
  • I also agree with the comments at the three GA reviews - once you find more sources, get a copyedit from someone at WP:PRV or by asking one of the reviewers at WP:LOCE
  • As I noted at my review of Dol Goldur, Howe's illustration is used in the infobox, but is not otherwise discussed in the article. If Howe and Lee are good enough for See also, why not put them in the article?
  • Ref 1 appears to be to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. See WP:RS
  • While a lot of work has been put into the article so far, much much more needs to be done. Please remember that the GA criteria focus on what is in the article itself. I do not know if it can get to GA< my guess is that it can, but you may need a lot of work and assistance with copyedits.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Baseball League

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I will take this article under my wing and try to get it to GA. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I will be working on adding refs and wikifying it.

Thanks,  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize my review has taken so long - I had some internet access issues. I thought this was an interesting article on a league I never heard of before. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is always useful for ideas - I note that Kinston Indians is a Good Article and may be useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The lead should be at least 2 paragraphs and could be 3 I think. Please see WP:LEAD
  • It is always helpful to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. I think it would help to start with the history from the "Baseball in Israel" section and then go to the history of the League itself (from the first three paragraphs of the "Management" section perhaps.
  • Also provide context about details, for example in August 19 in Petach Tikva, Ron Blomberg’s Bet Shemesh Blue Sox shut out Art Shamsky’s Modi’in Miracle 3–0 in the IBL’s inaugural championship game. who are Ron Blomberg and Art Shamsky? The managers I assume? Then say so.
  • Per WP:CITE the article needs more references, for example none of the eight players who moved to the US major leagues is cited.
  • Do not have external links in the article - convert these to incline refs like the others. For example Leon Feingold of the Netanya Tigers was named Player Of The Year in a league-wide vote of the players.[14][2] where 14 is an inline cite, and 2 is just an external link.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs that are there need more info in many cases. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Miscellaneous section reads like a trivia section and needs to be removed - the information is interesting and should be incorporated into the article as regular text.
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article - expand them or combine them with others
  • Article needs a copyedit
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asset-based egalitarianism

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded the page and need some direction on house style and where to go next. Hopefully the article will be expanded a lot further subsequent to review.

Many Thanks, Markz17 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: The aritcle is quite short, so some more contenct and work is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I removed the Philosopher infobox and left the picture of Thomas Paine in the article. For help on adding images to articles see WP:Images
  • 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.
  • As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs more references - Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Article needs more references, for example the last two sentences of Historical development are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Give ISBN for books in the reference, not in the text.
  • Internet refs should be refs and not bare external links. These internet refs would need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:MOS#Quotes, block quotations should be at least four lines.
  • Per WP:HEAD, the section headers should not repeat the title of the article. So Criticism of asset-based egalitarianism should just be Criticism
  • The WP:MOS also says that the "See also" section if for links to articles that were not linked in the article itself. Several of these should then be removed
  • Article needs a copyedit. Be sure to avoid jargon - see WP:JARGON
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner (video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have changed the article around a bit in the past month - re-organised the sections, added a Reception section, references and images. I am now looking for outside opinion (from gamers and non-gamers) on the article and for ways to improve it further. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not played the game although I have seen the movie. I found this to be an interesting article While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas - I note that there are 89 FAs at Category:FA-Class video game articles
  • Make sure that the lead is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. For example Minor charaters and Film references seem to be under-representred in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Provide context for the reader who has not seen the film or played the game. Although some terms are linked, a breif explanation (even a word or pharase) is helpful. For example, McCoy is given the task of tracking down a group of replicants who have killed real-live animals ... - explain what replicants are, or skimmers elesewhere, or even adding two words here: It is during this face-off that Guzza is wounded by [the replicant] Sadik's pulse rifle, and the decision as to what to do with him (the player can either run off from the scene or perform a coup de grace on the lieutenant).
  • Article could use a copyedit - the previous sentence could be rewritten to something like Guzza is wounded during this face-off by the replicant Sadik's pulse rifle, and the the player must decide to either run away or perform a coup de grace on the lieutenant.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the Minor characters makes many references to the film, Development mentions actors returning to reprise their film roles, and then there is a whole Film references section later which repeats some of this yet again. Could these be combined somehow?
  • The Game play section reads too much like a how to manual in places - this is an article about the game, not how to play it. Is the level of detail in To travel to and from crime scenes, the player has to use McCoy's Spinner, which can be accessed by walking up to it, placing the mouse pointer over the door and, when the pointer changes shape, clicking the left mouse button to enter the vehicle. really needed? Look at model articles for ideas.
  • Make sure refs are to reliable sources - imdb is often not seen as reliable. Also about half of the refs are to the game's manual - where possible, could these be replaced with thrid party refs? See WP:RS
  • Make sure the plot is told from an out of universe perspective - also do not assume everyone will have seen the film (as great as it is). See WP:IN-U
  • In recption would it be possible to include information on sales?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have made some adjustments to the article. I agree that it will need a copyedit and I will place a copyedit request, if I can't manage it myself. As for the sales of the game, I believe that it didn't do too well, but without a source I can't say. None of the sources that are available mention the sales. I might have to scour some old magazine sources for this. Nreive (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British ice hockey league champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been working on this article for a few weeks in my sandbox and have just loaded the rewritten version onto the article. I'd like to get it to featured list eventually. I appreciate that more references may be needed, but I'm not entirely sure where. The bulk of this article has been done with the two books listed as the primary sources so I have just placed inline references where I think it's most neccessary. If there's anywhere else that needs a citation then please point it out. The top points scorer between 1956 and 1960 has also proved tricky. I've spoken to the author of the books I use as sources and he tells me that the Ice Hockey World Annual, which is the primary source of information for the first professional era of hockey in the UK, did not publish after it's 1956 edition and that statistics for that period aren't presently known.

Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions. KimThePanther (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JD554 comments: Hi Kim, this is looking good. But I do have a few suggestions:

  • Is there a free image that can be used at the beginning of the article? Something like the current league trophy would be good.
  • "Prior to the formation of the British National League, England and Scotland each had their own competitions".
  • I'd turn the next sentence around so the earliest formed league came first.
  • "The English National League was founded in 1935 and became the sole English league the following year." Also why did it become the sole English league? Was it because the English League had disbanded, and if so why did they disband or cease operating?
  • "In 1954 the decision was taken to amalgamate the two leagues into one." Presumably this is referring to the Scottish National League and the English National League now?
  • "The league was closed down following the 1959–60 season." Was it closed down (if so, by who - creditors, the courts?) or did it disband?
  • "No organized ice hockey took place in the United Kingdom between the British National League's closure in 1960 and the formation of the Northern League in 1966." Were there no organized amateur competitions? I think Brighton Tigers did this until their rink was demolished.
  • "This league, made up of teams from Scotland and North East England, was joined by the Southern League in 1970." This sounds like the Southern League already existed and joined the other leagues in the Northern League.
  • "The British Hockey League was formed in 1982 with the Premier League being launched a season later." Wasn't it the Premier Division?
  • Use the full name for "Superleague" and "Elite League".
  • Sheffield Steelers aren't defunct!
  • "Season" would be better in the first columns.
  • Presumably the number in brackets after the winner is how many times they've won the title up to that point? Should say in the column header eg, "(number of titles)"
  • The Player column needs centring in the top table.
  • "their parts of the United Kingdom"
  • I know the Ulster Banner can be contentious. Northern Ireland#Symbols states "It remains, however used uniquely to represent Northern Ireland in certain sporting events." Is ice hockey one of those sporting events?

I hope this is of some help to you, --JD554 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions JD554. I've rewritten the history to try and make it more in line with what you've said and I'm no longer trying to persuade people that the Steelers no longer exist. ;-) The Northern Ireland banner is quite a tricky one due to Belfast's policy of trying not to associate with either community and represent Belfast as a whole and because British ice hockey is organised at a British level. I'll see about finding a picture that could be fit in. Sadly being a Panthers fan a picture of the league trophy isn't something I currently have in my collection! KimThePanther (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histon F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there have been numerous issues where I and another editor have been going backwards and forwards trying to achieve some kind of compromise and I would appreciate the input of third parties in order to settle our various disagreements over often fairly minor points.


Thanks, Dancarney (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Eddie6705

[edit]
  • Would it not be better to put the 5 kilometres in brackets as miles are used more commonly for distances in England.
  • The 2007-08 in the infobox could be linked to Football Conference 2007-08.
  • The sentance, 'after having won and been promoted from the Conference South in 2006-07' would make more sense if worded something like, 'having been promoted as champions from the Conference South...'.
  • How far are you hoping to improve the article, GA perhaps? Eddie6705 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

Just some quicky points on initial viewing.

  • Use endashes for seasons, e.g. 2007–08. User code – instead of hyphens per WP:DASH

 Done

  • The history section is completely recentist. The first 96 years are given just as much as the last eight.
  • References should also quote the date of publication. Peanut4 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

General overview: If you want something to aim for, have a look at the featured articles Margate F.C. or Leek Town F.C., which are about small club which reached the dizzy heights of the Conference for the first time in very recent years. Relatively more space goes to the interesting bits of the club's history, and relatively less to the leagues-nobody's-heard-of bits - it would be very dull otherwise - but they show how it's possible to achieve a reasonable balance.

No-one's expecting you to reach that quality of article straightaway, it depends on the availability and quality of sources, but you do need to try for balance. Histon F.C. allocates 20 words to the first 56 years of its history, 100 to the next 30. The 21st century gets nearly 600. The ground section mentions nothing before 2007. I realise all the highlights of the club's life appear to have come in the last few years, but you need to cut some of the recent detail.

