Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.	Shortcuts: WP:PR WP:REVIEW The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles
Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews). To add a nomination: Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new discussion page. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field. You may wish to request peer review on the appropriate Wikiproject; the request will automatically be listed here as well. How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title. Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress. How to remove a request In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month, inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments) articles that have become featured article candidates After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview}}. How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time: Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] or the next open archive Edit [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion. Update the article talk page to reflect the new link to the archived peer review Place {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below. Current archive: September 2007 Purge server cache

Related pages:

Topic-specific peer reviews (full list):

Other peer reviews:

Contents 1 Requests 1.1 List of Gillingham F.C. players 1.2 Frank Sinatra Has a Cold 1.3 All Blacks versus France at rugby union 1.4 Transportation in Omaha 1.5 One Rincon Hill 1.6 One Night Stand (2005) 1.7 Reparative therapy 1.8 Harry Potter in translation 1.9 Hugo Danner 1.10 Pulp Fiction (film) 1.11 Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) 1.12 Romania 1.13 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) 1.14 Cathedral School for Boys 1.15 Territorial claims in the Arctic 1.15.1 Automated peer review 1.15.2 Comments by Twigboy 1.16 Erbert & Gerbert's 1.17 Path 66 1.18 Path 26 1.19 Path 15 1.20 Council of Europe 1.21 Mackem 1.21.1 Mattythewhite 1.22 New York University 1.22.1 Thoughts from JayHenry 1.23 Precognition 1.24 Myles N. Kenyon Cup 1.25 Say You'll Be There 1.26 University of North Dakota 1.27 Adam Clayton 1.28 Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony 1.29 Salvia divinorum 1.30 Claims to be the fastest growing religion 1.31 Freddie Mercury 1.32 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident 1.33 List of Wisden Trophy records 1.34 A Vindication of the Rights of Men 1.35 Fist of the North Star 1.36 Animaniacs 1.37 Bangladesh Liberation War 1.38 December to Dismember (2006) 1.38.1 Automated Peer Review 1.38.2 Comments by Nikki311 1.38.3 Comments by GaryColemanFan 1.39 Anti-stuttering devices 1.40 Ceres (dwarf planet) 1.40.1 RJHall 1.40.2 DTGardner 1.41 Villa Park 1.42 Donald Bradman 1.43 Caroline Todd (Television character) 1.44 Bali Nine 1.45 Clonaid 1.46 A.F.C. Wimbledon 1.47 Green turtle 1.48 Pauline Fowler 1.49 Nadine Baggott 1.49.1 DMcMPO11AAUK 1.50 Gilbert Perreault 1.50.1 Automated review 1.50.2 Yannismarou 1.51 Jatropha 1.52 Human rights in the People's Republic of China 1.53 Ryan White 1.54 St Mark's Basilica 1.55 John Baldwin (educator) 1.56 Artemis Fowl (novel) 1.57 Elf (Middle-earth) 1.58 "Weird Al" Yankovic 1.59 Belfast 1.60 Manchester 1.60.1 Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments 1.61 Robbie Blake 1.62 61 Cygni 1.63 Oxford United 1.63.1 review 1.64 Richard Rory 1.65 1964 Brazilian coup d'état 1.66 Heavy Metal Umlaut 1.67 John Cena 1.68 Scrubs (TV Series) 1.69 Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven 1.69.1 Cla68 1.69.2 AZPR 1.70 Odex's actions against file sharing 1.71 The Colony High School 1.72 Long-term potentiation 1.73 Soilwork 1.73.1 LuciferMorgan 1.73.2 J Milburn 1.73.3 Cricket02 1.73.4 M3tal H3ad 1.73.5 Leon Sword 1.74 Reasonable Doubt 1.75 Animation 1.76 Therapies for multiple sclerosis 1.77 Cirque du Soleil 1.77.1 review 1.78 North Sea 1.78.1 RJH 1.79 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix 1.80 History of artificial intelligence 1.81 Palm Island, Queensland 1.82 Enter Sandman 1.82.1 M3tal H3ad 1.82.2 J Milburn 1.82.3 Cricket02 1.82.4 Seegoon 1.82.5 Update from Serte 1.83 Byron Nuclear Generating Station 1.84 Cow & Chicken 1.84.1 J Milburn 1.85 Jayne Mansfield 1.85.1 By Totnesmartin 1.85.2 By Aditya 1.85.3 By SandyGeorgia 1.85.4 By 138.67.44.69 1.86 Saint Patrick 1.87 Council of the European Union 1.87.1 From User:JayHenry 1.88 Doping at the 2007 Tour de France 1.88.1 DeLarge 1.89 Avatar: The Last Airbender 1.90 New Jersey Route 33 2 Archives

[edit] Requests

[edit] List of Gillingham F.C. players

Obviously I realise there are still quite a few redlinks on this list (33 as I write this, I believe), but I'm working my way through creating those articles. In the meantime I thought I'd bring this article to PR to see if there's anything else I need to do to get it to FL status.......

Cheers,

ChrisTheDude 09:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This'll be why you were asking about pre-1960s positions then. Is there some missing information preventing you from including cup appearances too? Nothing else stands out as being amiss. A strict grammarian might dislike the use of "whilst", several style guides (or at least the Guardian one I use) discourage it. Oldelpaso 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't include cup data because Neil Brown's site doesn't include it and neither does Roger Triggs' book (Soccerbase does but this is obviously only any good for players in the last decade or so). I've just taken out a one-month subscriptions to allfootballers.com, which does include cup data, so if I have time I will rejig the page to include it..... ChrisTheDude 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually there is some info I can't obtain - whilst while allfootballers.com does list cup appearances, it only does so for the seasons during which the Gills were in the Football League. Some players on the list, such as Jock Robertson, also played for the club while they were in the Southern League and Kent League, and, whilst I could justify leaving out their matches in these competitions due to them being at a non-league level, they probably also played in some FA Cup matches during that time, but allfootballers does not record these, nor does any other source I can find. Therefore, to avoid including data which I can't guarantee to be 100% complete, I'd prefer to restrict it to league stats only........ ChrisTheDude 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Sinatra Has a Cold

I've listed this good article for peer review because I want feedback on how to go forward. It's a bit of an odd subject—an individual magazine article (although one of the most influential of all time). I'm mostly interested in what sections people think this article should have if it were to become a featured article. Other comments are of course welcome, but I'm really hoping to get some guidance on the structure. Thanks, --JayHenry 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Blacks versus France at rugby union

This has recently been promoted to Good Article status and I would like to get it to Featured Article status now. Would like any feedback on how to achieve this. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation in Omaha

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to carry it through to featured article status, which I've never done. I would also like to use the reviews here to help hone my editing skills, which after I've created 300+ new articles I think need honing. Any suggestions about content, writing style or anything else are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

– Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Rincon Hill

Link to old discussion here.

I've re-listed this article for peer review because I have cleaned up the article greatly after the last peer review. Unverifiable material has been removed, certain sections have been cleaned up and organized and an infobox has been added. However, I would still like to know how this article could be improved and I am also wondering if this article meets GA-standard.

Thanks,

_{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Spebi

• A lot of the articles in red links I see will probably not be notable enough to receive their own article, so sift through the current red links and determine whether the link is worth keeping or not.
• Is it possible to expand the lead section a bit more? The lead section must summarise the whole article sufficiently, so one could read the whole lead section of an article and have a good understanding of what the subject is about.
• "[...] entrance will be located on the sixth floor, and the "first" floor will be [...]"; "first" is in quotation marks, "sixth" isn't. Decide whether it's neccessary – marks or no marks, it must be consistent throughout the whole article.
• When discussing gallons and litres, or metres and feet, remember to link the unit of measurement. The same principle applies when discussing currencies; use USD$100,000 (and future instances use USD$100,000 without the link) instead of just $100,000.

Other than that, it has proved quite a bit since I last had a look through. Good job at finding sources, and generally improving the article. Another thing I might suggest is find another editor at a relevant WikiProject or another editor in the San Fransisco area to collaborate with; taking on a project by yourself can be fun, but working with others can vastly improve the article and it makes it easier to spot errors and make changes if someone helps out. Sebi _[talk] 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - removed redlinks, quotation marks, formated units. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 07:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - also did a minor rewrite of the intro; how does it look? _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Night Stand (2005)

Article currently at "B" level, with the intention of nominating it for GA after the peer review has finished. Thanks, Davnel03 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through and made a few changes. The biggest concern I have so far is in the final "Background" paragraph. It's not very clear which sides the Dudley Boyz and Maven are on. They're not listed as ECW Originals or RAW Invaders, so it's a little confusing. GaryColemanFan 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a little. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Carrying on...

-What is a Whipper Snapper? A reference in the text would help. Also, it's spelled as one word in the text and two words in the results section. It should be consistent.
-Some context would help explain the reference to Matt Freakin' Hary.

The reason I inserted the reference is because it might be considered "material that could be challenged" - especially if this one day heads for FA - thats why its there. I don't want to really go into detail over why its important, otherwise I could head off track. I'd go into detail about that probably only in Hardy's own article. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-"entered the picture" sounds a little colloquial and doesn't really explain what happened. Did they enter the ring? Appear at ringside?

Changed picture to ring. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-"Nova plays with WWE"...this should be past tense, right?
-"Sandman shouted for a beer repeatedly" is an abrupt ending to the paragraph. Could something be added? Did he get any beer?

I've actually gone and combined the two paragraphs. The paragraph about the last match, and the last segment. My reason being is that in the actual event, there wasn't a break as such between the match and segment. The end of the match led into the last segment. I hope that doesn't make the paragraph too long now! Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, another great article. I made some changes, but this is all the rest that I came up with (and I just fixed a couple of these, so they're crossed out). GaryColemanFan 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

*Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) - I have the tool this is no use to me. Davnel03 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reparative therapy

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA status, and think I'm almost there.

Thanks,

Fireplace 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter in translation

I'm thinking of nominating the "List of translations by language" section of this article for featured list. Does the fact that the complete article contains more than just the list itself make it a better or worse candidate for featured list? Should the list be broken off into a separate article?

Thanks,

woggly 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Danner

I just recently expanded this page from a single paragraph to it's current status. I think it is nearly "Good Article" (GA) class, but I want to get other editor's opinions on what can be done to improve the page further. I personally think the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm horrible at summarizing things. I would like it if someone could help me with this in addition.

Thanks,

Ghostexorcist 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction (film)

I've listed this article for peer review because I was just sitting here, eating my muffin, drinking my coffee, when I had what alcoholics refer to as a "moment of clarity."

Thanks, DCGeist 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek)

I am the main contributor to this article and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. I will make brief articles to take care of the red links, but thought I could start the peer review process and work on those at the same time. The article follows the WikiProject Rivers guidelines and uses as models Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek, which are both featured articles. I plan to submit this to WP:FAC when the peer review is done. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is remarkable. The amount of research put into the article is quite impressive. The sentence about the general store, gas station and bed and breakfast could be rearranged. The wording is kind of confusing. I am not sure if all three businesses are at one location or if the b and b is independant of the store/ gas station. Dincher 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much - I have tweaked the sentence in question and hopefully made it clearer, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Dincher 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another idea. Could you add a scale to Image:Plunketts Creek Map.PNG ? Dincher 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have added the scale to the map (may have to WP:BYC to see it). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have copyedited it, but will see if I can get another pair of eyes to look it over (only suggestion in this semi-automated peer review). 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it offers good information but I am not sure weather it is good enough to obtain an FA status. Please offer any suggestions, especially about fluidity.

Thanks,

Nergaal 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 metres, use 000 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;metres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

DONE Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]

DONE Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

DONE Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze).

DONE The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

Article was recently made a GA. I doubt it could become an FA until the DVD is released, but if reviewers think the article looks fine right now and don't think the DVD release is subject to make the article unstable, then I'd be interested in sending it to FAC. Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral School for Boys

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked quite a lot on this article and I am proud of it. I have put much effort into referencing it, establishing notability, copyediting and so forth. I would like to see if the Wikipedia community thinks of it as a quality school article. Thanks,

Marlith ^T/C 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial claims in the Arctic

I've listed this article for peer review because I have no idea about the direction I should take this article in, and I would appreciate some more feedback on it's current status. Mainly, I have revamped this article to include blurbs about the Northwest Passage, Hans Island, and the Beaufort Sea. Whether this is appropriate/necessary, I am unsure. Feedback on the talk page has been okay, but I would like to see more. Any other review items such as format etc. would be great too.

One million thank yous,

-- Reaper X 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 47 nm, use 47 nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 47&nbsp;nm.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), program (A) (British: programme).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Twigboy 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Twigboy

• Inline citations could use consistency and expansion with the {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} templates.
• Footnote 1, 12 and 16 have broken links, as Yahoo news does not keep articles for long. If they were Associated Press stories, there may be alternative sources.
• Footnote 24 uses name="disputes" which is a nonexistent name and an empty reference.
• The "North Pole" headline should probably be "North Pole and Arctic Ocean" because claims, such as the 1926 USSR claim include a large wedge of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole.
• Canada's reaction to Arktika 2007 comes before Russia's North Pole claim (due to alphabetical section order). Therefore the reader has to click the link and get the context of Arktika 2007 before the quotation makes sense.
• I think the section heading "Recent claims" might be better written as "21st century claims". 2001 may not be seen as recent by some, and the passage of time makes "recent" history.
• Other than Russia, the subsections under Recent claims are short. Suggestion: present this section chronologically, rather than sectioned by country.
• Hans Island section needs more references. The border drawn by the treaty (127 points) especially should be sourced.
• The first mention of the US not signing the Law of the Sea is under the headline "Beaufort Sea". This might be significant enough to merit an earlier mention in the article, perhaps even in the lede.
• Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage are a bit short. It seems that Northwest Passage" should be the first section; to me, this is historically the most significant Arctic claim.

—Twigboy 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erbert & Gerbert's

I've listed this article for peer review because the page is in far better shape then previously, and is well sited with relevant information. I would like to see what areas are in need of improvement.

Thanks,

Colslax 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Path 66

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.

Thanks,

_{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Path 26

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.

Thanks,

_{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Path 15

I've listed this article for peer review because I need ideas and suggestions on how to improve this article further. To me, it seems like the article is the best it could be for something that is written by a non-expert on the subject matter.

Thanks,

_{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Europe

I've listed this article for peer review because it deals with one of the oldest and largest international organisations (currently 47 countries) and seems to cover its broad scope rather well.

Thanks,

RCS 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackem

Ok then, when I started the work on the article it was in a hideous state with no references and quite a messy context. I have managed to add seven references and clean up the article to a better state and I was planning to take this article on to Good article status however I don't think it is quite ready yet so I would like this article peer reviewed so I can fix any problems which may hold the article back.

Thanks, The sunder king 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mattythewhite

Some comments:

• The information from the sentence starting "The term possibly stems from either ship building.." is only included in the led and not in the rest of the article. The information should be removed or moved into the main portion of the article. See WP:LEAD.
• Sentence starting "Often people from.." doesn't finish with a full stop.

Still no full stop.

• The "Theories of origin" section could do with more references. For example, the paragraph starting "The term could equally be a reference.." doesn't give a single reference.
• The "Famous Mackems" section is very subjective, POV etc. Needs a criteria or should be removed.

Still opinionated and subjective.

• The references should give more info, e.g. title, date, accessdate etc.

One more reference needs more parameters adding.

Hope this helps. Mattythewhite 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Completed mostly everything that's mentioned above. The sunder king 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, what relevance does the bridge have? Mattythewhite 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the bridge is basically a part of Mackem life. It's sunderland and I thought adding a picture would brighten up the article so it didn't look boring. The sunder king 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've just done a general cleanup of the theories section for grammar and weasel words. I didn't see anything requiring cleanup in the rest of the article, but I may have missed some, of course. The article could use some more references, but otherwise it looks good. I will now take a look at the list of Mackems to address the POV concern. Peace, The Hybrid 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, the list of notable Mackems looks fine to me. If we could perhaps be provided with some more specific information about why exactly it is opinionated and subjective, then we would be more successful in addressing the problem that you see. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York University

I've listed this article for peer review because it was just listed as a good article and I'd like more feedback so the article can achieve featured article status. I would like comments and/or contributions on references, pictures, and structure of the article. If you have any other related concerns that would help the article achieve FA status I would love to hear them!

Thanks,

Noetic Sage 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts from JayHenry

• This article's looking quite good. If you haven't already, I suggest looking at the other university FAs at WP:FA#Education, particularly Georgetown University and Texas A&M University. Here are some scattered thoughts:
  • I'd like to see clarification of the founding. "The city's landed class of merchants, bankers, and traders" -- all of them?
  • "Many artists and intellectuals such as Edgar Allan Poe, Mark Twain, Herman Melville and Walt Whitman contributed to the artistic scene near NYU. As a result, they had notable interaction with the cultural and academic life of the University." What does this mean? Were they professors? Did they just walk around the neighborhood? Have affairs with students? These are important historical figures so it's okay to take an extra sentence or two about their connection to the school, particularly if their connection lent prestige to the university. Also in the paragraph below, where it talks about Ginsberg and Dylan. Did they just live there? Did they clash with the university about expansion?
  • I think we need a bit more about the history of the university. Anything noteworthy happen after Dylan?
  • "NYU is ranked #1 in Italian, finance, mathematics, and theater" are these graduate programs? In general, academics needs more flesh. Look at the other university FAs and see what sections might be good to add here.
  • Tisch is a really important and influential school. You can certainly have a whole paragraph about Tisch, instead of just a sentence.
  • Admissions can be a sub-section of academics.
  • Isn't NYU a particularly liberal and activist-minded campus? If it is, this should be mentioned.
  • I'd lose the bit about "New Ivies" from the lead. This was just a gimmicky-thing used to sell some copies of Newsweek, it's not a term that has any significance. Dozens and dozens of schools like to boast about the one time they were labeled a "Catholic Ivy" or a "Southern Ivy" or the "Ivy of Boise" or whatever.
  • We mention football in the lead, so it'd be worth saying why they got rid of the team in the 60s. Generally, anything in the lead should be explained further in the article.
  • Why is "the Bun" mentioned in the section on notable faculty?
• I'll give another read in a couple of days, but those are some ideas on where to work. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. I'll add this review to my watchlist. --JayHenry 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precognition

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article has potential however I'm not sure what else should be done to it. I would like contributors to read the article and then make suggestions on the talk page of the article, or alternatively try to improve it themselves.

Thanks,

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myles N. Kenyon Cup

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think as a relatively historic competition it should have an article of some quality on it and as I am the sole contributor would like a second opinion.

As it's not too long I would like the whole article reviewed if anyone thinks they could

Thanks,

BigHairRef | Talk 07:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Say You'll Be There

Requesting peer review on this article. It's a 1996 song by the Spice Girls. It needs to be edited, revised, and improved by another editor. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you.

Thanks,

Frcm1988 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• You've done a great job at maintaining it, it looks great. I'd recommend extending the lead section a bit more, say another paragraph at the least to ensure that the lead summarises the whole article. I can also see a bit of inconsistency in terms of formatting references; the little <ref> tags must be placed at the end of a period and after a comma or semi-colon. You might consider moving the ref tag to the end of the sentence when it's attached to a particular word, e.g. "[...] where it reached number one in Finland[3]and the top ten throughout.", move [3] to the end of the statement. Sebi _[talk] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to work on that.

Frcm1988

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of North Dakota

I've recently spent quite a bit of effort working on this article. The biggest thing that I have tried to do is source the article. I would like some feedback on any areas that could use improvement. I hope to see this article become at the very least a Good Article and hopefully a Featured Article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Clayton

I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time working towards GA for this, and think that it could reach FA with a little bit of help. Any advice, especially specific advice, is very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Neranei (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the List of U2 awards page and list a few major awards that the band have won, or some awards that Clayton won, or awards for an album that Clayton significantly contributed to or was well-renowned for that particular solo on that song, etc. Otherwise, you've done a great job at keeping the article factually accurate. :) Sebi _[talk] 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I appreciate the help. Neranei (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statler and Waldorf: From the Balcony

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to put all the information on this important and entertaining webshow together on Wikipedia and I want to see what else needs to be done to improve and polish this article to get up to FA status.

Thanks, -Statler&Waldorf 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salvia divinorum

I intend to nominate this article as a featured article, so please leave comments about what this article needs to reach FA status. I feel the article is complete but not perfect, so even minor comments would be greatly appreciated. There is an old peer review archived here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salvia divinorum/archive1 Jolb 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims to be the fastest growing religion

The star article of Wikipedia is here. It's time to put it on our front page.--I told you 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me overall. The lead includes an unsourced referenced to "many...claims and rumours...urban legends." This is a personal opinion, unless verifiable sources provide debunking of such "claims and rumours." List "non-religious" as a religion seems weird to me. VisitorTalk 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freddie Mercury

Review for "good article" criteria.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's great that the article has so many references. That will be a positive going into GA. That aside, however, there are big problems with the general structure and particular sections. First off, the lead is too short. It needs to be expanded and written in paragraphs (preferrably two or three), not isolated sentences. The Legacy section needs to be written in summary style, meaning get rid of the poll lists and write them out in paragraph style. Also I don't see why this section needs four subsections. Those subsections seem to be too particularized to have any significance anyway ('The world's first Indian and Persian rock star' can be mentioned, but it doesn't need a stubby subsection).

I think you also need more information about how he started in the business. Basically, talk about some of the early years. After the Early life section, the next section begins with the sentence, "Widely considered as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music, Freddie Mercury possessed a very distinctive voice." Yeah agreed, but you shouldn't write this so soon in the article. Information like that belongs in the Legacy section. As a general note, there's a lot about his impact and why he was special, but not enough on what he did. There needs to be a little more chronological history there. The Quotes section should be deleted. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Overall though, a fairly good job. I'm sure this will reach GA once these concerns are addressed.UberCryxic 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The article has been improved a lot since the last review. In the first place, the introduction paragraph was expanded in order to better explain why the subject is of importance. The awkward Legacy section that once consisted of a series of bullet points has also been incorporated into an actual series of paragraphs. We also did a lot of work in order to better explain what this individual actually accomplished in terms of live performances and solo work, for instance. These issues were barely addressed at the time of the last review. As was suggested, the new article also has a couple of sentences dealing with the formation of Queen and involvement in earlier bands. As was suggested by UberCryxic above, the Early Life section was largely expanded.

I am now interested in further suggestions for improvement. In the first place, I want to ensure that the page reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a fan page. I also want to make sure that it is not too biased (that is very difficult for a fan!) In particular, I wonder whether there is enough criticism. I also wonder whether the article appears to have a neutral tone. Hope to hear some good ideas here. 67.190.44.85 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the value added by the 1964 picture, as his face is hard to see and looks about the same as later in life.

The Axl Rose quote should be moved to the legacy section.

There's a picture of Mercury playing the guitar, but no mention of his guitar playing in the Instrumentalist section of the article. How much did he play the guitar?

"Over the years, rare albums..." should be moved to the Legacy section.

"They nevertheless remained close friends": Austin or the record executive?

Is Collins's quote on promiscuity notable?

The inclusion of Roger Taylor in the stamp is a controversy about postal service decisions, not the band, unless there's evidence that the band lobbied for a stamp breaking the policies. If so, that should be discussed in an article about the band, not about Mercury.

Is the list of instruments used worth including in an encyclopedia article? The main portion of the article already refers to "various keyboard instruments" and "extensive use of synthesizers."

Good luck with your revisions to an already fine article. VisitorTalk 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great to see your advice here. I think that you have a lot of really good points. I am trying to incorporate some of these things. In the first place, I completely removed the stamp controversy, the Phil Collins quotation and the discussion regarding the value of solo albums. We will have to see if other users put them back in. I also changed the sentence that was not clear regarding "the two remaining best friends." User:138.67.44.69|138.67.44.69]] 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Request for a peer review of this article, which has come a long way. A fair amount of work and cooperation has gone into this article, which the main editors feel still may have some issues, and would seek critical evaluation as to its merits (or otherwise), with the aim of submitting it for GA or FA. Thanks,

Ohconfucius 01:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wisden Trophy records

This is a list page which I feel is close to FA standard for lists. Any helpful pointers in improving this page would be greatly appreciated. Monsta666 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the first pointer is to make a separate peer review page! You seem to have put this onto Wikipedia:Peer review/A Vindication of the Rights of Men, which is not where it should be. I think Wikipedia:Peer review should explain how to do it right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Vindication of the Rights of Men

For about a year now, I have been working on a series of articles about Mary Wollstonecraft so that I can submit a featured topic about her. All of the other articles on her works are already FA or on their way to FAC - this is the last one that needs to be prepped. I would therefore appreciate constructive criticism regarding this article's organization, prose, and accessibility. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• What can I say, you've got writing FA's down to a a science. :-) I have no doubt this will pass, it's excellent. But I can still suggest a few tweaks:
  • I'd wikilink "constitutional monarchy" in the header
    • Wikilinked. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of Burke's detractors deplored his support of the French queen ... Wollstonecraft, however, - This is not clear that Wollstonecraft attacked his support of the queen too; when I first read it, I thought she didn't bother with that. The Burke quote occupies too much space in the header, I'd move it down to the text body. Since that quote isn't the main focus of Wollstonecraft's attack, or even the part that makes her text unique among the 70 or so others you mention later, I think the quote is an unnecessary extra in the header. You can put one sentence that she does attack Burke's support of monarchy too, but one reasonable possibility for the header is going straight from "the language that Burke used to defend and elevate it" to "By redefining the sublime and the beautiful".
    • I have removed the 'however" to avoid confusion. Wollstonecraft does attack the queen passages quite a bit (this was supposed to be conveyed in the "Sensibility" section), so I'd like to leave that quotation in, particularly so readers can get a flavor of Burke's writing right away. It's only 1.5 lines. It is Burke's treatment of Antoinette that galvanizes Wollstonecraft's feminist response. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • she believed in progress and derides Burke - same tense probably better. Maybe "supports progress"?
    • The past tense goes with "influenced by Enlightenment thinkers" - she no longer believes, since she is dead, but she derides in the book, because we can still read it (it is called the "literary present"). Somehow, the other way just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe I should just redo the whole sentence to avoid the problem? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • opposed to government corruption and war because it only profited ; critiqued monarchy and aristocracy because they believed it drew power away - unfortunately, "monarchy and aristocracy" or "corruption and war" are two subjects joined by an "and", so can't be "it". "they believed these", perhaps, or even a different phrasing?
    • Reworded. Don't know if it's there yet, but I think it's better. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the English civil war - needs capitalization to differentiate; there were lots of English civil wars, but you seem to be referring to the one with the Cavaliers and Roundheads, which is the English Civil War.
    • Fixed. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wollstonecraft wrote frantically while her publisher Joseph Johnson printed the pages. Halfway through the work, however, - This is confusing, I'm not sure what you mean by "printed". Did he really typeset the plates and make thousands of copies while the latter pages were not even written yet? Why? Did he release the earlier pages separately from the later ones? Or if you mean something else, please specify.
    • Yes he really did print the pages - this is how political pamphlets were written and printed at the time. It was important to print them fast, so they were printed as they were written. They were not released as they were printed, however. You read the passage correctly. How can I make this meaning clearer? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Godwin, in his Memoirs of Wollstonecraft, describes it as “a temporary fit of torpor and indolence” - but later you write "William Godwin... in his Memoirs of Wollstonecraft, he dedicated only a paragraph to the work" -- is that really correct? He didn't describe the book much, but did describe the pause in its writing?
    • Yes, Godwin spends more space describing the writing of the book than the actual contents of the book. He says that what will interest the reader is this story about her stopping in the middle, etc. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 18 December - wikilink so {{WP:DATE]] will work consistently. I have my date preferences set to American style, so to me the text shows: "Published anonymously on November 29, 1790,... Only three weeks later, on 18 December".
    • Fixed. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "criticizing hypocritical liberal who talk" - liberals, perhaps? Or (sic).
    • Fixed typo. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the most famous reply, Paine's Rights of Man - was this at all influenced by Rights of Men? Were they compared? The title seems rather similar.
    • Paine's book may have been influenced by Wollstonecraft's - Paine and Wollstonecraft knew each other through their publisher, Johnson. The phrase was common at the time. The scholarship on Wollstonecraft's book does not emphasize the comparison, however. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • mirroring Burke's Reflections, the text follows the associations between topics made by the author - which author? Does it follow Burke's Reflections, topic by topic, or does Wollstonecraft have her own pattern of topics that has little to do with Burke's ordering of them?
    • Clarified (I think). Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • endorses a commercial society ... For her, commercialism... However, several years later, she would question the ultimate value of commercialism- can you find a wikilink to an article that goes in greater depth on what "commercialism" and "commercial society" means? It seems an important concept to this article, yet demanding more scope than can be afforded here, so crying out for a wikilink.
    • I've linked to commercialism. I am loathe to link too many things here as Wollstonecraft was not primarily an economic writer and connecting her to specific economic theories would be disingenuous, I think. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Although not a communist, she did desire a more equitable distribution of wealth - ouch, that's a heavily charged sentence, and ahistorical. Surely the concept of communism as such wasn't in discussion at the time, so I doubt anyone would have asked her whether or not she was one. Perhaps you mean anarchist, or some other older concept?
    • Sapiro, my source, uses the word "communist" - it's not "Communist". "Anarchist" is quite different than communist - the thrust of the sentence is that she didn't want land to be divided perfectly equally. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Sensibility section seems very similar to the Political Theory section. They each discuss Wollstonecraft's attacks on Marie Antoinette, her support of Richard Price, "false feeling" in one and "insincerity" in the other... Duplicate repetitive unnecessary redundancy repeated over again? :-) Either emphasize the differences, or combine. By the way, I like the contrast of the two pictures, of Marie Antoinette, smiling, in a beautiful gown with feathers and roses, and immediately below, of Wollstonecraft, merely serious, but in contrast almost scowling, in plain and dark clothes, crouched over a book.
    • They do use the same examples, but I do not feel that they are discussing precisely the same topics. The "Political theory" section uses Antoinette to discuss Burke's defense of aristocracy and uses Price to discuss Wollstonecraft's defense of the middle class. The "Sensibility" section uses Antoinette to discuss the "false" vs. "true" feeling binary, a major point in the text, which is related to, but not the same as Wollstonecraft's promotion of a society constructed around "universal benevolence" (something she gets from Price, as I mention). The themes of this book overlap quite a bit, but I think that these are separated enough to be distinguishable. I actually chose to use the same examples to try and make them clearer. Perhaps that was not the best choice. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After the first edition sold out, - any information on how many copies sold, either total or in the first edition? To compare to Burke's 30,000 copies in two years, and Thomas Paine's 200,000?
    • We don't have Johnson's records from this time. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While most of the early reviewers of the Rights of Men ... criticized the work's emotionalism - Did they only criticize emotionalism after finding out the author was female, or were there any criticisms in that vein even when the author was anonymous? "Early" seems to imply the latter, but other parts in the article would seem to imply the former.
    • The criticisms of the emotionalism increased. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • as Johnson contends, - you probably need to specify Johnsons here, as one was her publisher who drove her to write the second part under discussion, and another seems to be a modern feminist reviewer.
    • Added first name. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Helpful as always! Awadewit | talk 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fist of the North Star

I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• I think the lead length is OK.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animaniacs

I've listed this article for peer review because I've got it to Good Article status, and i'm trying to get it to featured status. Basically, I want to know if something's missing, and if something seems inadequate in the article. Thanks, Gak Blimby 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 47 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done article. I have only a couple of minor comments:

I don't see a mention of who did the voices for Pinky and the Brain.

OK, I'll write that in. Gak Blimby 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) - Y Done

Did Richard Stone play all the instruments, or use synthesizers to create all the musical tracks? VisitorTalk 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Animaniacs had a 40-piece orchestra, with music composed by Richard Stone. It says so in the article. Gak Blimby 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) - Y Done

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

The single most important happening in the history of Bangladesh, one of the major happenings in the Cold War with major implications for India and Pakistan and some implication for USA, USSR and China, one of the major political geographical change in the post-WWII world besides splitting of Korea and merger of Germany and the biggest genocide of this period, and a somewhat a cause celibre for the flower generation besides the Vietnam War - this certainly warrants some attention... well, a lot of attention. The article has just gone through a collaboration of active WikiProject Bangladesh participants who are not large in number, and needs a lot of help from the community. Please, post your comments, and lend a hand hand, too, if possible. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;km.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the article making detailed criticisms.