Technical stuff: a read of the Manual of Style would help. Some general stuff:

  • The lead section is supposed to give an outline of the article. WP:LEAD says that information shouldn't appear in the lead if it's not going to be covered in the article proper. You could use the Chivers stuff to expand the early history and the ground sections, and the changing rivalries could be expanded on (?)
  • Dates: pick a format (either 29 May 2008 or May 29, 2008) and stick to it, and don't say "on the 29 May 2008".
  • Dashes (see WP:DASH): use an endash, not a hyphen, in scorelines and seasons; it's a longish dash, next to Insert in the edit window, or you can write it &ndash; Done
  • Numbers: normally you write numbers up to ten in words, so you'd say "Histon finished the season in seventh, one place and nine points away from the play-offs".
  • Wikilink the first mention of anything that needs linking, but once per section is enough.
  • Images: nice picture of the ground, but I'd caption it something like "Bridge Road Main Stand (or whatever it is) in October 2007", there's too much detail as it stands.  Done

One really important thing: Reliable sources. I've removed one item from the 20th century section which was pretty-well libellous given it had no reliable source. Sources are essential for anything likely to be challenged, and anything that sounds like original research, like Graham Daniels regretting his move to Cambridge City.

Don't be disheartened; Wikipedia takes a bit of getting used to, and the rules are different from writing for a fansite or a club's site. hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of the Everglades

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the fourth and last article written as a satellite for the main Everglades article. I've written all four pretty quickly, so I'm looking for assistance in pointing out areas that are unclear or poorly written. Though the articles should be independent, they overlap in some content areas, so I'm not sure what should be expanded in this article that is mentioned in more detail in another. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Speirs Bruce

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent GA promotion which will benefit from further critical review and feedback before any decision to take it on to FAC

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arad, Israel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been away from this article for a while and would like to tweak it some more to improve its quality to at least A-class, and maybe FA if I can. I'm looking for any kind of comments and criticisms, but especially the following:

  1. How the article looks on large wide-screen monitors (a screenshot would help) - this was a GA problem and I assured the reviewer that it looked fine on 1024x768, but for FA that is not quite acceptable.
  2. Images vs. text - I have included many images, but am sure that some can be removed, while others can be added (I've compiled a possible list on the article's talk page). Which images do you think need to go into the article? Secondly, small galleries (up to 4 images) are unavoidable for the current quantity, although I know that FA reviewers frown upon galleries (unfortunate IMO, as they only add to the article, but I accept their view) - so, how can I go about improving the formatting while retaining the most important images?
  3. General tips for improvement vis-a-vis the A-class and FA criteria.

Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "last-established " don't see the need to hyphenate this.
  • "... was one of the most popular music events in the country until 1995, although it has still been held annually since..." this doesn't make much sense to me. Odd wording.
  • "(see Biblical archaeology regarding famous ostraca found here)" - yuck - write something about it, don't just say "see...".
  • "The first modern attempt " - any ancient attempts?
  • Nefta doesn't link to what you want it to.
  • "a perfect square " is this tautalogical? What's an imperfect square?
  • "is a state flag (), " what does the icon mean? Confusing to non-experts.
  • "93,140 dunams[2] (~93.1 km²), " move ref 2 to other side of comma.
  • "metres " is British English, the rest of the article appears to be in US English.
  • And I would suggest US English would start with Farenheit and the convert to Celsius.
  • 1991/92 -> 1991–92.
  • Link NIS.
  • has peaked in 2002 at 24,500[21] - full stop missing. And why "has peaked", not just "peaked"?
  • " (552 m) " conversion required.
  • Explain UCI.
  • "The station has 6 ambulances.[citation needed]" fix the cite needed and 6->six.
  • Don't use in-line links such as you have for the WUJS Institute and Professor Ervin Y. Kedar.
  • "include 7 platforms " seven.
  • Include {{cite web}} for references, and fill the fields in correctly, e.g. accessdate, date, publisher etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Dweller
  • "modern city" - POV
  • Lead should probably be three parags, if not four, for article of this length, per WP:LEAD
  • "last-established" makes no sense. Unhyphenate and make it "last ... to be established" and it'll mean it was the last of them to be established, which is what you mean, I think
  • "As the second-largest city in Israel in terms of jurisdiction" do you mean area? If so, specify. Why not include the size, too.
  • "It is also well-known for its annual music festival, which was one of the most popular music events in the country until 1995, although it has still been held annually since." last clause is incomprehensible without reading the article. No need for mystery - explain in a few words.
  • Errors in English throughout - needs a copyedit
  • For FAC you'll (sadly) need to reduce the number of redlinks. Either unlink or create some stubs.
  • Notable residents won't pass FAC because of concerns over POV/comprehensiveness. Who says they're notable? Who says others are not?
  • References will need to be properly formatted per WP:CITE to pass FAC
  • Why include links to art galleries in EL? Ditch them. The maps don't need their own section either. The Aradnik reference in the link is meaningless. The school shouldn't be included.
  • The infobox at the foot of the article is titled "South District". South District of what?

Good luck --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naruto characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, listing this article for peer review before going to WP:FLC for a run at featured list status. It's modeled after similar articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Particularly, I would like to invite discussion on what to include in the "Other characters" section, which leads off to the List of minor Naruto characters article, and what to put there in terms of summary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Puerto Rican Amazon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review as a logical step in the march towards Featured Article status. The current content is product of a collaboration between several users from multiple WikiProjects (WP:PUR and WP:BIRDS in particular) our goal is to move towards FAC soon, but for that we will need help from the general community. Any issues noted here will be attended as presented, those dealing with prose, content or format are particulary welcomed. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a high quality article which definitely has FA and main page potential. I have fixed a few typos. A detailed copyedit would be beneficial – punctuation in places is a little wayward, and there are a few awkwardly-phrased passages, but in general the article is in good shape.

A couple of general points: in the lead the "wild" population is given as between 30 and 35. Can a figure be provided for the population in captivity? Also, unless I missed it, there’s no mention of the species’ natural lifespan. That would be an interesting fact. - Figure and reference provided for the captive population.

Here are some specific points:

  • All geographical locations should be linked at first mention. - I believe they are, any obvious exemptions?
  • "Lack" should be explained at first mention - Added a link to David Lack, the article should be self-explanatory.
  • The "Population and distribution" section uses "hadn't" and "didn't", which should be written in full. In same section, do not capitalize after a semi-colon - Fixed.
  • "Accounts recorded in the early 1900s…" is followed closely by "In the early 20th century…"—two ways of describing the same period of time in successive sentences. This is one example of awkward prose. - Reworded, how does it look now?
  • What does "range" mean in the sentence that begins: "The current range of the species…"? Does it mean that all the birds of the species are contained within a 16km² area? - More or less, see my response below.
  • A range between 30 and 35 is a bit to narrow to justify "anywhere between…" - Removed "anywhere".
  • The Diet section may be too over-detailed for the general reader. Also, a propos above, a range from 8 to 60 seconds is too wide to justify "normally" - Removed "normarlly"; as far as being overly detailed I'm not sure, its better safe than sorry.
  • In the Threats section you say the wild population is 44, whereas before it has twice been given as between 30-35 - Updated per this.
  • A sentence beginning "Arguably,…" must have a direct citation, as must a sentence beginning "It is believed…". Otherwise they read as opinion. - Reference added

In fact, I notice a general weakening of in-text citations in the latter parts of the article. The third para of Threats is uncited, and the final section Recovery plan has uncited material. - These paragraphs were just sourced, I'm looking for a reference to that first sentence.

  • "Other objectives included the establishment of two separate viable wild populations (500 or more individuals for 5 years)…". I can’t work out what this objective actually amounted to. - Reworded, is it clear now?

I hope these points are of help to you. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and copy edit, I will need to retrieve the book but should attend these issues tommorow. Now as far as the range goes, all wild Amazons are indeed limited to a very reduced habitat, unless we include those living in breeding facilities then the range is correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it, please note that my comments will be written in bold text. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Current ref 5 (Conservation Management Institute) has the publisher in the link title, should be outside of the linked title. Also should say it's a pdf - Corrected; the reference isn't actually a pdf, it seems to be using some unusual format.
    • Link or don't link access dates, but be consistent. - Fixed
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.) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to eventually take this article to FAC, so please critique accordingly. Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to get my head round exactly what is what in the Cyclopedia. 5 cabinets, 61 titles, 133 volumes. Would it be right to say that Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men is an informal, general term for the two titles Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of Italy, Spain and Portugal (subdivided into 3 volumes) and Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of France (subdivided into two volumes)? If so, were there other titles called 'Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of...' or was that it (Italy, Spain, Portugal and France). Was there, for example, a title called 'Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of the United Kingdom'? (Or even America). And how many titles and volumes were there in the Biography Cabinet, as opposed to the other Cabinets? Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got it right. There were other Lives - I have an article on the Cyclopaedia which lists all of the volumes, if you would like to see them. I'm not sure how many titles were in the "Biography" cabinet. I will check a couple of places and try to find out. Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from GA Reviewer

Quite a thorough job. Most of my comments about this article are already at the GA Review subpage. I was most interested in the style of working reception/commentary into the various subsections as opposed to its own section for discussion/analysis. I found this style unique and refreshing, though others may take issue with it. Feel free to drop me a note if/when this articles goes up for WP:FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Qp10qp

A very thorough and detailed article on a little-known encyclopedia: another highly valuable gem from Awadewit. Quite tricky material to organise, as well, I should think.