• Political differences
  • Statements need footnotes referencing sources
  • "After the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951..." Say who he is in brackets.
  • "The military dictatorships of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan," give dates in brackets after each name
  • "Finally, when Sheikh Mujib's Awami League won a clear majority in the elections of 1970" you need to explain this a lot better
• Military imbalance
  • This section is too heavily weighted to Bengali grievances.
  • Can the Pak Army's beliefs about martial races be traced back to their British military heritage.
  • "The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 over Kashmir also highlighted the sense of military insecurity among Bengalis as only an under-strength infantry division and 15 combat aircraft without tank support were in East Pakistan to thwart any Indian retaliations during the conflict." This is very biased. What fighting was on the East Pakistan front in 1965? How many Indian divisions faced W Pakistan, and how many E Pakistan.
• Language controversy
  • Statements need footnotes referencing sources
  • What is the West Pakistan POV?

It would help the balance the tone of this article if it were moved to Bangladesh War of Independence --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Mohammad Ali Jinnah – say who is was in brackets
  • "Later, in memory of the 1952 killings, UNESCO declared February 21" when did they do this?
• Impact of the tropical cyclone
  • Very biased
  • Statements need footnotes referencing sources
  • Please can we have some W Pakistan or Pakistan Government sources
• Prelude to war (first part)
  • Well written, but statements need footnotes referencing sources
  • Need to explain ZA Bhutto's POV
• Violence of 25 March
  • Need to explain Pak government POV
  • Need better sources for the casualty and rape claims. Estimating casualties is difficult. In the 1965 war Indian and Pak casualty estimates differed by a factor of 3 – before criticising this remember that the US made much worse enemy casualty estimates for the campaigns against Iraq in 1991 and 2003+, and against Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo conflict.
  • Statements need footnotes referencing sources
• Declaration of independence
  • This section is good – but give full references to sources in footnotes, not the text.
  • However make the statement "In July 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly referred to the former East Pakistan as Bangladesh.[16] Some Pakistani and Indian officials continued to use the name "East Pakistan" until 16 December, 1971." part of a new section India
• India
  • Now would be a good point to explain what neighbouring India was doing. The meeting between I Gandhi and the CoS needs recalling. She was very angry that he told her that the Indian Armed forces were not ready for war, but she took notice of him, and got the Army ready for war. These events are of enormous significance. You need to explain how India supported and encouraged the insurgency.
  • You also need to explain the Pak government's understanding of what was going on with respect of Indian military preparations.
• The war
  • You need to work on the structure of this part of the article and of the one on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 so that a reader can relate them
  • You need to explain the Pak Army military strategy. (It is worth having a section comparing and contrasting the Pak efforts in 1971 in Bengal with the J&K Army's strategy against Pak-sponsored insurgency in 1947)
  • You need to explain what the Mukti Bahini were.
  • The Mukti Bahini's naval campaign using frogmen with limpet mines was an astonishing achievement. This need explaining
  • Phase 4: December 3-December 16 should explain how the Pak Army was deployed – it had a lot in common with that of the J&K Army in 1947
• Atrocities
  • I have my doubts about the reliability of many of the sources. Try to find Indian military sources; Indian military writers tend to have credibility.
• Foreign intervention
  • You should quote Indian military sources on how IAF pilots expected to have to make attacks on the USS Enterprise in their Hunters.

--Toddy1 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December to Dismember (2006)

Article currently at "B" level, with the intention of nominating it for GA after the peer review has finished. Thanks, Davnel03 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is . CM. - Doesn't apply CM comes up with CM Punk! I have the semi-automatic javascript programme, so I knew that anyway! :) Davnel03 08:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) DTGardner Note: not much that the program came up with, very nice article, i will gladly go through it by hand if you would like, just leave a request on my talk page. once again, good work.

[edit] Comments by Nikki311

I just fixed some of the comma and grammar problems in the article. You want to avoid saying things like "he overcame the odds" and "this is notable" because it begins to sound weasel-y or peacock-y. Also, one more small thing...in a previous GA review (I forget which one) it was mentioned that adding parenthesis around words like kayfabe was un-encyclopedic, and that just writing out the word without the parenthesis was fine, and actually preferred...so I took those out, as well. Nikki311 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by GaryColemanFan

I think the article is well-written. I do have a few thoughts, though:
(1) I split up the first sentence because I thought it was a little awkward.

Yep, OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(2) the reference to PPVs becoming tri-branded in the first paragraph - Nikki added an internal link to give some clarification, which helps. I might take it a step further and say "before their decision to include wrestlers from RAW, SmackDown! and ECW on all of their PPVs."

I've added that little part, but kept "therefore making them tri-branded" on the end. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(3) I don't like passive voice, so "which was won by Lashley" sounds a little weak.

Can't think of a way to reword that at the moment. Maybe add a little onto the end of the sentence to make it: "which was won by Lashley after hitting a spear on Show". I'd like to know other opinions on that before I insert it. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"which Lashley won after hitting Show with a spear" should work. The Hybrid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Davnel03 07:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(4) Is "buyrate" considered jargon? Even if it is, the end of the sentence clarifies it pretty well, so I don't know if it's an issue.

Not really an issue; even if it was; I don't consider buyrate jargon. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(5) I changed "Outside of its normal broadcast" to "Outside of the weekly broadcast" because the "its" was a little vague.

Yep, sounds better. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(6) I don't fully understand why the main feuds on RAW and SmackDown! matter. Could a line be added to explain why this is significant?

It shows that the ECW feuds weren't getting exposure on "higher rated" shows, therefore it was holding the storyline back. Also shows that the other two shows had different storylines going on at that period of time. I think it adds nicely to the background. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(7) "Rob Van Dam decided to cash in this championship opportunity" sounds too in-universe...maybe the addition of "kayfabe" before "decided"?

"Rob Van Dam kayfabe decided......." your version - personally I think that sounds weird, like the tone is completely changing. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

::"Rob Van Dam was granted the storyline spot of challenger for the WWE Championship, kayfabe cashing in his MitB Opportunity." The Hybrid 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he wasn't going for the WWE title, and secondly he wasn't cashing in his MITB opportunity! I think you're talking about One Night Stand 2006! :) Davnel03 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC) - Mistake by Hybrid. Davnel03 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(8) "5-on-5 Survivor Series match at Survivor Series" sounds redundant...maybe "5-on-5 match at Survivor Series"? I changed this to "5-on-5 elimination match at Survivor Series.

OK. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(9) The last two sentences in the second "Background" paragraph: I'd split up the first and make it "Meanwhile, CM Punk faced Test..." or "Later in show, CM Punk..." And I don't understand the reason for the "however" in the final sentence...could it be removed?

Changed dramatically to: "On the final episode of ECW before December to Dismember, Van Dam defeated Sabu. Later in the show, CM Punk faced Test, but both men were counted out in their match. In the main event, Big Show was disqualified in his match against Lashley as Test and Heyman's............" Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(10) In the sentence that begins with "Unlike the Extreme Elimination Chamber rivalry..." the word "between" seems out of place (unless I'm reading it wrong...the sentence is a little confusing).

Yep, it does sound a little confusing. I've reworded the sentence. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(11) The reference to DX...is it clear enough that this is Degeneration-X? It might be.

I came accross a similar situation while in GA hold situation with the Randy Orton article. DX was written like "D-Generation X" twice, and the reviewer pointed out to me that it should be spelled out the first time, in this case at the start of the background section, then abbreviated subsequently, like I have with "D-Generation X" the first time, but there after used "DX". I'll take another example with Rob Van Dam. The first time I mentioned his name, I mentioned it fully. There after, I just simply put it as Van Dam, removing the Rob. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(12) The sentence that begins with "The fans inside the James Brown Arena..." They chanted during which match? The Elimination Chamber match? If so, should this be moved to the discussion of that match? Or did the squash take place in the same arena?

Ah, I guess your talking about the part where it talks about Sabu getting taken out backstage? If so, that is a huge error on my behalf. I've changed "match" to "segment" - it was a segment in which Sabu was taken out was a match. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(13) The sentence that begins with "When Lashley's pod opened..." There's a grammatical error in "he used the table that was with to..."

Again, another massive error on my half. I've missed out an important point that evolved during that little part (Heyman's Security Force stopped Lashley's pod from opening), so I've changed that section. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(14) Instead of "WWE.com announced", it might read better to say "WWE announced on their official website that..."

Changed. WWE.com might sound a fansite to a non-wrestling fan. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(15) Is the James Brown Arena "the building of the taping"? If so, the sentence might flow better as "Heyman had even been escorted from the James Brown Arena and sent home"

Nope it isn't. Instead, in your example, I've changed it from James Brown Arena to North Charleston Coliseum (which was the site of the next days taping). Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(16) Why does "pulled" have an internal link to "legit"? I don't get it. Maybe two lines later for "legitimately"?

What would I do without a thing called peer review? Thanks, another big massive error of mine! Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(17) "McMahon was attempting to" might be considered weasel words or POV (or something like that...I don't speak Wikipedian).

Is it POV? I don't think it is - after all, it is backed up by a source. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you're under no obligation to listen to any of this. Just my thoughts, but again, the article's great. I'm just picky. GaryColemanFan 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for that. Davnel03 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-stuttering devices

I just added an article about anti-stuttering devices. I would appreciate anyone checking it over. The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something. For example, the article should have a picture of an anti-stuttering device, but the only pictures I have are of my company's devices. Also the list of companies in the final section should have links to the companies' websites, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policy forbids or just discourages links to commercial websites.--TDKehoe 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate honesty in stating your conflict of interest with this article, which I think generally is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. However, I am very uncomfortable with the inclusion of so much information about your products (which make them look good) and one other product (which makes them look somewhat bad) and very little about the others. In my mind it would be appropriate for each of the products to have entries of approximately the same length and containing approximately the same type of content, (ie very brief description without all the efficacy data) which would help avoid accusations of advertising and COI editing.--Slp1 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres (dwarf planet)

Annyone knows how to improve this article? There doesn't seeem to be much more to say about Ceres, but it is one of the few planets not to be an FA. Thanks if you can helpNergaal 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that with a few touch-ups, this could achieve Featured Article status. Any improvements would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Yesiammanu 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appeared that a PR entry was generated but it has not been archived, so I'm speculating that the entry was never added to the main peer review page. I'm adding it in now. This page may become very topical in about 7-8 years due to the upcoming Dawn Mission. Comments appreciated. (I'm adding my own below.) — RJH (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJHall

Some comments:

• The 'Observations' section could use some work. At present it is very terse: little more than a bulleted list. The section could explain why the occultation was notable, and the discoveries made with the recent telescope observations. Please also include some actual information about observation, including magnitude, angular diameter and so forth. (C.f. Jupiter#Observation.) Some of this is in the 'Physical characteristics' section (the second paragraph), so perhaps it could be moved to the more appropriate location in 'Observations'?
• The 'Asteroid belt' section should really be a link in 'See also', rather than a section.
• 'Namesakes' is a trivia section. Can this be merged with the text? (E.g. in the 'Name' section.)
• The 'Symbol' section is too short. It should be merged.
• There is some bold text in the notes. I think those should be italicized instead.
• The 'Physical characteristics' section only briefly covers the topic of why this body is round. Could this be explained a little more? Also could the article cover the topic of how Ceres was formed and why it didn't swallow the remaining mass in the belt and form a planet?

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DTGardner

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), realise (B) (American: realize), ization (A) (British: isation).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Villa Park

This is part of the continuous improvement by Woodym555 and myself, of all Aston Villa F.C. articles. I've listed this article for peer review because this is the next article we have chosen and wondered what is needed to get this up to GA then FA. Thanks, Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Good article so, some basic things which leapt out at me straight away:

• Ensure all citations comply with WP:CITE for placement.

Done as far as I'm aware

• Cite the 67m pricetag in the infobox.

Done removed as i can't find a ref

• "This is where the name of the famous stand, the Holte End, came from." - not worth a sentence on its own - flow it into the previous. In fact there are a couple of places in the History section which read too choppy and could do with being flowed together.

Done now proof read

• Don't think you need a GB before the pound sign since it's wikilinked to British pounds anyway.

Done

• For FA, you'll need plenty more citation in the History section.
• "...2007/8..." - be consistent with seasons and wikilink as-> 2007–2008.

Done removed now because of the chart

• "Uefa" or "UEFA"?

Done UEFA

• "1980-81" - en dash and link required to season as above.

Done

• Not sure you need the list of semi finals. I'd cherry pick notable ones and leave the rest as the forked article.

I'll shorten it when i know which are notable and why they are?

• Records section should be turned to prose and not keen on the list of attendances - can you get more and graph it?

Done could only find data since 1947. Removed the little section we had put a ref to find the full table That's a start from me. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) everything done apart from the FA Cup semi's

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Bradman

This article has been extensively rewritten and re-referenced. I realise that some reviewers may have an issue with its length, but I feel that it falls within the guidelines set at WP:SIZE. I would like reviewers to check the referencing and add cns if necessary.

Cheers,

Phanto282 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well I am rather late after the talk page invite. A random point is that the graph that The RAmbling Man made of the batting averages is POV. The scale starts at 50, so it looks as though Bradman is numerically speaking 5 times better than Pollock. And 10 times better than those who average 5... and so forth
  • Forking - Should not be done on the basis of "controversy" - this is POV forking. They should be forked along topical lines eg Don Bradman as a cricket administrator or Don Bradman as a pos-war cricketer and Early career of Don Bradman and so forth.
  • Content black holes - I do not know the most about holes but one thing that definitely stood out was the lack of discussion about the clashes with Fingleton, O'Reilly etc purported to be due to religion. eg see Bill O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton and the relevant sections that I put in about conflict. This is much discussed. A quick google search with "Bradman" "Fingleton" "O'Reilly" "Catholic" "religion" and their various combos will give many links to articles about sectarianism.
• All the best, the Kippax and Bradman articles have improved a lot. I should go and do a proper check sometime although I proably won't be able to point out many interesting things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point that you raised at PR. Perhaps the Fingleton-O'Reilly v Bradman thing is worth a separate article? IMO, the problems between the two factions were in the nature of a personality clash: basically, Bradman had problems relating to a lot of his contemporaries. This analysis that it was sectarian seems to stem from Charles Williams (ie, "they were met by priests in cassocks"), but his evidence is scant. I'm sure that if O'Reilly or Fingleton believed that Bradman discriminated against them on the basis of religion, they would've said so. Do you have a suggestion as to how to make the controversies fork NPOV? Cheers, Phanto282 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not sure that the O'Reilly-Fingleton-McCabe faction was motivated by Irish nationalism or Catholic feeling, but it is a notable hypothesis. Definitely though, the schism probably could do with a start class article where one could state the facts about the existence of tension, the various political incidents like the board meeting and then discuss the various theories being circulated and different people's ideas about the internal team tension and why it arose. Certainly we should not present it as fact that it was sectarian but there are debates by people saying that it was or it wasn't so this is a notable aspect of presenting the support and criticism of the religion theory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the controversy thing, the general policy is that things like that should not exist. We should not have a controversy article fork because in the main article we will have topics A, B, C, D and then we have a criticism/controversy section where we have critA, critB, critC...... The ideal way is to have A (inc controversies of A), B (including controversies of B), ..... etc. eg in Greg Chappell the daughter articles should be stuff like Underarm incident, Greg Chappell in World Series Cricket, Greg Chappell as Indian cricket coach, Chappell Ganguly controversy with the controversies integrated into the sections and duaghter articles rather than have a general biography and at the bottom have Controversies of Greg Chappell as a fork and then lump all the criticism of his coaching and tactics together at the bottom. In general we are supposed to divide sections into different events rather than good/bad. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Todd (Television character)

I am concerned about the way this article is written. Whilst the article is referenced and has no problems with images (as far as I know), I believe the way I have approached this article is all wrong. Comparing it to articles such as Homer Simpson and Troy McClure, I notice there articles are much shorter and more comprehensive. I'm beginning to wonder if the article needs a whole re-write, or if the article is fine as it is and I'm worrying for no reason. I hope to get the article up to GA once all the potential problems have been resolved.