  • The prospectus assured its readers ... This sentence seems unconnected with and disruptive of the passage that contains it. I wonder if it might go better at the end of the previous paragraph, which is more to do with the intended audience and the advertising.
  • The overall project may have run into difficulty because it overpaid well-known writers. Because this is the first mention of any financial difficulties (it only says in the lead that it wasn't a bestseller), I was lost for context here. Does the sentence take it as read that it did run into difficulties and speculate about the reason; or is the sentence merely wondering if it did run into difficulties?
  • Rewritten to make it clear there were financial difficulties and this may have been one of the reasons for them. I thought this fit in the section about famous writers, but do you think it should be moved to the next paragraph, which discusses the fortunes of the CC? Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Now that it is made clear, it helps prepare the reader for the details later. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lardner himself may also have become less interested in the project, as he stopped signing the business ledger after the middle of 1838. Since we are never told about any difficulties other than poor sales, I wondered about the significance of this sentence. It is probably my fault, but I don't know the significance of stopping signing the business ledger, whatever that is. Does the word "interest" here refer to enthusiasm, or did Lardner withdraw financially?
  • When was the last volume published?
I just wasn't quite clear that the five Lives volumes that Mary Shelley worked on were all the volumes of Lives (No German or British lives, etc?). I assume, then, that the French Lives were the last volume of the Lives. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1846 for the CC, 1839 for the French Lives - the last of the volumes mentioned here. There were other Lives, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were probably printed, but the print run would have fallen to 2,500 as the sales did not pick up after 1835. Why "would have fallen"? Is this an educated guess by your source or did this happen?
  • Bennett suggests (An Introduction, 108) that a recently published letter shows that Mary Shelley wrote the life of Ercilla too.
  • I was relying on the editors of the Pickering and Chatto edition, since that is the only edition of MS's works to include the Lives. They analyze the authorship of each "Life". They analyze both internal evidence (writing style and sources) and external evidence (letters and records of payment). I won't go into the internal evidence here, unless you want me to. They quote the letter referred to in Bennett, but conclude that it does not necessarily imply authorship, and note that Lardner paid for this life in 1830, before MS began working on the project. I can send you the page from the introduction, if you want. Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair enough. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On letters, Mary Shelley says in one of them that she preferred writing the Spanish lives to the French. Should that go in? She also says somewhere (or appears to: it is somehat opaque) that she is better at writing biographies than at "romancing", which is an interesting thing to say. Have you come across that? (Selected Letters, pp. 271, 325)
Smashing. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While her politics are less overt in the Lives than in other works ... Is this so? Bennett (109) says that "the Lives, like the novels ... reflect her reformist agenda". Kucich talks about this a lot. Also, I feel that this statement is undermined by what you quote Nora Crook as saying and by the rest of what has just gone before. And, to look at it from the other angle, one might say that politics are not overt in Matilda at all.
  • pirated: can it be made clear what this means at this time and in context? Was it legal or illegal for the American edition to come out?
  • I believe it was illegal in Britain to copy these works but legal in America (there were no complicated international copyright agreements yet!) - is this worth explaining? Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does strike me that if there were no laws against it then it wasn't, strictly speaking, piracy—just unauthorised. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe from the British POV it was piracy. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Mary Shelley's contributions", I feel there is too much quoting going on. We are all different, but I try to avoid two quotes in one sentence, quotes in successive sentences, and quotes that could be readily paraphrased.
That helps a lot. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, as always. qp10qp (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive some feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Two facts that are missing from the article: 1) the origin of terrestrial helium--why it is obtained from the ground and not from the air?; 2) the role of radon as a source of natural radiation exposure and its possible risks.
  • I think there is some repetition about the octet rule/group 0/unreactivity. For example, the Compounds section says "Lack of reactivity among the noble gases is caused by a full valence shell, resulting in little tendency to gain or lose electrons", which is maybe the third or fourth time such a statement is made in one form or another.
  • The history section tends to jump back and forth in time. Perhaps a more chronological presentation would be clearer.
  • The history section almost implies that Bohr suggested the octet rule, which I'm not sure is accurate. Perhaps some mention of Lewis and Langmuir would be helpful.
  • The statement that "In 1962, an experiment successfully removed electrons from xenon, a noble gas, using the chemical process of oxidation" is not entirely accurate. First, because the bond is covalent and one is not really removing an electron, except according to the formal definition of the oxidation state. And second, because to put it into perspective, electrons had been removed much earlier using what we could call "the physical process of ionization". The way the statement is now might suggest that oxidation was the first method ever to remove an electron from xenon. Which reminds me that I think the ionization potentials and electron affinities (or lack thereof) of the noble gases should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
  • Perhaps a good proofreading would be helpful, but it's probably better to wait until the content is a bit more settled. User:Freestyle-69 has volunteered! ;-)

--Itub (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these suggestions might be better placed in their respective articles. I've received a few suggestions regarding some specifics of each element, and I don't think all of them should be included. I'll see what I can do, though. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments

[edit]
  • The table on the top right is a bit confusing... putting a border between "group" and "period" (thus, giving the entire table borders) would clarify things a bit.
I am not sure how to put an oblique bar between group and period. Any suggestion how to solve this? Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The respective melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together; consequently, only a small temperature range exists for each to be in a liquid state." - rather than the "consequently..." bit which is a given, can you say why this is?
ha? I am not sure why, but I know that hydrogen (6 K), nitrogen (11 K difference) are a bit similar, but fluorine and oxygen have a muchhigher difference. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bobrow (5 December 2007), CliffsAP Chemistry, CliffsNotes, ISBN 047013500X." - Who's Bobrow?
 Done
  • "and in 1898 he discovered the elements krypton, neon, and xenon, and named them after the Greek words ???pt?? (kryptos, hidden), ???? (neos, new), and ????? (xenos, stranger)." - would read better with less "and"s.
 Done
  • "a reaction between fluorine and argon, one of the noble gases, but failed." - rather than stating that argon is noble (already stated numerous times), you might want to say what's special about flourine (high reactivity).
 Done
  • "The noble gases have very weak interatomic force, and consequently they have very low melting and boiling points" - remove the "they"?
 Done
  • "Radon is formed as a radioactive gas along with helium as radium decays. Radon has a half-life of 3.8 days and decays to form helium and heavy metals, typically lead" - a wlink to an article on radioactive decay would be good here.
 Done
  • "The noble gas atoms increase in atomic radius from one period to the next due to the increasing number of electrons." - I'm going to look noobish if wrong, but isn't this trend the same for every group? If so you don't really need to say it (the atomic radius article should cover it, but this review was done offline, so yeah).
  • "Very little is known about the properties of the most recent member of group 18, ununoctium (Uuo)." - this has already been said in other sections...
  • "In 1962, an experiment successfully removed electrons from xenon using the chemical process of oxidation." - this can confuse a reader as (at its simplest) oxidation just means it's lost lost electrons. How did they oxidise it? What was the reducing agent?
 Done
  • "bonded to an electronegative atom of fluorine or oxygen" - reader: "what does electronegative mean???"
 Done
  • "As of 2007, almost 100" - more recent figures?
  • That's the best I can find. It's not like there is a monthly review with the latest count of noble gas compounds! One every few years is the rule, and 2007 seems more than recent enough for me. If you can find more recent data, I'd certainly add it to the article. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and HArF is the only confirmed compound of argon" - so far you've used the practice of wlinking the full name and putting the shortened version in brackets... be consistent.
 Done
  • "An endohedral fullerene compound containing a noble gas" - move this image down so the top of it is alongside its paragraph.
 Done
  • "In 1993, it was discovered that when C60" - what's C60?
 Done
  • "The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." - should decrease be plural?
 Done
  • It might just be me (wouldn't be surprised!) but it's a bit odd that this article talks purely in terms of electron shells and stuff and doesn't mention probability distribution, Shroedinger model style. Am I making any sense? Am I missing something? Should I do more chemistry study instead of reviewing these articles? :-) (Incidentally, if I ace any question relating to noble gases as a result of reviewing this article, I promise to get another article relating to my education featured.)

giggy (:O) 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noble gas chemistry is normally explained in terms of electron configurations (shells and such). While you can certainly use Schrodinger's equation to get quantitative information such as the energy and electron density, I don't think it results in much qualitative insight worth mentioning in the article. However, one thing worth mentioning is that the electron density distribution noble gas atoms is perfectly spherical (the planetary picture we have in the article can be misleading in that sense). Also, the explanation of bonding in noble gas compounds based on molecular orbitals (the 3-center-4-electron bonding stuff) is based on Schrodinger's equation, although it doesn't say so. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that makes sense. I do suggest you mention the electron distribution density thing, it isn't currently as clear as it could be. And no harm in mentioning Schrodinger specifically when talking about the 3-center-4-electron bonding stuff. giggy (:O) 09:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your last question, please keep reviewing these articles! All your comments have been helpful. It is very useful to know which parts are not clear, which should be wikilinked, etc., as well as any errors and redundancies you can find. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten everything now. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 911E

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article needs to be audited for quality in its FTC nomination. I need this done in less than a week if its possible.

Thanks, Mitch32contribs 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien registration card

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

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

I am not really sure what to put here. What else can you add about an ID card? Seems pretty self-explanatory, but a listing is necessary. Several other Japanophiles have remarked that they were surprised one does not already exist.

Thanks, Mak Allen (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As a brief factual summary of how this system works this is OK, but a proper, developed Wikpedia article needs a lot more information. Examples of some of the questions that could be addressed are:

  • What was the political/social background to the decision to introduce ARCs?
  • When was the system introduced?
  • What system, if any, did it replace?
  • Is a fee payable? If so, what is this fee?
  • What penalties are imposed on aliens for non-compliance?
  • Has the system been assessed for effectiveness?

These are a few suggestions for expanding the article. At present it is no more than an outline. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travellingcari comments As someone who has lived in Japan and knows the importance of the ARC/Gaijin card, I definitely feel the article would benefit from some significant expansion. Reading it now leaves me feeling, 'why do I care about this?' and while I know it's important, I'm not sure that's conveyed through the current article. I found some sources here that might help, but I also agree with Brianboulton's comments above. Why/when was it introduced. Has it had any impact on Japanese society? You might also discuss it in the context of the new fingerprinting policies. When the card system was introduced did it generate anywhere near the controversey?

Just some thoughts, feel free to ping me if you'd like more information or if I can help in any way. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea & Sympathy

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… it recently passed GA, and I'd like to get it featured some time soon. Something raised in the GA review was the length of the reception section, so any specific commentary on that (as well as general stuff) would be great!

Thanks, giggy (:O) 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of elements by stability of isotopes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

from before the move

[edit]

I've been working on this list for some time and I was wondering what is still missing for it to become a fetured list?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have attempted to source this article up and improve it as much as I can. Now I need outside comments in order to prepare the article for its GAN, which I plan to start after fixing the problems given in this PR. Any comments are welcome. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead needs to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - now there is no mention of Reception or DVD in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the plot - see WP:WEIGHT
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. I note that Smallville (season 1) is a FA and should be a good model.
  • Some of the episode summaries are much longer than others - I think they generally should be about the same length.
  • Article needs a copyedit, for example In addition, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula to capture Aang. could be something like In addition, two other characters, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula capture Aang. or The group escapes along with the Earth King and Bosco, where Katara heals Aang. where implies a location has been given, but it does not say where they escaped to, either include that or just drop "where" and replace it with "later" or even "and"
  • Be careful to provide context for the reader - not everyone who reads this will have seen the show or know what it is about, so giving some brief context and background is helpful - see WP:PCR
  • Since this is a work of fiction, make sure things are written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bradford City A.F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is already GA, I've done some more work on it, and now want to take it forwards for listing as an FAC.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Bradford City A.F.C./archive1.

Marcellus Formation

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to help move it from GA to FA status. I'd appreciate any help of feedback.

Thanks, Dhaluza (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this is close to FA status. Just wondering what eles needs to be done. Buc (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Metal Gear Solid/archive3.

SanDisk Cruzer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I know it isn't the best article on Wikipedia but this article sounded like an ad and had a list that needed cleaning up so I attempted to fix it. I was wanting to know how much of the problem I had fixed and what else needed to be done to completely fix it.

Thanks, Geeky Malloy 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is usually for longer, more developed articles, but here are some suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your work on this so far and for cleaning it up:

  • Article has no (zero) references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. One sentence is not enough.
  • 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
  • A model article is often useful for ideas - there are several FAs on computers at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Computing
  • Article needs more links, which help to...
  • Provide context for the reader - explain what a flash drive is / does for those that do not know
  • Avoid jargon or explain it - what is U3 for example?
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Any data on reception - what have others said about these (reviews), what kind of sales have they had?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Vital Article and it's about one of the most important bands of all time, blah blah blah (just kidding).

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think as many U.S. Presidents should be Featured Articles as possible, again i don't know the width, depth, and breadth of the issuses keeping it from being an FA. That's why implore anyone whocan to work on this article, it would nice to see all U.S. presidents articles get PR'd.--Briaboru (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Briaboru (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Briaboru, are you willing to do the work to make this article into an FA? I can do an extensive peer review of it and offer research suggestions, but it is only worth the hours I would take to do this if there are editors willing to improve the article. It kind of sounds like you are searching for editors at this point. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed Woodrow Wilson so this may seem familiar. This seems to be in better shape, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Presidents#Assessment has several FA articles listed, including Abraham Lincoln. George Washington and John Adams are A class.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - while the current lead is fairly well written it is not complete. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Slavery and Monuments and memorials are not in the lead.
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article so nothing major should be only in the lead - for example the JFK quote. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs fewer sections / headers too - the views on . This breaks up the flow of the article. For example View on corporations, Views on political violence, and on self-esteem are all very short sections.
  • Per WP:HEAD section headers shoul not repeat the article title or include the word "The" or repeat the section title if they are a subsection, so Jefferson and slavery and The Sally Hemings controversy need to be changed, and the repetition of "View(s) on ..." seems a bit much.
  • The article needs more references, for example Minister to France (very short section), The 1796 election and Vice Presidency, and The election of 1800 (remove "The" from both) have ZERO cites. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some refs need more information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books are not consistently referenced and need publisher, location, date, ISBN, etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I also worry that some of the references are not relaible sources. There is a lot of reputable published work on Jefferson, so what makes this or this a RS?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC.
  • Another concern is the use of curly quotes, per the MOS, they are frowned on.
  • A third concern is the very very lengthy external links section. Probably should prune that back. 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I read the GA assessment, and I am not exactly sure what I need to do to move this article to FA. I would appreciate any input.

Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain's comments
  • For FA, you will need to do some more research to get print sources like gaming magazines. The article is rather short and I see that you only have Web sources.
  • Some of your sources are missing information like publisher, date, etc.
  • What makes the following reliable sources? Need information on their submission criteria, editorial process, and reputation for fact-checking, otherwise they cannot be used:
  • Those N4G sources are no good.. please find and cite the actual articles they scanned in.
  • The prose is decent overall but needs a copy-edit from someone fresh, as there are many errors throughout. Examples:
    • "four with expansion Operation: Broken mirror" Mirror should be capitalized?
    • It's ".50 caliber", not "50. caliber"
    • "The game uses medals and rewards, which are awarded for certain achievements." Much clearer would be: "The game awards medals and rewards for certain achievements."
    • The noun plus -ing construction is ungrammatical, especially when preceded by "with", and needs revision wherever it occurs; example: "This update addressed the majority of issues users experienced with the game, with others being addressed in the Version 1.2 update."
  • MoS violations:
    • Single-digit whole numbers less than 10 should we written out (I fixed two but check for more).
    • Use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes for breaks in text, not hyphens.
    • Use en dashes for numerical ranges ("2–4"), not hypens.

This should give you a start. When these are worked through, feel free to ping me for a thorough prose review. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article seem as if it could make a great FA but i'm sure there are things needed to be done to it, many of which i would not have the foggiest notion of rectifying --Briaboru (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Briaboru (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Presidents#Assessment has several FA articles listed, including Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge
  • I would also use the failed FAC and two failed GANs as detailed peer reviews and address all of the comments in them
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - while the current lead is well written it is not complete. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Personal life and hobbies are not really in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs fewer sections / headers too - Health and Family are only a few sentences, or American Protective League. This breaks up the flow of the article.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. See Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia in 1856 as the third of four children and to Reverend Dr. Joseph Wilson (1822–1903) and Janet Woodrow[4] (1826–1888).
  • The article needs more references, for example four of the paragraphs in the Academic career section have no references and there are several {{fact}} templates in the article. Or Death is completely lacking refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some refs need more information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books are not consistently referenced and need publisher, location, date, ISBN, etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I also worry that some of the references are not relaible sources. There is a lot of reputable published work on Wilson, so what makes this a RS?
  • The article is lacking information - for example, in Personal life in the Family section the name of his second wife or the date of their marriage or any details are omitted (as is a ref). Or why did he leave the governorship of New Jersey?
  • Article depends way too much on what Wilson wrote (primary sources) when it should be based on what others have written about him (secondary sources). Why should the entire text of the Fourteen Points be given, or the huge quote on Armenian genocide, when there is very little analysis following, most of which is unsourced.
  • Avoid needless repetition - his first wife's death and his marriage to his second wife is described in both Family and Incapacity.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. The bibliography should be in alphabetical order by author's last name. There are weird formatting glitches in the article, like you've cut and pasted into the article. Paragraphs are unsourced. Large blocks of quotations of addresses don't belong in encyclopedia articles. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 23:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thriller (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… since its last FA failer this will be its third peer review. After this review closes I think we'll be ready to take it to FA. Im really open to all suggestions as Im a little out of ideas. I have a feeling that source formatting needs some fine tuning but I could be wrong. Hopefully others can help.

Thanks, — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thriller (album)/archive4.

Java (programming language)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Once featured, now only B-class. No review since open sourcing of Java (2007). General review needed.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this is not FA or even GA in its current state. It is an interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, much more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I would look at the FAR closely and make sure all of the points raised there are addressed.
  • Article lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example Applet, Servlet and Criticisms do not seem to be in the lead.
  • Biggest problem I see with the article is that it has very few references, especially for its length. For example the last three paragraphs of Criticism have no (ZERO) refs. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs that are there often are inomplete and need more information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Article is very list-y, this should be converted to prose where possible. Some lists, like the five goals, are OK, but this is too many
  • Article seems to have too many See also links and the External links section does look like a link farm.
  • The programs (code) do not seem to have any refs - how is that not original research?
  • While I think a few examples of code are useful, the article seems to be more like a programming manual (how to). See WP:NOT
  • A model article is often useful for ideas - there are several possible FA models at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Computing

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Phillies

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the coordinator of WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies. I have been trying to get this article to B-class with the ultimate goal of getting it to GA status. I've done a lot of extensive work on it in the past few days and over the last couple of months. I would like some input from the community as to what would be necessary to get this article to B-class. I would like to wait on thoughts for GA status until I finish getting it to B. I appreciate any and all input.

Thanks so much, KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve Javie

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is fairly complete and would like additional reviewer critiques on improvements before it's nominated as a good article.