Thanks,

ISD 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the show. I think the article gives a fine overview and is an appropriate length for a character with such a complex history. "Her left hand goes magnetic" needs to be explained. VisitorTalk 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bali Nine

previous PR

I have put in a lot of effort recently into improving this article's reliability, by introducing sources to unsourced claims, and other minor detail fixes that make a huge difference. I would like some feedback about how the article is written, what can be changed and what can be added to the article to promote it to FA. More references is probably an issue, but I'd like to hear more comments about the prose of the article, other wording issues, etc. Kind regards, Sebi _[talk] 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clonaid

I've listed this article for peer review because it was requested by User:Reinoutr during a FAC. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A.F.C. Wimbledon

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see how high it could get on the quality scale.

Thanks,

Sunderland06 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) My comments

• Y done please refer to football clubs as either 'it' or 'they' and stick to the same throughout

actually what you've done isn't what I meant, having the name of the club sometimes is good. I was refering to statements like 'The club places great emphasis on its role' & 'The Dons' success in 2004-05 was not limited to their senior side'. There are lots more. You can either refer to the club as a single entity 'it' or as a collection of people 'they' but if you keep flitting between the 2 it gets confusing. JMiall₰ 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Y done 'agreed to allow the owners of their club to relocate' - could this just say 'agreed to allow Wimbledon FC to relocate'? at present it is slightly confusing
• Y cited done 'their traditional local support dried up almost immediately in a ground-swell of popular protest against the move.' - this is potentially POV and so needs a citation. There are other statements like this, some work definitely needs doing on improving the referencing
• Y done 'leaving AFC Wimbledon as the sole bearer of the "Wimbledon" name' - what about AFC Wimbledon Ladies?
• Y done 'the ground they shared with Kingstonian' - 'share'?
• sort out minor typos
• Y deleted pre honours done why are the Wimbledon FC honours in the article? Those honours do not belong to AFC Wimbledon, they are not the same club, they are a new club with many of the same supporters from the same area. JMiall₰ 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• In a similar vein, the multiple dates of foundation need to be removed, AFC Wimbledon have no legal claim to having been founded in 1889 ChrisTheDude 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green turtle

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm seeing what else is needed before I go forward with the crucial FAC. I know there are still a couple of citation needed tags in the article towards the latter part but I'll deal with those before I dunk it in FAC. Patterned the article after my first successful FA:Hawksbill turtle. I hope there isn't too much stuff to do with this one.

Thanks,

Shrumster 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The title of the article is "Green Turtle", but it is generally referred to in the article as Chelonia mydas, its scientific name. Is there a policy at the Amphibians and Reptiles Wikiproject which states that this is policy? Otherwise, it seems better to use the common name, considering that it is the article title.
• "...it is lightly-colored all around"- all around where? The body?
• "It is illegal to collect, harm or kill individual turtles" - green turtles specifically or turtles in general?
• "...has a dorsoventrally-flattened body"- some readers might not be familiar with the term; it should be linked or explained.
• "denticulation"- same thing.
• "The carapace of the turtle is known to have various color patterns that change over time." -The green turtle specifically, or all turtles?
• The distribution map looks a bit odd in the center there.
• You'll need a ref for the first sentence of the Atlantic subpopulation section
• "the distinct Hawaiian subpopulation"- this is a subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific subpopulation?
• "shallow waters with lush seagrass beds." get rid of the redlink. Maybe just link to Seagrass?
• "specifically, tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) are known predators..." No reason to link the scientific name, as it leads to the same location as the common name, which is also linked. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include the scientific name.
• "Pacific green turtles are known to willingly crawl onto secluded beaches"- only Pacific ones? if so, might be interesting to include reason why.
• "Green turtles reproduce in the typical way that marine turtles do so." which is?
• "Female turtles control mating; males cannot force females to mate" How do females control mating? Explain in the article.

Hopefully these comments are helpful to you. Cheers, Jude. 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Fowler

This article about the 22-year-run of a character in the UK's EastEnders series is already at Good Article status, has been through one Peer Review in May 2007, and had a run at Featured Article in June 2007. After a month's worth of debate, the nom failed, primarily because of too much plot-related information. The article since then has gone through an extensive rewrite, and we'd like to take another run at FA. If successful, this will be the first time that an article about a soap opera character gets to FA status, so this article will be held up as an example for future such articles.

We'd appreciate any further comments from the community, as to whether this article needs any other improvement, or whether we're ready to take another run at FA. Thanks, Elonka 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous peer review: archive

Previous FA nom: archive

Great article and I think you are almost ready for FAC. I wasn't sure not sure about this sentence from the marriage section and had to re-read it a couple of times:

"The storyline continued throughout 1993 as Christine was shown to make greater demands on Arthur, threatening to tell Pauline about their affair unless he did." I think it should say "did so himself" so there is no ambiguity. It might just be me being slow though! I'm only halfway through so I'll let you know if I come across anything else.--Opark 77 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through it. I've altered the sentence per your suggestion.Gungadin♦ 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am suitably impressed. The article is improved beyond measure. I suspect it might get some prose criticisms from those who write better than I do, so it might be worth taking the time to get a copy edit prior to returning to FA. I have a couple of comments for improvement. There's a lot of use of em-dashes in the prose. Em-dashes are a stronger form of punctuation than a comma — more of an interruption than a pause — and so I think it's worth reviewing if they've been overused here and there, breaking the flow of the prose a little too much. My other point would be to look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure about the use of criticism sections. I think "Reception" would be perfectly readable with the two sub-sections merged. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Popularity" and "Criticism" kind of go hand-n-hand. Also, back to that family list at the bottom. It's an unnecessary list, since there are people in the infobox (which I assume are the immediate family...don't know, don't watch the show) and a box at the bottom of the page, which is in plain sight of the family list, that lists everyone again. Since the "Beale/Fowler" link is in the box, people can click that to see a family tree and learn what relation all those people are. "Cultural impact" should probably be titled "In popular culture". "Impact" suggests that she influenced something, when, as I read that section, it just appears that she was referenced in those situations. An example of "cultural impact" (this is hypothetical, as I don't have sources to back it up) would be discussing Sigourny Weaver's impact on the female protagonist genre, with her character Ellen Ripley from the Alien movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some duplication in the infoboxes, sure, but I don't actually mind the infoboxes at the bottom. Building the web, and all that. Would changing the family list in the top info box to The Beale/Fowler family be more appropriate? It would save having to decide which family members to include, and so on. (I'm thinking more as a precedent for other articles here) J.Winklethorpe ^talk 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The family list itself is undue weight, because no one knows what the importance of that is. You have a section called "Importance of family," which makes me think any important family members are already listed there, and everyone else is irrelevant. Again, there's a big box at the bottom the lists all these people already. Building the web means connecting relevant topics (through wiki-linking in sections), but not providing a list of every associated topic, no matter how small in relevance. What the article has is a "See also" section masquerading as a "Family List"; a "See also" section that is already listed just below itself in another box. My suggestion would be ditch both the lists, and do what you suggested, and that's put the "Beale/Fowler" link in the top infobox. This way, you can view the family when you start the article, and if you missed it, you can view it by the time you get to the end (as they are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page). To put a different spin on it, the "Family" list at the bottom is about as necessary as putting a list of all the "Batman" films on every single one of the Batman film pages. There's already a box at the bottom of the page that lists all the Batman films, and any important films (ones that had an impact on the article in question) would be mentioned in one of the other sections anyway. It's just a list, it doesn't establish what its importance is to the character. The only people that know of the importance to the character, for any of those family members, are probably fans of the show, which means to the casual reader it means nothing other than a list of family members (which repeats itself in a box just below the list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd completely missed the "family" section; I thought you were talking info-boxes only. My bad. In which case, I quite agree - there's no need for that family section and the infoboxes. Realistically, everyone of relevance will already have been mentioned in the article, and the info-box links will help anyone who wants to see the full line-up. Anyway, let's wait and see what the editors of the article say. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made a request for it to be copyedited at the league of copyeditors a week or so ago, i'm sure it will take a while to get done though (if ever). As far as merging the "Reception", I dont have a problem with that if this is the preferred method. Do you mean just remove the headings? or do you want the text juggled around too? so that it alternates between crit and praise throughout, instead of just all praise and all crit?

I dont have a problem with removing the family section, but I suspect that others might. A while ago I suggested recreating an individual template box specifically for Pauline, that would recreate all the information in the family list i.e. explain how she is realted etc. This would go on autohide like the templates at the bottom. But I have no experience in making templates, so I dont know if this is possible to do. It might be too complicated to include that much information.

What about if we include this image in the article under the section titled family tree? That way the list would be removed, but the information will still be there for those who want it. I think that would look good actually.Gungadin♦ 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The image basically serves the exact same purpose as the list, only in image form. Generally, family members are not listed unless they have some how impacted the character in question, for example Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, or Lionel Luthor and Lex Luthor. The pertinant (sp) ones should be mentioned, and I think they are in the "Importance of Family" section. Everyone else is just duplications of the box that is just below them. I think the link to the actual family tree article is sufficient. If someone wants to know the details of a topic not entirely related to the character specifically, they can click that link and be taken to an article that covers the whole family and how they are all connected. Who her cousin was isn't going to help you understand her, unless you know how that cousin affected her life (the same goes for her husband, which is why there is a section about her marriage to Arthur).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and defend the family section because I agree that its purpose (linking to related characters) became redundant after the templates were introduced, but many others disagree. Basically, I dont have a strong opinion either way, so if you want to go ahead and remove it then I wont be objecting or reverting. I will leave a note on the project talk page to see if anyone other than me wants to add an opinion on this.Gungadin♦ 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the reception section, I would suggest trying to merge the text in so it reads as a cohesive whole. Trying to make it roughly chronological would probably work. For example, the starting paragraph from each section will probably go together quite nicely, then comments about the character during her run, then comments about her leaving. Really, just try to present it so that NPOV is maintained, and opposing viewpoints are presented fairly. On the family tree, I actually think that the templates are better than the family tree section — they link the articles up nicely. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

done my best.Gungadin♦ 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll let other people voice their opinions. At the moment, and please correct me if I misinterpreted the opinion, it appears that at least three of us agree that the "Family" section, which just lists family members, is redundant to the templates that are already in place and probably also to the section "Importance of family" that details the important family members.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadine Baggott

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like someone to check that It's ok on NPOV, especially in relation to references to (a) websites critical of adverts the subject has appeared in and (b) companies using articles by the subject as product endorsements.

I know that the article is in desperate need of some flesh, and also that it's link heavy.

Thanks,

DMcMPO11AAUK 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DMcMPO11AAUK

I've moved the request to the archive (i.e. withdrawn the request) as feedback would be a more appropriate mechanism than peer review at this point. Hopefully this will in a small way reduce the peer review backlog too. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert Perreault

I've listed this article for peer review because a debate has been going on at User_talk:RGTraynor#Gilbert_Perreault regarding

RGTraynor edits,

TonyTheTiger partial revert,

RGTraynor revert,

TonyTheTiger line by line item by item revert (see edit summaries).

We have taken the article to the talk page of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO with no response. We need some opinions on the level of referencing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated review

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• A picture of him would be helpful, but I do not know if it is easy to find one.
• "Blessed with an uncanny ability to stickhandle in close quarters, he was regarded as one of the most gifted and skillful playmaking centers ever to play the game." Hmmm ... "Blessed with" etc. tend to be a bit POV IMO.
• Anything about his personal life?
• Per WP:MOS, do not wikilink single years ("In 1969 and 1970"), only full dates.
• Try not to have uncited paragraphs like the second in "Professional career".
• The two templates you have after Statistics go at the end of the article.
• Trim as much as you can the "See also" section, incorporating links in the main text.
• I did not follow all the debate, but I tend not to agree with the opinion that "Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations." I am from Greece, and I know nothing about him, so this stuff for me is not "readily provable fact". I need verifiable sources, convincing me that everything you state and assume is accurate.--Yannismarou 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jatropha

This article has benefitted from some recent work, and is related to a timely topic -- biofuels. Jatropha is a genus of (mostly) weeds with oily seeds that may prove to be a good feedstock for biodiesel. Work is going on right now to develop processes and determine economic feasibility. --72.94.157.91 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in the People's Republic of China

I would appreciate a peer review as a preparation for submitting to GA. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, there's a wealth of information here, but I noticed some problems of balance.
  • The introduction should better summarize the article, and shouldn't include information that isn't discussed in more detail further down; I'm referring particularly to the line about the 2004 constitutional amendment.
  • There doesn't seem to be much historical perspective in the article about past human rights issues; while the article should of course be focused on the contemporary, the context seems lacking.
  • The Perspective of the PRC government should be expanded to include a list of those rights the government claims are protected in the country.
  • The material under Protect from the United States government (What's with that name?) should be moved to a broader section on international reactions.
  • The Organ harvesting seems somewhat out of proportion as a relatively small sub-topic, especially since some of the Falun Gong claims it covers at length don't seem to be substantiated. Perhaps this would fit better in a couple of lines under Capital punishment or Other human rights issues.--Pharos 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Ethnic minorities focuses almost entirely on the Tibetans, and the Tibetan sub-section focuses too much on semantic debates over the word "apartheid", rather than the actual political situation in PRC treatment of Tibetans.
  • Political freedom particularly seems rather undercovered (perhaps Freedom of speech too).--Pharos 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten. One potential suggestion: "The government of the People's Republic of China has been widely criticized by other governments, and by human rights advocacy groups, for acting contrary to internationally recognized norms of human rights." The lead should then have a clarification of who these governments and groups are, what are their major concerns, and how has the Chinese government responded to these criticisms - in particular, its concept of economic growth as related to human rights. The article itself has enough references, but is poorly organized and needs significant editing. One topic that is entirely omitted is how differing cultural and religious traditions might have affected the different perspectives on human rights held by Chinese and Western officials. VisitorTalk 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan White

Trying to possibly get this up to Featured Article status. I've been working on it long enough that I just need another set of eyeballs. This is sort of a tricky biography. Completely different than that of your typical historical figure, so I didn't know of a good structural model to follow. I haven't written the lead yet, but it will mirror all the major points of the article (I'll try to do it tomorrow). Also, I've sent image requests to his high school, the Ryan White Care Act, and to Ryanwhite.com, but no success yet. I'm reluctant to use a fair use claim, but I think the article suffers from not seeing a picture of him. --JayHenry 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes I'm using a weird citation system. I'm just doing it during the article writing process, because it keeps things less cluttered for me. I'll do the references properly before I submit to GA or FA. With this peer review I'd just like to focus on the content and structure. Cheers! --JayHenry 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article. My only suggestion would perhaps be to include a few quotations from Ryan himself in there in order to expand the article a bit, especially since he wrote an autobiography. I might also consider giving some more general references to show how afraid people were of AIDS in those early years. I think that people forget about this. There are also a few missing words, but I am sure that you could find them by reading it through really carefully. Good luck.138.67.44.69 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Mark's Basilica

I've listed this article for peer review because the asking for expansion finds only me listening, me new wikipedian. I'll patch below the proposal I put in the talk page.

Hi! As I wrote earlier I am expanding "St Mark's Basilica". My purpose is to save as more as possible of the present chapters, but most of them will be slightly changed to allow additions. I would like to change the section "Early history" to "History", adding a few details but especially moving there historical chapters inserted later in the article. I think this is necessary in order to unify the following sections ("The present building" and "Decoration") in an "Architecture" section divided in "Exterior" and "Interior", as in the article on it.Wikipedia [1]. Since this is my first contribution at all for wikipedia, please help me. Stefano Remo 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,

Stefano Remo 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 inch, use 4 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&nbsp;inch.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[?]
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I have been probably bold enough, the article is completely changed. I am going to add a picture gallery. Please check! --Stefano Remo 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Baldwin (educator)

I've listed this article for peer review because, quite simply, I want to make this an FA. However, since I haven't gottan an article this far, I'd like to see what parts need expanding, improving, copyediting, and the like. Basically whatever's needed to make this guy an FA.