Thanks, RyguyMN (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. I owuld look in the relevant Wikiprojects and see what GA or FA articles might be useful models.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the Tax evasion and Memorable game are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The Memorable game section is very short - I would either combine it with another section or possibly expand it.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. I also think that when there are several sentences in a row with the same ref, it is fine to have just one ref at the end of the set of sentences (no need to have a footnote for each sentence unless one has a direct quote in it). See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • So Steve Javie was born on January 17, 1955 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[1] to Stan and Stella Javie.[2] could be Steve Javie was born on January 17, 1955 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Stan and Stella Javie.[1][2]
    • He is married to Mary-ellen, whom he met in 1990 at the Philadelphia International Airport, where she was employed.[2] The couple were married in August 1991.[2] Could be He is married to Mary-ellen, whom he met in 1990 at the Philadelphia International Airport, where she was employed. The couple were married in August 1991.[2]
    • Even better version of this He married Mary-ellen in August 1991; they met in 1990 at the Philadelphia International Airport, where she was employed.[2] Is her name really spelled "Mary-ellen" and not "Mary-Ellen"?
  • Article could use a good copyedit to tighten the prose up and polish it.
  • Any more commentary on him from sports writers? Some of the incidents he was involved in seem like the kind that would generate commentary that could be quoted / used here perhaps.
  • Refs look good
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Towel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently took three days to completely re-write the entire article, I am hoping to get it up to GA status. Comments on anything are welcome.

Thanks, Blackngold29 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a lovely article; please tell me it isn't a joke at the expense of us gullible Brits. Assuming that it isn't, here are some points for consideration:

  • Article shows signs of carelessless in preparation - lots of typos, misuses of commas and apostrophes, mis-spellings etc. I have fixed a number of these, but I'm sure there are more. The text wants going over, slowly, by a skilled copyeditor who will iron out some of the awkward phrasing.
  • The lead coud be expended, so that it becomes a summary of the whole article. Within the lead, assertions that the Towel is recognised "throughout the world" should be toned down.
  • What was the trouble with FCC that was avoided by the decision to have black towels?
  • Wikipedia requirements for ndashes and nbsps are generally ignored in the article. Suggest you check protocol for dashes use in football scores, e.g.28-10
  • There is a tenses conflict in this sentence: "Even while the Steelers struggled through the 1980s, the Towel has remained a large part of the franchise". (First clause past, second clause present)
  • The heading "Similar gimmicks and opposition" is confusing, and doesn’t work. Suggest you replace it.
  • "Hate the Yankees Hankies" were once distributed… – what actually was distributed? Hankies with "Hate the Yankees" on them? Or something else, with "Hate the Yankees Hankies" on it? Please clarify.
    • The reference doesn't go too far in depth on it. I would assume it was basically what it is entitled; an anti-Yankee hanky (say that five-times fast). A Google seach didn't turn up anything new, it obvoiusly didn't catch on. I expanded it some, but if you think it should be eliminated I will. Blackngold29 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote towards the end which ends "Not Affectionately" needs a specific citation.

I really enjoyed the article. Spend a little more time on it and it could be really good. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Nicaragua earthquake

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this, while not yet being 5 days old, just passed GA. It is short, sweet, and to the point. I want to see how I can expand this to FA status.

Thanks, I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article, what is there is good, but I think it will need to be expanded somewhat for FAC. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • While length is not an FA criterion, comprehensiveness is and my guess is that the article needs to be expanded to be comprehensive enough.
  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas - I note that 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which also caused a tsunami, is a FA and should give some ideas on organization, level of detail, etc.
  • Another possible area for expansion is to add some background and explanatory detail for various eathquoke related terms and theory - see WP:PCR, provide context for the reader
  • What were the long term effects of the earthquake? Did the laws or building codes change? Were villages rebuilt or relocated? Since this was the first major quake since 1972 there, how did the measures adopted after '72 measure up in this quake?
  • Refs 1 and 4 need access dates.
  • Since one of the hardest FA criteria for most articles to meet is professional, near brilliant prose, this needs a copyedit. I would do the expansion first, then expand the lead to summarize the expanded article, then get a copyedit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Current refs 1 and 4 are lacking last access dates.
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.) 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

2007 Atlantic hurricane season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote this a week or so ago, and with hopes of GA and FA before June 1, 2009, I'd like to know what it needs. Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • The opening sentence is awkward. Given how many records there were, it seems lame only to say it was active compared to 2006 AHS.
    • The lede should be better organized. The second paragraph is very long, and is very listy. Either there should be a section in the article dedicated to records, or the paragraph should be re-written for better flow, with the records mentioned elsewhere. On that note, make sure that each of the records are properly sourced. Also, surely, shouldn't the season totals be mentioned in the lede? Nowhere in prose does it say how many TS/H/MH there were.
    • Is there any reason the paragraph on Dean mentions it was retired? Retirement is not usually mentioned in these types of articles.
    • Watch for unit consistency. BTW, what is with this? about 60 mi (350,000 km/h) or 15 mph (0.0067 km)
    • Sourcing is weak overall. You cannot cite everything to the TCR, as there are some pieces of info that don't originate from there. For example, Barry's fatalities, Dean's retirement (which, though it shouldn't be in that paragraph, is not from the TCR), and Felix's damage total, at a quick glance. Along these lines, try and find a good damage total for Hurricane Dean, as we already have that for Felix and Noel. We have most of the damage totals in already, so the sentence although specific damage amounts are unknown is clearly false.
    • Check the World Meteorological Organization for additional info for the season
    • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression 10 was not extratropical. The tropical cyclone report does not state this. What was the source for this information? Thegreatdr (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Watch the use of all capitals in your website titles. Per WP:MOS, all capitals is frowned on.
    • Current ref 48 is missing a last access date
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.) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on it so that one day it can be submitted to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

I've done a quick peer review, trying to outline major issues that the editors need to address as they work towards FA. This article is a good start, but much more work will need to be put into it before it is ready for FAC. I look forward to helping out! Here is my first list of suggestions:

  • I think that some more research needs to go into this article. I would start with the Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, which has a chapter on all of Smith's major ideas and a very helpful bibliography. It will guide you to all of the major works on Smith.
  • I'm concerned that the article focuses on WN and TMS to the exclusion of Smith's other writings. Though less famous, these deserve some space!
  • The lead needs to be a true summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It is currently a bit disorganized and lacks substantial information about his life.
  • Almost every section of the "Biography" feels like it could be expanded. Many facts are given, but not enough historical context. I feel like a reader without knowledge of the eighteenth century would struggle to understand Smith's place in the intellectual firmament described.
  • The entire "Personality and beliefs" section should be scrapped and any important information integrated into the "Biography" where appropriate. People's personalities are not static, so it is important not to describe them as such. Moreover, some of this information is trivial.
  • It seems like the Theory of Moral Sentiments should be discussed first in the "Published works" section, since it was written first.
  • The "Wealth of Nations" section is largely uncited.
  • The quotations from the Wealth of Nations should be worked seamlessly into the section, not appended as "famous quotes".
  • The "Legacy" section needs to foreground the important material and place the less important material (e.g. English money) at the end. Trivial legacies should be removed.
  • I would recommend removing the subjective fields from the infobox - these are too debatable and listing names and concepts does not explain Smith's relationship to them. Anything important should be explained in the article.
  • All people named in the article need to be identified somehow so that reader knows who they are - just a phrase or a word will do.
  • There are uncited quotations in the article.
  • There is a great deal of repetitive linking in the article.
  • The article needs the attention of several good copy editors - the writing is choppy and repetitive at times. However, this should wait until the major revisions are complete.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs

[edit]

If someone else already brought up any of my points... too bad, I'm still going to bring them up.

  • Lead needs expansion; is the final paragraph going to be his legacy? The paragraph for the bio should sum up his entire life.
  • Obviously, the citations needed will have to get fixed.
  • Explain to us dunderheads what certain terms mean for example "His lectures covered the fields of ethics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, political economy, and "police and revenue"." police and revenue?

I'll dump more concerns later, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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.) 17:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Billy Liddell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page needs fresh eyes. Is the article ready for FAC? I've adapted the basic structure and style from articles like Duncan Edwards, although there isn't a style of play section. Would that benefit the article? The glaring, outstanding issue is the deficient licensing for the images. I've contacted LFCHistory to verify their status, etc but so far no response. Blue boxes are not going to appeal to everyone ;-). SoLando (Talk) 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • The second paragraph of the lead has a jarring chronology. It implies that his Liverpool career occurred before the Second World War.
  • Liddell was the first of six children to be conceived during the marriage of his parents - This suggests that either he had other siblings, born out of wedlock, or his mother suffered one or more miscarriages. Assuming this is not the case, it is tidier simply to state that "Liddell was the eldest of six children" or somesuch.
  • while he continued to play football and eventually earn selection for Scotland Schoolboys. - A mixture of tenses here.
  • It seems odd to pay so much attention to a close-season tour in 1948. This seems particularly undue weighting when compared to the coverage of the seasons either side of it.
  • There is perhaps an over-reliance on Keith's biography. While not necessarily a problem in itself, variety in sourcing is always helpful. I recently encountered this issue myself when expanding an article on one of Liddle's contemporaries, Bert Trautmann. While it was easy to resort to a particular biography for a large number of references, it had to be borne in mind that reviews of the book suggested it was over-sympathetic to Trautmann. Biographies are often written by admirers of the subject, so this is a common issue, and care must be taken to avoid turning an article into a eulogy.
  • Speaking of Trautmann, I can offer a couple more sources on the 1956 FA Cup tie. I'll put something on the talk page.
  • Were there any particular weaknesses in Liddell's game?
  • Shankly selected Liddell for a game against Derby County in February which the referee abandoned because of fog. He officially returned against Plymouth - "Officially" seems misplaced here. Abandoned matches might be struck from the records but they aren't unofficial, merely incomplete.
  • Why does the quote box have a blue background?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addressed?
  • I might have written that when initially perturbed by his mother's...unusual name.
  • Addressed.
  • True. But in its defence, it's a moderately interesting deviation from the competitive football which may intrigue readers from a certain continent...;-). I'll see if I can trim or expand some of the other seasons.
  • That has been a concern. I have striven to avoid becoming "influenced" by what is indeed a nostalgic, effusive book. The article's prose definitely presents fact and "action", and to a degree what others thought, rather than what John Keith considers him to be. Certainly, the tone, I hope, does not appear reverent.
  • I'd really welcome that. In fact, if you have any sourced material about Liddell, it would be so appreciated.
  • Whether it's related to the aforementioned effusiveness, weaknesses do not appear to enjoy any coverage in John Keith's bio or, indeed, elsewhere. That's been a factor in why I've avoided a style of play section, as the imbalance would be explicit. Without reliable sources, the article is as balanced as verifiability permits. Even when his contemporaries profiled him, they limited themselves to describing his attributes.
  • Perhaps "formal"...or: Liddell completed his first full match since recovery against Plymouth Argyle.....that seems awkward. Suggestion?
  • That's a format I've picked up from an article many moons ago. It's appeal does vary. I'll convert it to the, uh, quote box.
Your comments have been very helpful. I hope they've been implemented to your satisfaction (that's an unnecessarily formal response).SoLando (Talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look in my books and put what I have on the talk page. I'll leave to you as to what, if anything, is used. Its always worth searching for material on Google Books, which looks like it might have a couple of worthwhile snippets, and Google News Archive Search can sometimes turn up things missed in general web searches.
  • On the abandoned game, how about "He completed the next match, against Plymouth Argyle, and played in ten successive matches"? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, excellent. Barnes' account could be included and contrasted with one by Liddell. It might be disproportionate, however. What do you think?
  • Most of the sources yielded when I extensively searched GB and GNA during the initial expansion are those which are used in the article. Unfortunately, I don't have access to highbeam, findarticle, etc. I'll see if the volume of Keith notes can be curtailed by using the various obits.
  • Endorsed :-) SoLando (Talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
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.) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there was WikiProject Canada interest in bringing the article on Canada's national holiday up to FA standard (see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Canada Day to FA by July 1?). Whether the Canada Day 2008 deadline is met, it would be useful to move what we have towards GA/FA.

Thanks, Dl2000 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is close to GA already and needs some work to get to FA. I enjoyed reading it and will make my suggestions for improvement with an eye towards FA:

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the sections on International celebrations, Exception, and Other Canadian observances on the same date should be in the lead somehow. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to take over, and the text should not be sandwiched between images. See WP:MOS#Images
  • The caption Canada Day [?] on Wellington Street, in front of the Château Laurier, in Ottawa seems to be missing a word - celebration? parade? festivities?
  • Biggest problem as I see it for GA (and FA) is references - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. As it is whole paragraphs and sections have no refs.
  • 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
  • Another concern for FA will be length - while length is not an official FA criterion, comprehensiveness is and short articles are often lacking coverage. I am not sure what is lacking, but it seems the history could be expanded and the current coverage and photos are fairly Quebec-centered. What do people do in Vancouver or PEI?
  • Several paragraphs are only one or two sentences and need to be expanded or combined with others.
  • I think See also is for links that do not appear in the article itself, so Dominion Day and Moving Day probably should not be there.
  • Article could use a copyedit - I read for comprehension, not proofreading, but still noticed some typos and places that need polished.
  • I see the semi-automated peer review has not been run or has been removed. I will run it next as it usually has some useful suggestions, mostly on MOS issues.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps.

Esperanto

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the most important article for the Esperanto task force, whose ultimate goal is the elevation of this article to Featured Article status. This article has been peer reviewed before, as well as being a Featured Article candidate (not promoted), and reviewed for Good Articles status four times (listed twice, delisted twice; it is currently a delisted Good Article). Anyway, the long and short of the situation is that this article is a veteran of these processes, so I would like to request reviewers to be as critical and demanding as possible because I envision an application for Featured Article status shortly after the conclusion of this review. That said, please judge it based on Wikipedia's Featured Article criteria. If you believe this article is nowhere near being ready for becoming a Featured Article candidate, please let me know. I will greatly appreciate any and all help on this peer review. Thanks, TFCforever (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just added a quick sentence on what the 'Ido reform' actually means, because there's a tendency to forget when writing an article that most people will come in knowing absolutely nothing about not only the history, but what an IAL is and why they've been created. For example the very first sentence (and this is exactly the same as the comments I got when I submitted Ido for a review): what's an international auxiliary language? What does that do? "Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language that would serve as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding." <-- this explains what it does, but doesn't really tie it in to an international auxiliary language, and a person who doesn't know anything about the subject might not catch on that the third sentence is actually explaining the first one in greater detail. Mithridates (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Mithridates. I really appreciate your help. By the way, what are your general impressions of the article? I'm trying to get some opinions from people who have read it, especially concerning whether or not it is close to being Featured Article material, or at least worthy of being nominated as a candidate for FA status. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The group article is up to peer review. When reviewing, please note that there is another related article, group theory. The latter is (or shall be) devoted to advanced topics related to groups, whereas the article under review is to cover more basic facets. Merging the two articles has been proposed several times, but consensus was reached not to do so (see for example here).

The article has reached WP:GA status some time ago and has since been expanded somewhat more, so as to include history and more material on applications. I'm also putting this to PR as to see whether there are significant hindrances to a possible FAC, so if you want to comment on that perspective too, please do so.

Thanks in advance for your review, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first of what I intend to be a four part history of the National Hockey League. I intend to have this listed as a GA shortly, and eventually a FA. My primary concern is the quality of the prose, and the layout of the article. All feedback is welcomed, and will be acted on


Thanks, Resolute 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this could use a copyedit... It begins rather awkwardly. I think I can help out with this, especially with the copyedit. Thoughts? Maxim(talk) 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. The first goal was getting it written. Resolute 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have just read it through, and I find it impressive. Notes: 1) Might be good adding subsections below the current section headings (unless MOS recommends otherwise). I managed to read it anyway, since it was interesting enough. 2) Interesting to learn about the development of offside rule, replacing the Rugby-style forward pass rule. I wonder, was this also the time in history when linesmen were introduced alongside the refree? I'm not sure if refrees and linesmen development is in the article scope; might be related or not, and even the hockey official article lacks a history section. 3) The timeline image provides a great team overview (much more readable than the one on the main timeline article). The Toronto green colour is explained in a note, but Detroit and NY Americans are the same colour all the way. Easily filled in, I guess. Thanks for writing! --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! None of the books I have discuss how officiating has evolved, so I'm not certain when or how that's changed. I think rather than subsections, I can divide the article into more sections overall. (makes no difference, really), but in that case, I'll probably pull the rule changes bit from the 1920s section into its own and expand. And I agree on the timeline, but it is a lot easier to display eleven franchises over 25 years than it is about 40 over 90. I'll look at reorganizing the article into more sections tomorrow. Resolute 03:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add a bit about World War II and the controversy that surrounded the NHL at the time. It was basically "Why should all these young athletic men be entertaining civilians when they should be blasting Nazis in Europe"? I may also have a bit on goaltending in that era, but no guarantees.-Wafulz (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would anyone mind if I made a preface? I've found two particularly good sources: one on hockey during WWII ( For club or country? Hockey in wartime Canada, 1939--1945), and one on hockey and the history of the NHL in general (The Development of Professional Hockey and the Making of the National Hockey League). My second source would be useful for laying out the history of the NHL in terms of the social, historical, and economic environment that led to its creation.-Wafulz (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

One thing at the end of the "Folley" section concerning the hit between Bailey and Shore. In one sentence you say that "While neurosurgeons were able to save Bailey's life" and then in the next you say, "the hit, though it was known that had Bailey died...". The second would appear incorrect, as they did shake hands afterwords. I was also kind of thrown off by the "...league allowed the use of the forward pass in all zones beginning in 1929." Maybe you could expand on that a little bit, I guess the game was more different then than I thought. I guess the most important part is that I learned quite a bit. Blackngold29 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the above comment, it seems there is a greater desire for info on rule changes, so I think I'll pull that into its own section and expand. There certainly is enough source material for it. On Shore's hit, the statement is intending to state that Shore would have been charged with manslaughter if doctors were unable to save Bailey's life. I'll try to clarify that. Resolute 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lili

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, I re-wrote this article about a month ago, and with some help from other editors it passed GA. Now I'm thinking FA and would like to get some input.


Thanks, TheNobleSith (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments.
    • There should be a better opening sentence of the article. Check out the openings to Hurricane Fabian, Hurricane Isabel, and Hurricane Juan.
    • The lede should be expanded to 3 paragraphs, if possible
    • Non-breaking spacing is needed throughout the article
    • Unit rounding needs consistency. For example, if the first unit is rounded (50 mph), than the second unit must be rounded (85 km/h).
    • Also, there is redundancy when writing US$2 million (2002 USD), as the USD already implies the US$. The US before the dollar sign should be dropped
    • The storm history could be expanded, given how recent it was. For example, the rapid strengthening and weakening is not explained very well. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the SH relies heavily on the public advisories. The info from the public advisories is not that important, and is probably already in the TCR. A nice and thorough storm history should rely on the discussions: see Hurricane Kyle (2002).
    • The fact that it was forecast to move ashore as a Category 4 hurricane should be mentioned
    • The preparations section should go in order of places affected. Do all of the preps for the Lesser Antilles, then Greater Antilles, then Gulf Coast.
    • Given how much damage there was, it'd be nice to see the Louisiana section expanded a little. Surely some buildings other than the 20 mentioned in Intracoastal City were destroyed in the state. The section could be better organized, too. There are a few options. One would be to have a paragraph for each aspect of the storm; one could be on the winds and the resulting wind damage, while another could be on the waves/surge and any beach erosion. Another option would be to combine all of the meteorological data into the first paragraph, and then list the impact by either area or by type (like one paragraph for agricultural damage, one for transport). Still another option would be to go by each area (coastline, New Orleans area, inland).
    • All in all, decent work, but still needs more before FA is even considered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

List of chemical elements by their discovery

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it isn't very far from a FL-class. What do you think?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice list. Obviously took a lot of work. You might consider beefing up the entry paragraph. Sometimes a list is just a list, but in this case, it seems to be more. This list covers the the civilization of man-kind, and, I think, needs a discussion of how these discoveries are linked to the development of modern life.WVhybrid (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more precise (examples)? Nergaal (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implications of the identification copper and iron on pre-historic civilization would be one key area. And the impact of organic chemistry discoveries associated with Lavoisier on medicine and industry could merit mention. WVhybrid (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • bolding the title in the lead, I would suggest presented here in chronological order
  • Expand the lead with some more context
  • Is both the image of the table and the map of the table necessary? They both have the same information...
  • More notes for each element? And citations for each one?
  • Explain 'Z' as the atomic number somewhere in the lead.
  • Strontium and Yttrium have something wrong with their notes sections.
  • As do a load in the 19th century section and 20th century sections, is there a reason for this?
  • Typo in the notes section for Unbibium, need a space between : and A.
  • Some of the URL references don't have retrieval dates.