Thanks, Wizardman 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] Y Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?] Y Done
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
  • Very little I can do about this one, unless I add in a pic or two of B-W. I'll try though. Wizardman 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?] Y Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?] Y Done
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
  • Will get on that. Wizardman 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Will get on that. Wizardman 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artemis Fowl (novel)

I think that this article is quite near to qualifying for GA, but I usually overestimate these things, and I expect that further improvement is needed. For this, I'm asking for some help from more experienced article writers :). Any comments/criticisms welcome. Ale_Jrb^talk 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite good, dear, and faily accurate, however:

Mistake #2 & 3: The books suggest that Artemis would not know much about Butler's past, or shouldn't, rather, according to tradition, (which, btw, Butler has breaks by telling Artemis his name, I believe. Sorry, it's been ages since I read them) Juliet trains somewhere in Asia, something we find early on in the 3rd book when Artemis reaches her by calling Madam Ko-- a phone number he shouldn't have, but I suppose we're supposed to write it off to his genius. Anyway, based on the fact that he's not supposed to know much about Butler, I suppose you could assume he wouldn't know if Butler's sensi was alive. But that brings up other plot contradictions.

I also suggest you access: www.orionawards.breakthepressure.com/forums. There is a thread with a great many other major plot holes that might be valuble as well. (and the people are experts, and very nice, and I'm sure would be glad to help you. I'm pretty sure the majority of the members have the book memorized) I'm not sure if there's a subpage about it, but you might also mention it has a small, but very loyal and active fandom, as is evident through the before mentioned site, and Artemis Fowl Confidential. justice 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The mistakes section was actually added while I was inactive; I'm not sure it should be there (too triviaish for my liking, personally). What d'ya think? Ale_Jrb^talk 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For wikipedia, it may be, I'm not sure. There really are a great number of mistakes, such as Artemis's birthday, and things like that... I'm not sure. I would definitely keep the mistakes section small, however. Other than that, I would say the article looked good. However, just because there was nothing glaringly bad about it doesn't mean its absolutely wonderful. I'm not sure I have any great ideas for making it sparkle, unfortunately. Sorry. If you need help with anything, leave a note on my talk page. justice 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elf (Middle-earth)

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been judged an "A" rated article accorinding to WikiProject MiddleEarth, and to improve it further it needs to be reviewed by independant Wikipedians.

Thanks,

Davémon 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking over it, I don't see anything about where Tolkien got his ideas for elves from. I know there have been studies about this, showing that he drew on Celtic and other legends while creating this race. Wrad 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I know that originally Tolkien's elves were more like fairies from popular writings of the time, but later he came to distance his elves from those. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources for their development. Thanks. --Davémon 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Weird Al" Yankovic

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the content is excellent, but the structure isn't particularly clear. There are many small sections, with a lot of facts that don't seem to "gel" very well. I think that this article needs changing somewhat.

Thanks,

Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: Article is already at FA status and has been for over 10 months. --Michael Greiner 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. But I don't want to take it to FARC just yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this FA needs work, and Ta bu shi da yu did the article a favor in requesting a peer review rather than just listing it at WP:FAR, since that provides time for the editors to correct the deficiencies. The TOC is rambling and the article needs better organization. There are WP:MSH, WP:MOS#Captions and WP:DASH problems. References are not fully and consistently formatted (for example, there are many missing publishers, see WP:CITE/ES). A section heading of "Biography" on a Biography is redundant. There are a few throw-away sentences that don't belong in an encylopedic entry (example: An exhaustive list of television shows on which Yankovic has appeared is available on his official website.) I hope the regular editors will take some time (say a month) to clean this article up to FA standard so it can avoid WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is nicely comprehensive. The mention of UHF should refer to its (admittedly thin) plot of a struggling TV station as the justification for the variety of styles, skits and parodies in the movie. Is Donny Osmond the only music star to appear as himself in a Weird Al video? VisitorTalk 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is organized well. It also reads well. My only question is whether the "Misattribution and Imitators" and "Weird Al Star Fund" sections really belong there. They seemed a bit trivial to me. I also thought that the intro was not quite uptight enough in tone for an encyclopedia article. It is as though Weird Al himself wrote the intro! Other than that it looks good. 138.67.44.69 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast

Previous review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Belfast/archive1.

Belfast was peer reviewed in September last year. All the suggested changes have been carried out, and the article has changed significantly since then. It was promoted to GA in March of this year. Any comments and suggestions for improving the article in preparation for FAC would be greatly appreciated. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good article, a few points.
• Intro- 1. is there anything relevant to mention between 1888 and the Troubles? Bit of a gap at the moment 2. The sentences "Belfast saw the worst of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. However, since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, there has been major redevelopment in the city..." don't quite follow. Presumably seeing the worst of the Troubles refers to a lot of violence and major redevelopment refers to urban regeneration/rebuilding.
• History-Should be more of a continuous account of history from Ancient times to the present, seems to be large periods that are not mentioned. Do you think that the Troubles needs to have a subsection-I know it's very important, but at the moment it's emphasised to much in contrast to Belfast's other history, IMO.
• Just looking at the Dublin article as a comparison, have you considered adding info on Nightlife and Entertainment, Shopping-would that be relevant for Belfast? Deus Ex 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which are very helpful. Agree broadly on all points, especially your first two. I think the history section needs most work. I'll start working on 1 & 2 today. I'm not sure about adding nightlife/entertainment and shopping sections. I think these subjects are better incorporated elsewhere in the article, probably in different subsections of the culture section. For example the main theatres and bars are mentioned in Architecture and buildings.

Also, I'd like people's opinions on the crime section. I don't feel this is needed, possibly one sentence from it could be moved to the history section. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the crime section and included some of the content in the history section. I've also added some content to the lead and history sections. There is still a gap in the history section, specifically between the 12th and 17th centuries. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the history section tonight, so I think all the above points have been addressed now. The article passed a GA review yesterday. Any more suggestions? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester

Requesting a new peer review now that Manchester has been promoted to WP:GA and looking to bring it up to WP:FA status as soon as we can. Any criticism or praise is very welcome and we, the editors of the Manchester article, already have some ideas about what to start doing which are at the bottom of Talk:Manchester but we need more ideas, ideally in list form. Thank you very much for your time and we hope to hear from someone soon. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • it is claimed
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments

I'm feeling far too lazy to do a full review, so here are some quick notes, and another auto-pr (if anything has changed!).

• I'm surprised to see there are no co-ordinates (Template:Coord) showing in the top right corner of the screen.
• I think there are too many images - do we really need that many?
• All those templates at the bottom of the article make it look ugly...
• Could just remove the see also section, there's only one item there.
• Sport section needs more referencing.
• So does transport section.
• Image at start of Landmarks section is far too big, IMO.
• Expand the World War II section, if possible.

And know for the auto-PR!

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • it is claimed
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robbie Blake

I've requested a peer review for this article because i have recently spent a few days completely re-writing the article and I am now thinking about submitting it as a good article candidate. Thanks, Childzy ¤ Talk 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont suppose a real person would have 5 minutes to browse through the article? The automated doesnt really help much. Thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Be consistent when using F.C. e.g. He began his career with Darlington F.C in 1994 and has since gone on to play with larger Championship clubs including Burnley and Leeds United has "Darlington F.C" but "Burnley" and "Leeds United". Also, Darlington aren't/weren't a Championship club.
• For references, use a template such as {{cite web}} instead of plain URLs.
• Ensure a thorough spell check is performed - the first section has "Beginings" and "season's"
• What type of striker is Blake? Is he a burly target man? A "fox in the box"?
• Why did he go on loan to Forest?
• Using so many quotes breaks up the flow a bit, particularly by putting them on separate lines.

*Moving up north to Burnley - A touch informal, and Burnley is almost due west of Bradford anyway. Y--Childzy ¤ Talk 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Presumably Jewell made a bid at Wigan because he had worked with the player at Bradford.
• A few sentences need breaking into two or more separate ones e.g. That summer long time Burnley manager, Stan Ternent, left the club and was replaced by Steve Cotterill and under the new manager Blake continued his prolific goal scoring with 13 goals in the run up to the January transfer window.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 61 Cygni

This binary star system was the first to have it's distance from the Earth estimated. There is speculation about a companion planet, but this is yet to be confirmed. The article seems fairly complete, so I am wondering what else needs to be done. Any ideas?

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article, probably A class if I had to grade it. The data and references are first-rate, and the text, despite some jargon, is readable. I wonder if there is any further historical perspective to add: I see no mention of this pair of stars cited between the early 1800s and 1942. Such citations are difficult to find, but could help expand a perspective on the history of this star pair in the study of astronomy. It also could be further emphasized that 11 light-years is quite close to earth for stars. Shalom ^Hello 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll see if I can find anything of interest in the time frame you mention. (Note though that the text does mention it was discovered that this system is part of a moving group in 1911.) — RJH (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford United

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know how it could be improved. I have only recently started editing this article and would like it to eventually become a good article. I think there are too many small sections such as Notable Managers and would like the layout to be more in line with the highere quality team articles

Thanks,

Eddie6705 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple to stat with. Every dubious fact needs citation. Buc 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some pointers:

• Looking at featured quality articles about other teams can help give ideas. Arsenal F.C. is possibly the pick of these, Norwich City F.C., Gillingham F.C. and York City F.C. are other examples for clubs of varying size and success.
• As Buc mentions, it is important to cite sources for facts which could be challenged by a sceptical reader.
• A Stadium section covering the Kassam Stadium and Manor Ground would be of benefit.
• Consider converting the records to prose, see Arsenal_F.C.#Statistics_and_records for an example.
• There is a bias towards recent events. I'd expect the League Cup win, time in the top division and earlier events to get a larger proportion of coverage.
• Is the reason for Oxford wearing yellow known?
• What makes the players in the list of notable players notable?
• Further tips are available at User:Oldelpaso/On Football.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Rory

I've listed this article for peer review because I have written it, and aside from adding a picture, am not sure how to improve it.

Thanks,

Scottandrewhutchins 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1964 Brazilian coup d'état

I've listed this article for peer review because the article deals with an important (and controversial) event in the Cold War and Latin American history, and needs to be brought up to good standards. I would like feedback on possible room for expansion (questions which are unclear to a third-party audience), dealing with RS (it relies heavily on one author, for example) and potential stylistic issues. Basically: if you're not Brazilian, and you're reading this article, what would you be interested in reading about in this moment in history and how do you think the article can better help you understand it?

Thanks,

Dali-Llama 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Metal Umlaut

I've worked on it quite a bit recently. I've shortened the lists, added pictures, etc. I really need more suggestions though. I'm trying to get this article up to GA status. Connör ^(talk) 18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't read the whole article, but I am impressed by the lead section and the background on real umlauts. Consider breaking the main section on gratuitous heavy metal umlauts into subsections. This article may indeed be ready for Good Article status. I think it's also on the list of unusual articles. Shalom ^Hello 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena

Article recently failed FA, see here. I have decided to take it to Peer review to see how I can improve the article ready to nominate for FA again after this Peer review has finished. I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. Thank you, Davnel03 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrubs (TV Series)

I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Jac16888 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the assessment comments you can begin improving the article by converting the lists of cast and crew into prose. I also strongly recommend starting a critical response section.--Opark 77 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by converting the cast and crew into prose, you do mean into straight paragraphs right? Surely that would be a detriment, as it would make it harder to read, and go against the standard for lists of cast, which generally are just that lists.--Jac16888 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is correct actual sentences and paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. It would definitely not be a detriment to the article. You can't get to FA status with long lists like these. Prose makes the article far more readable. If you want to list the cast for functional reasons then do that in a separate article. To someone who has never heard of scrubs a list of cast members tells them little and is quite boring. Introducing the actors and characters one by one with a brief description tells an unfamiliar a lot more in a more digestible manner.--Opark 77 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

i've tried to do this for the main cast, what do you think? If its ok i will do it for the supporting cast section too--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit had since been reverted so I've had a go myself. I've used your prose but have completely removed the bullet points in favour of a paragraph per character.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the revert was to rewrite the material in an encyclopaedic manner; unfortunately, I didn't get that far yesterday. (Sorry!) I've now rewritten the entire section in paragraph form. Please check it out and see how it flows. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead is very short considering the length of the article. Check out WP:LEAD for guidance in expanding it or have a look at some of the other featured articles associated with WP:TV at this link [2].--Opark 77 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i have attempted to to do this a bit, but looking at it, it seems that the synopsis section here actually seems to contain much of the information you might find in the lead section of an article, should i just move it up above the TOC, although having said that, the article is actually missing a Plot section, which, i'd appreciate it if others editors attempted , it's something i'm not great at.--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that seems reasonable.--Opark 77 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've re-read the synopsis - it is mostly an attempt to describe episode structure. Perhaps you could summarise this in the lead but a lot of it is very specific for the intro. I found another useful link for guidelines on what to put on the lead - Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs.--Opark 77 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• At present the article has a very fragmented feel, like a scrap book of everything connected with the show thrown onto one page. Credit for the amount of references, but I wouldn't rank it as a high B -- much work needs doing before GA.

• There are too many lists and short subsections. 'Production details' should be expanded. 'Crew' is a meaningless list. The most important personnel should be integrated within the production section in context.
• The music section is very long, and the section 'Featured musical contributors' is unnecessary. Since music does play an important role in the show, perhaps a daughter article might be best, so that the material in the main article might be cut down and more manageable?

At one point, some editor copy and pasted the whole music section into a seperate section, which was promptly AFD'd and redirected back to the main page, the music section doesn't have enough notability for its own article, see here--Jac16888 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. I'd still lose the bulk of it from the main article. Obviously talk about the theme song, but lose the paragraphs on individual artists. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Along with the bitty-feel, there are many aspects that I'd expect to see on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. For example, the title of the section 'Around the world' is informal, as opposed to 'International broadcast', or similar. 'Cameo appearances' is unnecessary as is Charlie Brown's Christmas.

• Hope this helps. Good luck. The subject certainly deserves a GA article. I hope that some of those doing the monkeyesque redirects can do something more challenging and really improve the encyclopedia by actually contributing to writing this. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven

Hoping to bring it to FA standard. DrKiernan 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cla68

• Every paragraph should have at least one citation, even if it's a repeat of the citation for the following paragraph. It keeps the article from looking like it has uncited text.
• You don't need to put citations mid-sentence, you can combine them at the end of the sentence.
• You don't need in-line citations in the intro if the same information is repeated with citations in the main body, which appears to be the case here.
• You don't have to have citations next to each other, you can combine them into a single citation.
• The information that gives Mountbatten's opinion on something, such as the naval skills of the Turkish navy, should make clear that this is Mountbatten's opinion, not necessarily a generally recognized fact as the text appears to indicate.
• Quotes that are four lines or longer should be blocked (placed in an indented paragraph-see the WP:MOS).
• The last paragraph in the "final years" section needs a citation.
• Identical citations can use the "refname" citation format to combine them in the footnotes section. Instructions on how to do it are here: [3].

All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! DrKiernan 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AZPR

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odex's actions against file sharing

Current event, long-term goal is for the article to pass FAC, would appreciate some relevant suggestions, and some bit of copy-editing.

Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Hildanknight

Great work, Mailer Diablo! The article has considerable GA potential - do nominate it for the GA drive. Once the event and the article stabilises, the article will hopefully be ready for a GA nomination; should the nomination succeed, consider aiming for FA.