All in all, a very comprehensive article. SGGH speak! 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
    • My first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC.
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.) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to get it to Featured standard, or GA class at the very least. Originally, the text in the Premier League section was just too long for one section, so I have split it into three subsections by date. My main concern with the article, however, is referencing. The content, I believe, is fine, I just need help identifying which statements need citation. Anyway, I look forward to your comments.

Thanks, – PeeJay 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • The referencing is very weak. FAC does not like poorly referenced paragraphs. There are great swathes of paragraphs unreferenced. My basic suggestion would be, if a reference exists, add one. Don't be scared of adding too many references.
    • Since there are links to the match report for each match, do you think I should still put an inline citation next to any mentions of results in the prose? – PeeJay 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand how you've used the "Report" thing and have seen it on a lot of other football articles. But is this approved practice on GA or FA articles. I've created Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007-08 and have simply added a ref column to the match list, and added the same refs to the main body of the article. But if you stick with the report option, I wouldn't see any harm in using the same references in the text. Like I say, you can't have too many references, but you could easily be accused of having too few. Peanut4 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you talking about a ref for jst a mention of the result (e.g "Untied won the match 2-0") or a ref for a mention of stuff that happened in the match (e.g "United dominated in the first ten mins"). Buc (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, if you do go for GAN or FAC, I'd wait until the end of June. I think most seasons articles are based round a calendar year of July 1-June 30. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • At a quick glance I can see a few issues with poor wording, POV statements and lack of references. Give this a copy edit before doing anything else.

A few examples

  • "but picked up quickly"
  • "a 6–0 thrashing"
  • "was considered the hero"
  • "season got off to a slow start"
  • "season got off to a slow start"
  • "They should have gone two up soon after"
  • "The referee, though, was not very receptive to Mascherano's protest, and gave him a second yellow card for dissent, sending him off.

With Liverpool down to ten men..." Why start a new prargragh here when your taling about the same game?

  • "And fail to win they did"

Will review it in more detail once the major problem have addressed. Buc (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice (Shelley)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to take this article to WP:FAC, so please critique accordingly. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Oxford United F.C. seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Featured List standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it. Anything about columns I should add to or remove from the table, or how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious need to me is an expanded lead section. Fortunately, there are a ton of team season FL's that can give you ideas. Including those for football, baseball and hockey.
Second, you will require specific citations. Aston Villa F.C. seasons uses inline citations in the table headers for each column, though in the past, I've added lines at the end of the article in a general references section that says something like this:
etc. Basically, so long as there is a specific citation for the season-by-season results, playoff/cup results, leading scorers and attendance, imo. And, of course, specific citations, preferably inline, for claims made in the lead section. A relevant image would be ideal, if available, though not necessary, imo. Good luck! Resolute 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Many of my suggestions are in relation to what has been done previously on seasons lists which have been successful at WP:FLC.

  • "...from 1921..." - doesn't this mean 1931?
  • Lead will definetely needs a good expansion.
  • An image should be found for inclusion.
  • A footnote could be used to say when the League Cup was founded.
    • Done
  • A footnote could also be used to say what competitions are included for the goals scored by the top scorers.
  • Wikilinks for the divisions in the list itself aren't really needed as they're in the key.
    • Done
  • When the team participated in a new league or if it was renamed, it could be bolded.
    • Done
  • When something was won or when they were champions of a league, it could also be bolded.
    • Done
  • Articles need creating for redlinked top scorers.
  • When the record for most goals in a season was set or equalled, the scorer and their number of goals could be bolded.
  • I'd not sure on highlighting the move to the Kassam Stadium in blue - maybe a footnote could be use to say this?

Should be able to have a crack at WP:FLC. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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.) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratanakiri Province

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Seeking input before a possible FAC nom. I think the article is pretty much done, though I have a handful of sources to incorporate. (And I need to print it out for a hard-copy copy-edit). This just went through GA successfully, and I have incorporated the few comments I received from that process. ]

Thanks, Mangostar (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nicely done overall, but there are some tweaks needed before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see Land tenure in the lead and other headers seem to be missing or under represented. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The use of (For more information, see Land tenure, below.) and other similar phrases may be seen as a problem at FAC.
  • I'm not sure what else could be done there. I think it is useful because many areas overlap. In a developing country, economy and culture are intertwined to an extent that is not the case in other places. I am currently trying to work out how to discuss logging and related issues, which straddle geography, economics, and human rights type issues. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs could be cleaned up a bit - example: Long after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime, however, Khmer Rouge rebels remained in the forests of Ratanakiri.[28][29] Rebels largely surrendered their arms in the 1990s, though attacks along provincial roads continued until 2002.[29][28] If the exact same refs are used for two sentences in a row (and there is not a quote in the first sentence) then is almost cetainly OK to just have one set of refs at the end of the two (or more) sentences. Also refs should be in numerical order, so ... attacks along provincial roads continued until 2002.[28][29]
  • It's a personal preference of mine that every sentence should be cited, because it makes it clear that no sentences have been stuck in (especially as they age) without references. If this is a major problem I could change it, but I think a good share of articles cite every sentence. I agree that I need to rearrange refs, but I was waiting until everything was done because the refs are occasionally reordered with new additions. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the citations themselves, the use of op cit will also likely be challenged at FAC. Most people use a modified MLA or Harvard style, with a Bibliography giving the full source information and the ref giving the author's name, date if needed, and page(s). See the refs in Joseph Priestley House for one example of this.
  • I considered but rejected this idea, because there are relatively few sources that are used more than once or for more than one page. It seemed least disruptive to have a few op cits than to be constantly referring people to another section unnecessarily. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colors in the graph "Ethnic groups in Ratanakiri (1998)" must mean something but this is not clearly explained.
  • Yes, I should get on that. I basically put all Khmer Loeu groups as blue, but I don't think the template has the functionality to explain this. I may need to tweak the template. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally like to see the actual numbers (here as X, Y and Z) so In 1998, when the most recent national census was conducted, Ratanakiri made up 0.8% of Cambodia's total population [of X], with a population density [of Y] approximately 15% of the national average [of Z].[50]
  • I made it vague on purpose, because of outdated data. The province population number I am using is a 2004 estimate, which is much higher than the 1998 census (there has been a lot of in-migration since the last census). Since there is no corresponding country population estimate for 2004, I didn't want to give exact density figure comparisons for 1998 that would be inconsistent with the 2004 population estimate given. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it usual to have a period and space after "P" to show a page number, so ^ a b Vajpeyi, op cit., p127. would be ^ a b Vajpeyi, op cit., p. 127.
  • A model article is useful to look at - there are many Geography FAs and some should give you ideas on style, structure, refs. etc.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Per WP:FN, we don't use op. cit. or other abbreviations in the footnotes.
    • Please don't use acroynyms in the footnotes. Not everyone is going to know what IUCN or others are.
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.) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Space Pilot 3000

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is currently a GA but I would like to eventually nominate it as a Featured article. I would appreciate comments on what areas are lacking in comprehensibility, completeness, sourcing or any other area with an eye towards the FA criteria.

Thanks for your time, Stardust8212 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • You might wish to create the redlink in the infobox
  • Try to merge these 1-2 sentence paragraphs together.
  • Wikilink New York City
  • "as his work at Planet Express means that he will be able to travel in outer space." - from memory, the episode ends with "woohoo" and doesn't give any explanation as to why he is excited. Is this, therefore, speculation? Or drawn from the next episode(s)?
  • Wikilink FOX the first time it occurs, you have have done and I've missed it.
  • "however, they malfunction when Fry remarks on this" - don't they just close sideways/upwards when he expects the reverse? (twice)
  • "Another inside joke of the series is Bender's fondness for "olde fortran malt liquor".[7]" might want to explain this more for those not familiar (me)!
  • "In the movie Futurama: Bender's Big Score it is revealed that the spacecraft seen destroying the city while Fry is frozen are piloted by Bender and those chasing him after he steals the Nobel Peace Prize." requires a citation
  • "Dick Clark as himself, Leonard Nimoy as himself" - are these in order of appearance or alphabetical? Not sure what the WP:MOS is on this.