• The "Anti-piracy alliance" section needs references.
• Consider expanding the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (although I understand if there is hardly any information available).
  • For the first two, I'll search for more sources. It might be more viable to shift the lot into a new article. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Transferred to new article. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section, "Only a very few cases..." is grammatically incorrect. Either "Only a" or "very", or both ("Only" and "very"), should be removed.
  • Y Done. ('Only' removed) - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• The "Reaction" section states that "The actions have attracted international media". However, the section only discusses the reactions of Singaporean anime fans. It should mention the reactions of "international media".
  • International media does not appear to provide any independent opinion other than relaying what the Singaporean anime fans have already said. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Parts of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section appear to be a "back-and-forth argument between Odex and anime fans". As a result, the paragraph lacks flow. Please think of a better way to organise this paragraph, while maintaining NPOV.
  • Y Done Another editor cut off one portion into a new paragraph. I'll look through again where needed. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Messages include "Me too busy sueing people~" and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders~ serve them right!". - this sentence is grammatically incorrect.
  • Y Done Edited. [sic] added. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Kindly check for original research (synthesis/original interpretation of law) in the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" and "Legal opinions" sections.
  • Going through the paragraph against the original articles text again. They ideally should be 'as is' form. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Removed several phrasings in accordance to WP:AVOID. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• References should always be placed after a punctuation mark, without a space in between the reference and punctuation mark. However, several references are not properly positioned. These include:
  • References 2 and 3 in the first paragraph of the lead section (placed before the full stop).
  • Reference 9 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section (no punctuation preceding it).
  • Reference 23 in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
  • References 27 and 31 in the last sentence of the second-last paragraph of the "Reaction" section (placed before the comma).
  • References 15 and 16 in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Odex v. Pacific Internet" section (no punctuation preceding it).
    • Y Done All fixed. Will check on reference sequencing as well. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ensure that the images (especially the ones in the Reaction section) conform to Wikipedia's (overly restrictive) image use policies.
  • Y Done I thought I got rid of that one. I'll remove the two again. It reeks of WP:OR anyway. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Colony High School

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I believe that it is currently on the right track and has a lot of things going for it. Thanks,

Spikeleefan 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term potentiation

I've worked on this article off-and-on for over a year now, and think it's about time for some peer review. It failed WP:FAC a while back and has improved a lot from the comments made during the process. Suggestions and edits--especially with regard to accessibility to lay audiences, completeness of the article, context, etc.--would be much appreciated. --David Iberri (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soilwork

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for about 2 months now, have turned it from a stub to atleast a B grade article and have added about 30+ sources (it now has exactly 40 sources, including interviews). I just want some feedback and maybe to get this to a GA/FA status.

Thanks,

-- Shatterzer0 02:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's peer review has been listed at the Metal Project. LuciferMorgan 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

Comments;

• The release was well received and brought Soilwork to the forefront of the melodic death metal scene, alongside label mates In Flames.[8] - According to whom? Which critics praised the album, and which critics believe the album brought Soilwork to the forefront of the melodic death metal scene? LuciferMorgan 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• He would be replaced a week later by Richard Evensand.[14] - Future tense needs replacing. Possible alternatives are "He was replaced a week later by Richard Evensand", or "Richard Evensand replaced him a week later". LuciferMorgan 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• In early June, Henry Ranta would leave the band, to focus more on his personal life. - More unnecessary future tense, an "would leave" can be replaced with "left". LuciferMorgan 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Natural Born Chaos was released in early 2002, to much acclaim as well. - According to whom? Which critics acclaimed the album, and what did they say? LuciferMorgan 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Upon changing the band their name in late 1996 to Soilwork they began to make music more influenced by melody.[2] The article fails to mention why the band name was changed, and this has been mentioned in interviews. LuciferMorgan 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Milburn

• The album names should always be italicised- that includes in the section titles. You've missed a few.
• In the Stabbing the Drama section, the first instance of the album name isn't linked, but the second is. I'd switch them around, and preferably even mention the album name in the first sentence of the section.
• The singles section- each single should have quote marks around them. "Song" from Album by Band.
• The album will be released on October 19th on Nuclear Blast Records. Would be nice if there was a reference for this.
• with Devin Townsend (Strapping Young Lad) Being a little tired, I read this as the author saying that Devin Townsend is a strapping young lad, which made me laugh. Perhaps with Devin Townsend (of Strapping Young Lad).
• The band later pulled out of the Turkish dates, due to terrorist attacks and bombings that had recently occurred to tourists there. We may have a more specific article about this, but I can't find one in my 30 second search. May be worth looking for.
• The logo lacks a fair use rationale- a quick-fail criteria for a GA candidate!
• You talk about the chart positions of some of the albums in the prose, but then don't mention them in the discography section.
• In September, Soilwork toured Japan with Children of Bodom[17] Merely days after a short mini-trek tour through Japan, Soilwork also toured Australia briefly.[18] You've missed a full-stop there.

Generally a great article- obviously, my comments are very minor things. I'll take another look when you have worked on mine and LuciferMorgan's suggestions. J Milburn 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket02

• Agree with LM to recast sentences using the future tense "would", i.e. would give, would meet, would leave.

• They also toured throughout the United States for the first time. First with bands Hypocrisy, Scar Culture and Killswitch Engage during the summer,[10] then alongside label mates In Flames during the fall.[11] The latter "sentence" is not a sentence - it contains no subject and no verb. Would combine these two statements somehow or recast.

• Lose red links - either create articles for them or unwikify.

• The bass and vocal tracking was recorded at Studio Fredman, the same place the album was mixed at.[12] Redundant - why not say, ...was recorded and mixed at...

• Merely days after a short mini-trek tour through Japan, Soilwork also toured Australia briefly.[18] "short" and mini-trek" are redudant. Choose one or the other. "also" is also redundant - would simply remove.

• Later that year, they again toured North America with Chimaira, As I Lay Dying and Bleeding Through.[19] Fix link: [As I Lay Dying (band)|As I Lay Dying]

• Agree with JMilburn that albums italicized, songs in quotes. See WP:MUSTARD

• Section: Sworn to a Great Divide - It is assumed that this all pertains to this year - but the year 2007 should be mentioned as this being an encyclopedia - this may be current information now, but will not always be.

• Section: Session Members - there are some capitalization inconsistencies.

• References: ref #6 needs a publisher (fourteeng.net), ref #7 needs a publisher (soilwork.com), ref #8 needs a publisher. This article relies pretty heavily on Blabbermouth.net - and all of those refs need publication dates. Ref #29 - ^ Billboard albums. All Music Guide. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. Can be more specifiic as this pertains only to the album Stabbing the Drama.

• I found the sentence structure to be rather short and choppy in areas. Otherwise, this article definately has potential. Good work so far. ♫ Cricket02 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M3tal H3ad

• September 14th, there should be no 'th' just September 14
• Consider adding years in the titles so we know what the period is for example 'Formative years - 1995-2000' as done in Slayer and Megadeth
• In March 2007, Soilwork began work on their seventh album.

Sworn to a Great Divide In early March, Soilwork began laying down the tracks for their seventh album, Sworn to a Great Divide. The last sentence of the section is the exact same as the firs sentence in this paragraph. I suggest remove the part in the previous paragraph.

• Don't wikilink solo years such as 1995 make it just 1995
• of late 1970s, early 1980s British - There is no point in any of these wikilinks. The first two won't mention the band at all and the link to UK is pointless.
• Upon changing the band their name in late 1996 to Soilwork - guessing you edited this sentence and left a word in there
• to record their third full length album, A Predator's Portrait. The release was well received - by whom? can we get some quotes/opinions from critics please
• with Italian melodic death metal band Disarmonia Mundi. - pointless link so Italian people
• The additional information under band members either needs to be removed or written like an encyclopedia. It sounds like notes ' filled in...also plays...quit due to...
• In the discography section what chart is it? I'm guessing Billboard 200 as chart positions were mentioned earlier about the independent chart.

I'll add more later. M3tal H3ad 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I created a Soilwork template and added a picture by someone who was kind enough to release it under a free license. I know it doesn't show all the band but it would be really hard to get all six members in one photo with a free license. I suggest naming who is who for the picture caption as i don't know any members. M3tal H3ad 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Sword

Well there's not much advice left for me to give since the above editors have already presented a lot of the same concerns I have, but here's a bit:

• Fansites should not be used to cite biographical info. If the info cited is true, it would be much better if it were cited from the band's website or an interview with the band.
• The band members section is too spammy. There is so much info in there that is irrelevant to Soilwork.
• There's a lack of consistency throughout the article. The band's three newest albums each have their own subsection but the other albums don't, they're just thrown into other sections. It would be preferable if time periods were used for the history section or album periods (each album gets it's own subsection).
• The lead section is supposed to be an introduction/overview of the article and should not include exclusive information. Any information provided in the lead section should be explored in greater detail within the body of the article. Currently, the lead section is more of a musical style/critical reception type section.
• Generally, there are a lot of formatting/wiki issues throughout the article that I've been meaning to fix myself, but I keep getting caught up in other stuff. Sooner or later if no one fixes them I'll get to it though. Other than that, the above peer reviews present a lot of valid issues that need fixing. --Leon Sword 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable Doubt

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a featured article really soon. I just want to know what parts of it should be cleaned up and I would greatly appreciate any subsequent copyediting.

Thanks,

Noahdabomb3 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a candidate for including in the Wikipedia for Schools, yet is still a start-class article with mediocre formatting, no citations, and little coverage of such a broad and important topic. Animated cartoon, and many of the history of animation articles also need to be peer-reviewed, although I would like to start with this one first. --FuriousFreddy 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therapies for multiple sclerosis

This has been proposed for review at WP:SPR and also transcluded into WP:PR so the debate will be in one place. However, it awaits a comment from the nominator on what kind of review is required. --Bduke 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of nominating the article for good article; I want to know if it meets the standards both in content and in style for a scientific article. I would appreciate any comments on it. I have spent so many ours with the article that I think a third party review will be very interesting. I know its not very specific; thanks anyway.--Garrondo 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks APR _t 00:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cirque du Soleil

After doing a complete rewrite of this article a month ago, it has received good article status and I intend to list it as a nominee for FA status here in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive input anyone has to make the process run as smoothly as possible.

Thanks,

Trusilver 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a very good article. One glaring inconsistency -- the article generally uses Montreal and Quebec, but occasionally refers to Montréal and Québec. All references should be changed to Montreal and Quebec, consistent with the place name articles themselves, guidelines and the consensus reached in many many discusions. Skeezix1000 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other comments: the section on LOVE reads like an advert, and the section on Arena touring shows needs to be beefed up or eliminated. Hope that helps. Skeezix1000 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the above-noted spelling change. Skeezix1000 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Sea

This article (about one of the world's most important seas) was recently "Collaboration of the month" over at WP:ACID and thus has seen much improvement. A couple of times now people have requested either a peer review or a GA nomination, and I think a review would be extremely useful for the editors to further spruce up the article.

Thanks,

Totnesmartin 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJH

A few random comments:

• The lead section is too short to be a proper summary of the article.
• More citations may be needed in many parts of the article. As an example, the 12-nautical mile territorial claim documented in the "Political status" section.
• In the "Basic data" section, I'd like to have a basis for comparison on the salinity. Could the article list the typical North Atlantic and Mediterranean salinities?
• I'd like to see the bulleted list in the "Water circulation" section converted into a table so that the reader can more readily compare the flow rates of the different rivers. Right now the rates are not aligned in a column.
• In the first sentence of the "Coasts" section, shouldn't the jagged coasts be the "eastern" coasts? Why is "East" capitalized (in both locations)? Is it a name?
• Some measure of the shipping tonnage passing through the sea would be informative (in the "Marine traffic" section) to demonstrate the relative importance of this body of water.
• "Culture and languages" has a caption for a deleted image.
• Wherever possible it would be good to show the author, publication date and publisher in the citations. At least three of the citations are empty (7-9), and one (48) is showing a URL rather than the title.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Article recently failed FA, see here. I have decided to take it to Peer review to see how I can improve the article ready to nominate for FA again after this Peer review has finished. I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. Thank you, Davnel03 07:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the inital idea,[12] calling it a "pretty good solution." - I know the second good is a quote, but could the start of the sentence be reworded in order to convey the same meaning without using good twice in short succession.
  • Changed to "The overall reaction to this was well recieved...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • ...which is grammatical nonsense. Use Alex's suggested phrasing, below. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't find that phrase Alex mentioned. Davnel03 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The second of his two italicised paragraphs near the bottom. Pyrope 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Quoted straight from the second paragraph: The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the initial idea, calling it a "pretty good solution." And what change are you on about? If I'm right, the start is exactly the same as my first version. Davnel03 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
            • No, yours ran "The overall reaction to this was well recieved", Alex's is "The overall reaction to this was good". Your phrase mixes up object and subject of the sentence, Alex's is much more elegant. Pyrope 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope, the first one. It's directly under where I put my opening comment in this PR. Davnel03 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Yes, and you still run into the repetition of "good" problem, I wasn't commenting on that. But your phrase about the reaction being well received is lumpen. The reception of the idea was the reaction. A reaction can be positive, and idea can be well received, but a reaction cannot be received unless you are talking about a second reaction to the first reaction (and so we tie ourselves in knots...). It needs to be rewritten. Pyrope 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I can't think any other way on how to rewrite it; maybe "The change was successful, with......" and then go from there the same. Davnel03 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Well I gave you a big hint! Try using Alex's construction, but replacing the first "good" with the word "positive". And buy a thesaurus... ;-) Pyrope 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Hahaha, I'm only at secondary school, so my writing (for my age) is pretty good. Edit done. Davnel03 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • • FAC has no allowance for age. There isn't a "pretty good for a 12 year old" category. Get over yourself. Pyrope 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                            • I'm not 12, I'm 15. Davnel03 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • Oh, I also suggest you take a look at 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, which is currently a FAC. One problem about the testing section in the Malaysian article is a major problem in the Canadian one...... Davnel03 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Hondas struggled again in Friday's second practice session. Barrichello called it "extremely frustrating". This is the first time 'Barrichello' is introduced to us, but no explanation of who (or what) he is. The reader might not know who RB is (the article may be read by a non-F1 fan, or even an F1 fan in 20 years time). The MOS says After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. which I take to mean that the person should be introduced the their full (common) name, i.e. Rubens Barrichello, and also it needs to be noted that he is a driver for the team.
  • Added "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I question what this quote is telling us at all. Driver underperforms and isn't happy, big deal. This is a good example of the clutter which needs to be trimmed to help the article flow. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Removed. Davnel03 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it would be too 'bitty' if the Pre-Race section was split up into stuff that happened before the race weekend started under Pre-Race and then have the practice sessions under their own header. Suggest getting other opinions on that.
  • I might take that to WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Be bold. I agree with Alex. Separate "background events" and "practice sessions" headings would help to differentiate the general from the specific. Whether you make these sub-sub-heads under a "Pre-race" subheading (which I don't like at all, it is far too jargony), or make them subheadings on their own, I think that this could improve the screed that exists under this heading at present. However, as I have commented previously, these sections should be pared down to a minimum, to set the scene for the subject of the article: the competitive sessions. Further, test sessions are not competitions. Tests and practice are just that, you don't know how much fuel is in the cars, you don't know if they are even running legal parts/weights/fuel. These sessions are, at very best, only indicative and running such a full breakdown (complete with timings to three decimals!!) is pointless and crufty. Some general comment, perhaps only one or two sentences, would be plenty. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't want to remove it because of this comment someone made during the original FAC. I've renamed the headers though. I'll rename them for all the rest of the 2007 race reports as well. Davnel03 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I wasn't suggesting that you remove it, just make it a more realistic size. And race commentators most certainly do not go into minute detail about who put what time in during practice/testing. They make generalised comments like "Ferrari dominated during mideweek testing at Jerez" (and often that is as much a they say), but they don't follow that with an in-depth breakdown of "positions" and times. They know that such a discourse would bore the trousers off their audience. The same applies here. Pyrope 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, I've heavily shortened the testing part. Davnel03 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Honda's poor form continued as Rubens Barrichello was knocked out in Q1, qualifying 19th.. Rubens second mention and he's being referred to by his full name. If he was introduced earlier, then he should now be just Barrichello.
  • Removed "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• missed the cut with 17th spot, but team-mate Tonio Liuzzi made it through to Q2. Super Aguri's Anthony Davidson also failed to make the cut, - Again a bit repetitive using 'cut' twice.
  • Removed the second cut; changed to "Anthony Davidson also failed to make it through to Part Two," Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• caused all the drivers to post quick laps at the start of Qualifying 2, traditionally the slowest period. - Not sure I understand that bit about the slowest period. Both the part about tradition coming into it (the quali system is just over a season old by this race) and the slowest period. I'd say that the start of Q3 was the slowest period so I think sentence needs adjusting to explain clearly what is meant.
  • Removed last phrase. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, but is didn't "cause" them to post their fastest laps then. Nit-picking perhaps, but a threat cannot cause (an active process), it can influence or persuade (a passive process, the final decision is the drivers'). Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• but the Renaults were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen were knocked out... - doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone to it.
  • Removed "were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...with Pat Symonds later stating that they "didn't maximise [their] chances" - and who's Pat Symonds? Is he one of their drivers too? I'd imagine that's what a reader would think.
  • Changed to "....with Pat Symonds, the teams Executive Director of Engineering, later...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My point would be, do we really care? Of course he said that, race personnel always claim they could have done better. The whole sentence adds nothing and is of very little significnce. Stay focussed. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Removed. I hope the things I'm changing don't come to backfire on me at FAC when I renominate straight after this PR is over. Davnel03 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • (dull knocking sound as Pyrope's head beats against the nearest wall) What is the obsession with FAC?? Go and read 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and then tell me that that this article gets even close... Featured articles are "our very best work and feature professional standards of writing and presentation". There are many exceptional pieces of work on this site, work that I am in awe of in many cases. One thing that they have in common is that they grow organically over many months, and have input from a large number of well-informed, skilled, articulate, dilligent authors. Would you please stop trying to promote your work in such a, frankly, tawdry way, by doing so you debase the hard work and achievement of many others. You can certainly aim for GA, maybe even A-class with time, but to suggest that these race reports are amongst the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer is absurd! I am perfectly willing to spend time helping you improve an article to good B-class, or eve GA if the race deserves it, but to spend so much time taking an inconsequential race to full FA status (I personally don't think that it is possible for such races) is pointless. Be satisfied with earning respect as an enthusiastic, helpful, informed and informative contributor to F1 topics, stop trying to boost your own ego by notching up undeserved FA articles. You will just get a reputation as a dilletante and glory-seeker, and nobody likes a show-off. Pyrope 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Couthard and Barrichello were deemed to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Closer examination, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop. - Probably needs to explain who 'deemed' DC and RB to have changed their engines, and also replace the closer examination bit with something else (subsequent investigation if that's what happened). Did DC/Red Bull appeal the orginal decision. Who decided DC hadn't changed the engine, Race Stewards?
  • Changed to "Couthard and Barrichello were deemed by the race stewards to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Subsequent investigations by the stewards, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Do try and avoid the passive voice. Try "The race stewards initially imposed a 10 place penalty on Couthard and Barrichello, for changing their engines prior to qualification. However, after further investigation they rescinded Couthard's penalty, as his change had been made before the start of the race weekend." This also avoids the rather awkward "deemed" word, which often comes with an implication of arbitrary and unfair decision making, as well as avoiding the repetition of the penalty specifics. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• In Qualifying 3, Massa snatched pole from Alonso in the dying seconds both snatched and dying don't seem the right tone to me. Also as it's the first mention, give the full name, 'pole position', and wikilink it.
  • Done. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, state the facts and don't get drawn into hyperbole. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Massa's pole marked Bridgestones 100th pole position in Formula One. Bridgestone need introducing as a tyre company, and a bit of a random place for a wikilink to F1.
  • Removed Formula One wikilink. Inserted the tyre company between Brigestones and 100th, with commas surrounding it. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race, although Button was able to continue. - Comes across as awkward. Perhaps a bit more detail on Button (did he pit?) and this could be split into two sentences (and retire from the race. Button was able to continue after...)
  • I've split it. It's now: " Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race. Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is part of the reason the prose is being commented by some as being 'choppy'. You've used Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. The sentence is grammatically correct, but by wording it like that it's breaking the sentence up into two bits, one in the middle of the other, requiring two pauses when reading it and breaking up the flow. If you were to use After making an early pitstop to repair the damage, Button was able to continue the two bits of the sentence are now separate and (I feel) it reads better as a result. The pause seems much more natural this way appearing near the middle of the sentence. Probably worth looking through the rest of the article, and seeing where it sounds better without the mid-sentence pause. Remember that variety is good to keep the article interesting so don't remove all the "xx,x,xx" style sentences just ones where it improves by not having it. It's 'nitpicking' like this that help meet criteria 1a) of FAC. AlexJ 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 11:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Just as a brief rule of thumb: if a sentence including subclauses loses its meaning when you remove a subcleause, it generally needs rephrasing. In this case if you remove "after making an early pitstop" from your sentence, you are left with "Button was able to continue", which says nothing. Notice how you can't do that to Alex's phrase. Definitely worth looking through the rest of the article. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, OK. If you notice something else like that in the article that hasn't been changed, point it out to me. Davnel03 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• After starting fifteenth, Button quickly found himself being overtaken for 17th - Choose one style for numbering.
  • Changed fifteenth to 15th. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Quick phrasing point: he wasn't "overtaken for 17th", he was "overtaken, and dropped to 17th". Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Spyker team's weekend got worse as Christijan Albers retired on lap 9 with a gearbox fire. On lap 12, Robert Kubica was the first man to pit, however he reported traction control problems four laps later and dropped down the order. Button's weekend got worse... - repeating 'got worse' in short succession. Perhaps you could say "The Spyker team's other car driven by Christijan Albers retired on..." to avoid this. AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to your version. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kubica dropped to thirteenth as his traction control problem got worse - Arrgh! It's 'got worse' again. Worsened this time maybe? Or perhaps reword the sentance to use a totally different phrase like "deteriorated further".
  • Changed to "deteriorated further". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A problem can't deteriorate. A situation (e.g. traction control fault) can deteriorate, but a problem worsens or increases. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Added the word fault. For some reason it was just traction control. The word problem was not there - I think I removed it in a previous edit. Ah well! Davnel03 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• and a train of cars developed behind him. - Common parlance in the world of F1 perhaps, but a little confusing to the regular reader.
  • Don't know how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to a train of cars that wanted to pass developed behind him. Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kovalainen's performance was much better than in Melbourne - Melbourne probably needs an introduction ("than at the previous round in Melbourne" perhaps) and I'd say that Kovalainen's improved performance probably could do with a citation to avoid it being perceived as POV.
  • Changed to " Kovalainen's performance was much better than at the previous round in Melbourne, and he...." I need to find a source to back it up, and as you stated it could be seen as POV at the moment. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nico Rosberg, running in 6th place, retired with hydrallic problems... - Spelling.
  • Changed. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...with thirteen laps to go[1] and was extremely frustrated afterwards.[31] - Citation 31 appears to cover both the frustration and the thirteen laps to go, so the ugly mid sentence cite is not needed.
  • Removed midsentence ref. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Heidfeld said later "this is a fantastic experience (to beat Massa)" - Could be reworded to avoid having to use the brackets-in-quote.
  • I have no idea on how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to Heidfeld said later beating Massa was "a fantastic experience". Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fisichella finished 6th (he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car) - not sure why the brackets are used here.
  • Changed to "Fisichella finished 6th, however he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hamilton admitted afterwards that this was his hardest race to date,[36] while Räikkönen admitted he "did not have enough speed - Repetition again (admitted).
  • Changed first "admitted" to "said". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Räikkönen also had to protect his V8 engine from overheating - it the V8 part relevant to the point being made? As Raikkonen only has the one engine I'd say no. To a casual reader this could suggest Raikkonen having other engines.
  • Removed "V8". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The notes section. I know it's common across race reports to do this, so this comment is not aimed at this article specifically, but I think the article demonstrates particularly well why it's perhaps unneeded. It's pretty much a trivia section by any other name, and duplicates what's already said. Fastest lap is already featured in the infobox. This was the first victory for Fernando Alonso in a McLaren. and This was the McLaren's first 1-2 finsh since the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. are already mentioned in both the lead and in image captions in the body. That leaves just the lap leaders which perhaps should be shifted to the infobox (new field would be required). That's probably something that needs to be discussed with a wider audience though.
• Removed notes section. The bit about the infobox would almost certainly have to be discussed at WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few points raised there, hope that gives you an idea of how the article can be improved. Please take time to consider the best solution to each of the points raised and feel free to ask me if you need clarification on anything. Thanks, AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed them things, here is the diff. Davnel03 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At least one wasn't - the "(he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car)" brackets. Fixed now. Mark83 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, Alex beat me to a lot of comments, so I'll restrict myself to: this article is poorly written. It lacks narative flow and focus. I suspect that this is because you have read quite a few references and are trying to shoehorn them all in. It is not a competition, we are not trying to see how many references we can collect on a single page, this is precisely why the WP:CITE page states that inline citation is only needed for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". To take Alex's first example, that whole paragraph could be supported by just the last reference, so why there are four citations to three separate articles (one of which isn't available on line, but that is a minor point) I do not know. The fact that the soft tyres are the ones with the stripe is common knowlege, and as such can't possibly be challenged, so that does not require citation. However, the little-known facts that Sam Michael came up with the idea and that 160 pens were used could be handled in a single sentence and cited just the once. Over-cited prose is a corrosive influence on writing style. This writing ethos has led to a horrible, disjointed, "bitty" prose style, that has an almost unreadable "statement, reference, statement, reference" structure, which lacks flow. A secondary consequence is that points of interest and significant occurences have been subsumed into a "he did this, then he did that, and so and so did the other, before thingy did something different" turgid mess. You need to focus on those events which were significant at each stage and build a proper paragraph structure to emphasise them. It would also help if you kept the chronology better separated. At present you have post-race comments scattered in amongst the racing events, and you leap around between teams and drivers willy nilly, so any sense of what is happening in an overall sense is lost. Go away and read some excellent motorsport journalists (Nigel Roebuck, Doug Nye, Don Capp, Mark Hughes, Joe Saward, etc. etc. etc.) and see how they do it. Pyrope 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pyrope, I'm not the best writer in the world. Davnel03 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, neither am I, but I don't go pushing every article I add significant material to into the FAC process. If you don't like criticism of your writing style then stop pushing articles to GA/PR/FAC. On the other hand, if you want to learn, listen up and stop being so defensive. The FA guide specifically states that prose should be of near-professional quality, which as you have just agreed, you are not up to at the moment. You are knowlegable and enthusiastic, but you lack the humility and patience to realise that some things take time and should not be rushed. I'm not kidding about reading a few good authors; the more you read (and I'm talking about proper, reasoned, discursive prose, of the type that the above named authors are justly famous, not brief race updates knocked out in five minutes by some overworked hack on a laptop in the paddock) then your writing will improve, I promise. All of the above have written some excellent books, many of which should be available in your local library. I would also point you toward the few remaining "Rear View Mirror" articles online, that Don Capp wrote for Atlas F1 (R.I.P.), which you can still just about access without an Autosport.com subscription. His style is perhaps overly chatty and informal for an encyclopedia (actually, make that far too chatty) but his extended structuring of a long race report is usually exceptional. He has a knack of drawing attention to significant occurences, without losing the ebb and flow of a long event (and the 1961 Monaco race was 100 laps!). Your style at the moment leans too far toward the immediate reportage needed for communicating a news event, rather than the more distanced style needed to realise that not every attempted pass or pit stop needs commenting on. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, I like critism. After all, if no one commented on the way I write, thwen there's no way I can improve. Infact, many, many thanks for the comments, hopefully I can improve for when I start doing the race report for Italy next weekend. Davnel03 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To comment further on what Pyrope has said, I'm a bit more pro-referencing (I take the guideline to mean that inline cites being needed for direct quotes and material likely to be challenged and recommended elsewhere) but agree that the style used in the article is not right. Work on the quality of the citations rather than sheer volume. Taking the tyre stripe thing again:

The weekend marked the first time that soft tyres had a white painted groove on them. This distinguished the difference between the softer and the harder tyres; the harder tyre does not have a white groove.[11] The white groove was applied with white paint marker pens. Over the course of the weekend, 160 pens were used.[12] The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the inital idea,[12] calling it a "pretty good solution."[13]

4 in-line cites appear, citing three different sources. Of these, one citation is mid sentence which shouldn't occur unless absolutely necessary. Having a quick look at the sources, source '13' covers Michael's quote, credits invention of the idea to him and says the groove appears on the softer tyres only. So citation 11 can be dropped altogether as redundant to 13, and then cites 12 and 13 can be moved to appear once end of the paragraph:

The weekend marked the first time that soft tyres had a white painted groove on them. This distinguished the difference between the softer and the harder tyres; the harder tyre does not have a white groove. The white groove was applied with white paint marker pens. Over the course of the weekend, 160 pens were used. The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the initial idea, calling it a "pretty good solution."[12][13]

The text now is much less broken up and reads better as a result while still having all facts backed up by a source. However, the repetition of 'good' now looks worse than ever. Perhaps the sentence could be improved further by totally rewriting it now it's not constrained by the citation locations. I'd change the "The weekend marked" bit at the start to avoid the possible pun with the marker pens. I've also noticed a spelling mistake, inital, in the original. Go through and try and consolidate the citations and move them so while still in an appropriate place, they break up the text as little as possible. AlexJ 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed per comments. Diff is here. Davnel03 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved some citations, and removed some citations. Davnel03 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is some good advice there, now just apply that reasoning process to every paragraph. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Probably more of a learning point than an actual comment on this article, but the way you undertake the task probably affects how you write (well, duh!). I usually write my stuff by reading a bunch of references until I feel I understand the topic, then writeing the piece without really looking at the references, and only adding the references at the end after I've worked over the text a few times. That breaks the very tight linkage between each sentence and the ref it came from - a point Pyrope raised above - and allows you to concentrate more on the logic and flow of what you are saying. It also lessens the chances of accidental copyvio. Worth a try if that's not how you're working at present. 4u1e 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, very nicely put. Pyrope 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I didn't do, I updated it after every session. Anything else I can do to improve it (I am going to go for FAC after this has finished as I reiterated earlier). Just because the race wasn't exciting it doesn't mean it doesn't stand a chance at FAC. How do you think something like Paragraph 175 got FA? Davnel03 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote from top section I wrote: I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. - so why give me one? Davnel03 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've had a read through, and I think the majority of the issues have basically been addressed above. I have, however, made one or two changes, trivial though they'll seem. I've slightly reworded part of the introduction, the bit which said;

...first time the McLarens had finished in the top two since...

I don't know how to exactly state why, but it just doesn't seem right. There's something that tells me that it's slightly wrong. So I've put it to;

...first time the McLarens had finished first and second since...

That just seems a better way of putting it. I've added a few links where they are needed, i.e. if they weren't already linked up in the article beforehand, but that wasn't really an issue. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything else other than what is stated above. I just thought I'd let you know about the issue I've altered above. Cheers, Lradrama 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of artificial intelligence

This is a complete rewrite. I encourage anyone interested in the history of technology to review -- it's intended for the general reader. Help me move the article along towards featured status. Thanks for your help. ---- CharlesGillingham 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Island, Queensland

This island is the most beautiful with some very inte3resting history Phenss 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

article is very brief. needs more information about its geography, climate, history, people. All of which needs to be sourced. At the moment it is a bare skeleton, and you've got that structured nicely, but each section needs to be expanded upon. The main thing I notice is that there are far too many images. Try to be ruthless - it's a beautiful place but one or two good images are more powerful than trying to depict everything that you appreciate about the island. Also 3 images of car bodies rusting away? I don't think even one is needed, but 3? Rossrs 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

new request:
The article has obviously changed greatly since the April 2006 peer review and it has been quite a few months since the Collaboration and successful Good Article nomination. I realise that the history section needs to be summarised and moved into a new article of its own, which I'm not very good at doing, but i'd appreciate comments on other ways that the article could be improved. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions for the lead paragraph, which in all honesty is not very clear. From what I've read the main body of the article is in much better shape, but I don't have time to do more at present. If I fail to get back to this inside a week feel free to badger me.

'or by Aboriginal name'. Surely 'by the Aboriginal…' done

'of about 2 000 people'. Why not '2,000'? done

"Palm Island is an island, which is also known as Great Palm Island, or by Aboriginal name Bukaman[3], and it is a community of about 2 000 people, although not officially named, the settlement is called Palm Island, the Mission, Palm Island Settlement or Palm Community by default.[4]."

This is a snake and poorly syntaxed. It has two periods at the end and far too much in bold none of which is necessary. Suggest "Palm Island, also known as Great Palm Island, or by the Aboriginal name Bukaman[3], is a community of about 2,000 people. The main settlement is named variously; Palm Island, the Mission, Palm Island Settlement or Palm Community. done, with slight revision: "is a community of" changed to "is an island with a resident community of"

"The Island is situated" no capital 'I' required. done

See WP:LEAD. This section should summarise the entire article, and have at least a sentence for each section in the TOC.