Overall, quite a sound article. No abundance of fancruft like one might expect. Hope my suggestions are helpful, good work. SGGH speak! 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article, it's great to get a second opinion on these things and I will do my best to implement the changes you suggested, hopefully tonight after work. Stardust8212 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. Decide on either last name first author formatting or first name first author formatting. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to review this article, I think I've got the formatting of the references all sorted out now, but I could be wrong. I'll drop you a note on your talk page, I look forward to your further comments. Stardust8212 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russell Brand Show (radio show)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Good Article standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it and how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • It's hard to remember all the things that should go into a citation. An easy solution to the problem is to use an appropriate citation template found at WP:CIT. For example, you can copy-and-paste the whole set of "cite web" parameters from that page and, in article edit mode, insert it where you want a reference superscript number to appear in the text. The cite web template will remind you to include at least the author name, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if these can be found. Even if not all of these are known, it's good practice to fill in as much of the information as you can. For your first reference you currently have only title, publisher, and url, but the publication date, 26 October 2006, appears at the top of the source page, and you can easily add the latest access date, 15 June 2008.
  • Every claim that might reasonably be questioned should be sourced. An example of an unsourced and questionable claim in this article is "However, Karl mysteriously disappeared from the show leaving some to speculate about a falling out between Pilkington and Brand." The speculations of persons unknown don't belong in an encyclopedia. A claim like this must either be attributed to a reliable source, not a "some", or omitted. Even though you hint at a source later in this section, the whole section is unsourced. In other words, the article's claims must be verifiable.
  • To make the article stronger, I would look for sources other than blogs or the BBC, which might be seen to have a self-serving point-of-view problem in comments about its own shows. I don't know this field, so I can't suggest specific sources, but I think it likely that critical journals that carry reviews of radio shows must exist.
  • I looked briefly for a model that you might look to for guidance among existing GA or FA articles about radio shows but found no radio shows. Even so, looking at something like Last of the Summer Wine might give you some ideas.
  • I suggest explaining or wikilinking any unfamiliar terms or jargon. Examples of terms not all readers would understand are "podcast", and "one-off".
  • At some point, you might seek a copyeditor to help with MoS issues. I see quite a few, such as the bolded show titles, which should instead be inside quotation marks as in "Jingle Race War".
    • Done the unbolding of show titles.
  • I would delay re-writing the lead until any major revisions to the main text are finished and then follow the guidelines in WP:LEAD. The lead is essentially an abstract or concise summary of the whole article.

Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper. Or was she? Read this article to find out. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

General: The article appears to be primarily about two distinct sets of royal conspiracy theories: those of Stowell, and those of Stephen Knight. The structure of the article, and the titles of the main sections, should reflect this. Also:-

  • Lead
    • I believe that WP:MOS is breached in the matters of the first sentence and delayed mention of the article title. See WP:MOS#First sentence. There is no reason why the article should not begin: "Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories arose from the grisly series of murders…" etc, or some such wording.
    • Why italics for some names in first lead para?
  • Prince Albert as suspect: I found this section somewhat disorganised. It really has three sub-elements; Stowell’s case against Albert Victor, the refutation, and some associated theories. I would subdivide the section accordingly. I would also reconsider the bullet-point format of the refutation subsection. Some points of detail:-
    • CBE seems unnecessary after Stowell's name
    • The Criminologist should be explained - what sort of magazine is it, etc
    • How did Stowell "clearly present" Albert Victor as Jack the Ripper without naming him?
    • We need to be clear (second para) that we are talking about claims, not fact. I suggest a combination of sentences: "…driven Albert Victor insane, and that in this state he…". Also: "Following the murders of 30 September 1888, Stowell claimed…"
    • Perhaps: “Stowell stated that his source….”, to avoid repetitions of “claimed”
    • Comma required after "Jullian’s source" (I’m not going to list all possible comma infractions, but a thorough check is desirable).
    • "However, Stowell’s claims are untrue" sounds POV. Should be reworded: "However, Stowell’s claims have been shown to be untrue", or similar
    • "visiting country houses on private visits" is clumsy
    • "alibi" is a loaded word, which always carries some connotation of possible guilt. Is it possible to describe Albert Victor’s proof of innocence in another way? (In fact, the "solid alibi" sentence could be omitted altogether).
    • Suggest: "or was hundreds of miles from London"
    • Why not give title of Harrison’s biography of Albert Victor?
  • Prince Albert Victor’s indiscretions: I don’t really understand this title. The section is about a second royal conspiracy theory, a more detailed alternative to Stowells, which is recounted and rebutted at enormous length. The section title should certainly be reconsidered, as should the extent of detail, and again the bullet-point format. Also, in para 3, referring to Walter Sickert as “Walter” makes him seem like a friend of the family.

In short, the article is good on information, but somewhat muddled in structure and in titling, and could probably do with some more images.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. When I re-wrote the lead, I tried to force in "Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories", and I see now that the phrase is unnatural and clumsy. I prefer to leave it out per "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I reviewed the PAV article, I looked at this too.

  • I would mention in the lead that the theories did not come to light until the early 1960s, many decades after PAV's death.
  • The play about his involvement in the murders and PJ Farmer's Gods of Riverworld are not mentioned in the Prince's article.
  • The bullet points for the rebuttal are OK, but I think the points would work as well as paragraphs (combining Annie Crook was not Catholic with the next paragraph)
  • The critical reviews of the movies are oddly referenced - they appear to be from the books, but I think they should still say XYZ's review in the ABC newspaper, cited in this book
  • I also note that refs are supposed to be in numerical order, so [1][2][3], not [1][3][2]. Other

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myst III: Exile

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC sooner rather than later. Mostly, I'd like help or suggestions with prose, since that's my Achilles heel, but of course any other comments are appreciated. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... other articles with OTRS from Ubi haven't (such as Image:Tcr6vcov11.jpg.) I believe Ubisoft only allowed screenshots in the permissions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on lead from User:BuddingJournalist
    • Spot the simple grammatical error in the first sentence. Usually, I'd fix this myself, but I think it's a good example of why re-reading your writing over and over is a good idea.
    • "console versions were later released." Think about where the emphasis is and where it should be, and then see if rearranging words might bring about a stronger construction.
    • "The Stranger pursues the thief in an attempt to take back the Age." Unclear to me (someone who has never played the game). Attempt to take back the book perhaps?
    • "after a rigorous presentation." What does that mean?
    • "sought to develop an artistic, more contained approach to puzzles and Ages than Riven had" The placement of "more" means that the "artistic" is out of place, since it's not being compared. What does "contained" mean?
    • "as time wore on" -> too informal and in-universe. You're using "more" again, but it's unclear if this is a comparison to the previous games or whether the "more" is connected to the "as time wore on" concept. BuddingJournalist 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. They look fine.
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.) 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while I feel I've developed it quite well, one fellow editor has questioned the notability of the article's subject. I have a feeling I should gather other editors' thoughts on the page before I nominate it for good article. Please, give any suggestions on how the article could be improved, as well as remarks concerning the article's notability. All comments are appreciated!

Thanks, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not review until the ongoing AfD is resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the Peer review directions clearly state this is not for articles with cleanup tags and this has a bunch. If it survives the AfD, pelase feel free to renominate it for Peer Review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Evangelion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to go up to Good Article or Featured Article status and is part of the Evangelion series. This article has some issues still lurking around here. I think feedback and advice to improve this article here should be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Greg Jones II 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry but the directions for Peer review clearly state that "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners" (this has a triple banner for Original Research, Trivia section, and weasel words). I am archiving this. After the issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate it here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked n this list over the past few days and feel it is close to becoming a featured list, hopefully any kinks can be ironed out here before it goes to FLC. Thanks n advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sillyfolkboy:

  • In the second table i would change the two final columns to simply "winners" and "runners up". "Years lost" is certainly wrong because every participating team could be deemed as losers. I think there's no need to mention year as it's obvious by the context what the numbers are.
  • Are the C.F. on Real Madrid and FC before Bayern Munich entirely necessary? Not sure about the guidelines but I think they'd be just as clear without as long as the link is fine (as Liverpool now is).
  • Really it should be noted when it changed from the "European Cup" to the "Champions League" and reasons why the change happened if necessary.
  • On the cities in the table some cities/countries appear more than once and are linked multiple times, is the necessary?
  • Maybe a mention of how the city/stadium for the final is chosen would complement the listings in the table.
  • Newspapers (guardian/telegraph/times) should be in italics in the references. (Rememeber websites like BBC Sport and UEFA do not need italics)
  • Reference 3 is incomplete: it should read: Hylands, Alan. Top 5 UEFA's Badge of Honour winners. about.com Retrieved on 2008-06-23. When an author is identified it should be included and the "root" website should be stated as the publisher. Otherwise references look reliable and in good order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - is about.com a reliable source for football articles? I did not think it was generally a WP:RS Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
This was already separate anyway, it was just under finals instead of champions, personally I think that table should be removed from UEFA Champions League, as this allows a more specific approach to the champions just like List of Masters Tournament champions, where the table for the champions is also in the parent article. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Broadcast information for "La Famille Passiflore : [émission du 24 Décembre 2001]"" (in French). Institut National de l'Audiovisuel. 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  2. ^ a b "Broadcast information for "La fée Pirouette"" (in French). Institut National de l'Audiovisuel. 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  3. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. World Economic Outlook Database-April 2008, International Monetary Fund.
  4. ^ Data refer to the year 2006. Total GDP 2006 & Population 2006, World Development Indicators database, World Bank, April 11 2008. Note: Per capita values were obtained by dividing the Total GDP data by the Population data.
  5. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. GDP (official exchange rate) & Population, The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. Data last updated on March 6 2008. Note: Per capita values were obtained by dividing the GDP (official exchange rate) data by the Population data.
  6. ^ Data refer to the year 2007. World Economic Outlook Database-April 2008, International Monetary Fund.
  7. ^ Data refer to the year 2006. PPP GDP 2006 & Population 2006, World Development Indicators database, World Bank, April 11 2008. Note: Per capita values were obtained by dividing the PPP GDP data by the Population data.
  8. ^ GDP - per capita (PPP), The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. Data last updated on March 20 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/June_2008&oldid=930790269"