Hope that's helpful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enter Sandman

I've been working on this article in my sandbox and I finally transferred the work into the article. Yo can see the differences here. I've submitted the article for WP:GAC, but it has a big backlog, so I thought I may just go into peer review as well. I'd like to see this article featured, I know it's hard, I have tried but never got one, only Good articles and Featured Lists. Anyway, I think, and comparing to other songs Featured Articles, that this article has the potential to become one. Any concerns will be addressed. Copyediting and grammar issues probably exist, so any help on that would be great.

Thanks,

Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think Motorhead's version got a Grammy nomination, which may be worth a mention. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I read your comment, I thought "Yeah, I remember that!" but I've researched and it was Metallica's Whiplash the song they won the grammy with, not Enter Sandman. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yes they did win for Whiplash. But for this cover, they were nominated for Best Metal Performance at the 2000 Grammy's. Check [[4]] this source. LuciferMorgan 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry I didn't understand you. (Embarassed) Thank you. I have checked that and added to the article.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a book that analyzes classic songs from a musical perspective and there's an entry on "Enter Sandman". I'll try to cite some information from it for this article. Also, mention some of the chart information in the reception section. I'm pretty sure "Enter Sandman" was Metallica's first gold single in the US. WesleyDodds 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The music and lyrics section is poor in my opinion, I've spent a lot of time on that and I'm not happy. If your book has good information.. that'd be good :-). I'll research on Enter Sandman being "Metallica's first gold single in the US". Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I researched and found out that it became a gold single on September 30 1991 and it was Metallica's second single to achieve that. The first was One. I did the research here. Thanks for the tip, information added to the article.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was searching through the New York Times archives at nytimes.com and was surprised to discover how many articles reference the use of "Enter Sandman" in baseball games, especially for particular players. You might want to expand on that in the article. WesleyDodds 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip. Oh, and does your book have anything about the lyrics and theme of the song? It would be helpful. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your addition. It was something I wanted to talk about but never really found how to do it. That tritone is important throughout the entire song, it is in every riff and gives it that great sound. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M3tal H3ad

• The song was written by guitarists Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich. Hetfield wrote lyrics to the song, which are about nightmares. Does this sentence mean Hammet, Ulrich and Hetfield wrote the music, while only Hetfield wrote the lyrics?
• After you mention someone with their full name wikilinked only refer to them using their second name -> until Lars Ulrich suggested that
• The lyrics featured in the song are not the original: This is awkward wording how about - Hetfield felt the original lyrics were too commercial and felt he had to re-write them to ....
• did not feature lyrics or vocals. Vocals and lyrics are the same thing. How about ' An instrumental demo was recorded on.......
• Wikilink Bob Rock's first mention in the body
• between 40 and 50 microphones for the drums and different combinations - what exactly does different combinations refer to here?
• took about 10 days - i don't believe 'about' sounds very encyclopedic, how about 'roughly?
• the band and Bob Rock had to find on "Enter Sandman" "the sound" for the rest of the album. - sentence needs re-writing
• After releasing a musically complex album - according to whom is it complex?
• Avoid one sentence paragraphs - won't become an FA with them
• and All Music Guide has complimented the song's breakdown - State whom opinion's it is. AMG has lots of people who review music, state Chris True of All Music....
• Only Lars Ulrich felt, even "before recorded" according to Bob Rock, that "Enter Sandman" was "the song". This doesn't make much sense. I had to read it about 3 times to understand it.
• "Enter Sandman" made the headlines during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, - seems important but is only one sentence long. Surely it can be expanded by an article that is like 10 paragraphs long.
• The fair use of the music video states "The image adds significantly to the article." What exactly does it add? It shows us that James has a mustache and long hair. People will point this out at the FA.

Good work altogether. Nice to see another editor willing to edit heavy metal articles. I'll give more feedback later. M3tal H3ad 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll address each issue, one by one.

1. Yes, that was what I meant. Do you think it needs to be reworded?
2. Y Done
3. I meant he thought the song sounded commercial, and he tried to write lyrics not too commercial to kind of... "balance" the thing. I'm not sure how to explain it in the article. It isn't clear in the text, I see. And as he wrote the lyrics, for the first time in Metallica's history, somebody told him the lyrics could be better and he wrote new ones. I'll try to reword that. I like to give as much information possible in each sentence, with little redundancy, but sometimes it's difficult to write sentences well and English is not my native language.
4. Y Done
5. Unless I am missing something, he is wikilinked in the first mention, in the lyrics part.
6. It's Staub who uses the word combinations. I think he means combinations like "Let's see how the drums sound if I put a mic here and a mic there" for instance. But, maybe it's better to remove that word and not speculate, huh?
7. Y Done
8. Hum. I think you understand what I mean, but I'm not sure how do you think it's correct to explain. They had to "create" the sound for the album, the way the instruments and the voice sounded and Enter Sandman being the first song to be mixed, took about 10 days. I don't have any idea on how to reword that, so I'll think about it. But I agree with you.
9. According to Lars Ulrich himself. And an All Music Guide review that I have just inserted.
10. OK
11. Y Done
12. "According to Bob Rock, Lars Ulrich was the only band member that felt that "Enter Sandman" was "the song", even before recording." Better?
13. Another sentence added, explaining the intentions.
14. Great laugh. Hum, I "studied" Smells Like Teen Spirit, which is a FA, and it has a picture of Cobain in the video. You have a point. I wouldn't say again that it adds significantly to the article, but it adds to a section of the article that discusses the music video.

Thanks for the help.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 18:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Milburn

Nice work. Couple of things that are are bothering me-

• The intro seems a little choppy, single line paragraphs are bad. Perhaps bring the second two lines together?
• "guitarists Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich." Multiple use of 'and' looks poor, at least in my opinion- how about "guitarists Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield, as well as drummer Lars Ulrich."?
• "The Metallica (album) was recorded..." I don't like this at all. Conventionally, we would just say "Album name was recorded", however, I see the need to disambiguate beyond just the italics here, so how about "The album Metallica was recorded..." or "Metallica, [quick fact about the album], was recorded..."
• "For "Enter Sandman" "close to 50" takes of the drums were recorded, according to engineer Randy Staub, because Ulrich did not record the song in its entirety; he recorded the each section of the song separately." The two quotes next to each other threw me for a moment, and the rest of the line seemed a little odd. Why not say "According to engineer Randy Staub, "close to 50" takes of the drums were recorded for "Enter Sandman", due to the fact Ulrich did not record the song in its entirety; instead recording each section of the song separately."
• "on "Enter Sandman" "the sound" for the rest..." again, quote quote, but this line has already been mentioned.
• First line of 'Music and lyrics', ...And Justice for All is not italicised.
• In the second sample box, "The whole song evolved from the main riff, wrote by guitarist Kirk Hammett." Shouldn't that be 'written'?
• "Lyrically, the song is about "nightmares and all that come with them"." According to whom, and avoid single line paragraphs. Is there no one else who has commented on the lyrics?
• ""Enter Sandman"'s main riff has been defined as "sinister"[10] and All Music Guide has complimented the song's breakdown that "brilliantly utilizes that “now I lay me down to sleep” bedtime prayer in such a way to add to the scary movie aspect of the song".[8]" By who, and by who? (Something that LuciferMorgan picked me up on a few weeks ago. You live and learn!)
• "first single of Metallica (album)." Again, referring to it as Metallica (album) seems poor. Not certain how to fix this; anyone got any ideas?

Nipping off for my lunch now, I will take another look in a few minutes. J Milburn 11:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One by one, again...

1. Y Done Better?
2. I see what you mean, but isn't using "as well as" redundancy for "and"?

   No, as I see it- "guitarists Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield, as well as drummer Lars Ulrich" is structured like this- "guitarists= [Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield], (as well as) drummer= [Lars Ulrich]." See what I mean? You are not listing three members, you are listing two instruments and the members who play them. I've explained that poorly, but it's hard to say what I mean! J Milburn 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Y Done Hope it's better now.
4. Y Done, but replaced due to the fact for because. hope it's fine.
5. I'll have to think about that line.
6. Y Done
7. Y Done Yes it should.
8. That's one of the things I'm still researching. There's not a lot about that from reliable sources. Rolling Stone mentions it is probably the first metal lullaby, but I'm not sure if that belongs in the article. Mentioned who said it.

   Yeah, I think that belongs. An interesting and relevant opinion from an excellent source. J Milburn 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

9. Y Done live and learn
10. Only if we forbid bands from releasing self-titled albums. I could use The Black Album when mentioning the article. Band members themselves sometimes refer to the album that way in the documentary I have about it. Done here.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 18:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    To be honest, I think you'll be fine with "Metallica". The fact it is in italics tells us that it is the album. Of course, this makes the article slightly less accessible to a non-editor, and I think "The Black Album" or, preferably, "the album, Metallica" or even just "the album" would be fine, and, as I see it, all slightly better than what is being used now. J Milburn 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, back, more suggestions-

• Ah, you use the phrase Metallica (album) a lot more times. I would seriously not do that, and just change them to Metallica, and, where possible, say things like "the album Metallica"
• ""Enter Sandman" became "one of the most recognizable songs of all time" "worldwide"" I gather the latter two quotes are both from AMG, so why not phrase it as ""Enter Sandman" became "one of the most recognizable songs of all time... worldwide""
• Magazine titles (Rolling Stone, Total Guitar) should be italicised.
• ""Enter Sandman" "tell[s] the tale" of the album's "detail and dynamic", "song structures and impact of individual tracks"." That threw me. First of all, perhaps it is worth mentioning which writer said that, and secondly, it's an awfully complex sentence. Perhaps it would be worth melding some of the quotes with ellipses?
• ""Enter Sandman" was the second music video Metallica has released, the first from Metallica (album)." This doesn't seem quite right- why not 'and the first' or 'but the first'? Also, I think a semicolon is more appropriate than a comma.
• The plot of the video has no references. I am not exactly sure how you reference plot summaries, it isn't something I have done before.
  • I have added a reference from a review on PopMatters. It doesn't cover everything said on the article about the plot of the video, but covers a good part. --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• All the DVDs and albums mentioned in 'Appearances and covers' should be italicised.
• "BBC apologized Metallica fans..."- Shouldn't that be "The BBC apologized to Metallica fans..."?
• Again, the game title Rock Band is not italicised.
• Absolutely agree that the Iraq invasion part could do with expansion- that is a very interesting and relevant point.
• "At that time, Apocalyptica were four cellists and Plays Metallica by Four Cellos was their debut album." This implies that it is no longer their debut album. Perhaps it would be best to mention that it was the debut album further up the box (would "1996 debut album" make sense?) and maybe 'Apocalypitca was made up of' or 'consisted of' rather than 'were'.
• For aesthetic purposes, I would put the refs in 'Chart positions' next to the position, rather than the chart.
• There is a Richard Cheese category, yet he is not mentioned in the article.

Over all, great article, I can see it getting to FA very soon. J Milburn 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And now here...

1. discussed above.
2. Y Done
3. Y Done
4. Y Done I think.
5. Y Done Used a semi-colon. So I shouldn't use an "and", right? Punctuation is hard for me, because it doesn't follow the same rules of my native language, which uses much more.

   Erm, I'm not actually red-hot on semi-colon use myself, and now it doesn't look great to me. Perhaps ""Enter Sandman" was the second music video released by Metallica, but the first from their self-titled album." J Milburn 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

6. It has no references, but, I think references are for material that is likely to be challenged and when I wrote that, I felt I didn't say anything POV or likely to be challenged. It's pretty clear for those who watch the video. I'll try to find something to back that up, but if I don't, I think I'll leave it as it is.
7. Y Done
8. Y Done
9. Y Done
10. Y Done
11. Y Done
12. Y Done
13. Richard Cheese is just one of the many artists who released a cover version of Enter Sandman. I wasn't going to mention on the article every artist, so I mentioned Motorhead (probably the most important, as they were a huge influence for Metallica), Apocalyptica and Pat Boone on the covers section. Do you think I should add him? It's just that he's just another artist who covered and I don't think that just because someone added that category to the text is a reason good enough to put him there. But I'll do it if you think it's better.

Thanks for your help--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I think I have responded to all the issues you raised, but if I missed any or if you have more, feel free to tell me. Thanks a lot for the help.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket02

• Music Video: The plot of the music video directly relates to the theme of the song and combines shots of the band playing with images of a child having nightmares and of an old man. The child dreams he is drowning, falling from the top a building and being chased by a truck and falling from a mountain while escaping it. During the part of the song in which the child recites a prayer, the child is seen praying while being watched by the old man. This is unreferenced and seems to be original research.
  • You're right, but do you have any suggestion on how to reference this?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. But the section seems pretty neutral to me, so it may be okay. Need a more expert opinion. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference from a review on PopMatters. It doesn't cover everything said on the article about the plot of the video, but covers a good part. --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Appearances and covers: Need a Ref for the caption in the sample box.
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sportsmen have used "Enter Sandman" as their entrance music in baseball and wrestling.[8][9] I wonder if "Sportsmen" is the correct word? Hmmm, I don't think so.
  • I'm sorry but I don't understand why not. English is not my native language as I have said, but sportsmen is a word that exists, I even went to the dictionary to check. Is there any other word for people who play sports?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Sportsmen" are people who play the sports, but are probably not the ones who pick the entrance music (which is how I understood the sentence to read). Maybe say something like, "Enter Sandman" has been used as entrance music at sporting events such as baseball and wrestling. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe some of them do. Wrestlers and baseball players have a specific song every time they go on to the rink/pitch. But I've changed anyway to include usage college football. I'm not sure weather to mention specific sportsmen or teams, people can find them in the references.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dates use an inconsistent format - choose one method and stick with it. See WP:MOS#Dates.
  • Dates with day, month and year are wikilinked. years are wikilinked. the only ones who aren't are when there is a month and a year. How should I wikilink that? October 1990? Other than that, I may be missing on the inconsistency. I'm sorry, it's just that when you work on an article too much, you tend to miss the things that are obvious to others.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me. I know all too well about looking at an article too much. Anyway, I should have been more specific. What I meant was that in one place you use September 13, 1990 (month-day-year) and then in another you use 13 August 1991 (day-month-year). Either way is correct, just be consistent throughout. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that when I'm looking at the article as a regular user. I'll have to look on it in the code. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Too many wikilinks - I would unwikify common terms or repeated terms. See WP:MOS#Wikilinks.
  • Will do.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• All Music Guide - italicized because it is a publication.

I don't think it does need italicising- it isn't a periodical, which is the reason we italicise other publications. See the appropriate MoS section. On another note- nice to see you again! J Milburn 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And you too J...:) Okay, scratch that...:)

• Ref #22 needs to be fixed.
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the text alone - I counted 32 uses of the term "Enter Sandman". That is a bit exhausting to read. Would change some of them to "The single" or the "The song", or even "It", etc. Try to incorporate some other synonyms.
  • Better? 12 less now.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better, yes. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I found the whole article hard to read, the flow is quite choppy and much is redundant, but author did say English is not primary language. I did some minor copyediting for punctuation, etc., but I didn't want to step on any toes with regards to rewording any of it. It needs a good copyedit for prose.
  • I'll try to have another look at it sooner or later, but I'll only do the best I can. I'm afraid I'd need help on that issue.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no hurry, and it will take time. You've done really good so far so don't get discouraged. I've tried to help in a few places but prose is not my strong point. My advice is to walk away from it for a day or two and come back and look at it fresh. It does help. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Refs always after punctuation. -- I think I fixed them all by either adding punctuation or moving the ref, but another look wouldn't hurt.

• As much as I hate to say this, grrrr, because I believe the use of fair-use screenshots is harmless; but the screenshot will be challenged at some point for failing WP:NFCC#8.
  • Ok, I'll take it. But what if I used a screenshot of the Sandman in the video or of one of the child's nightmares. Would it be more acceptable?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not in a position to say absolutely what would be acceptable, but I do know that without "sourced" critical commentary, it definately won't fly. Sourced critical commentary of the video itself would at least give a screenshot a fighting chance of staying in. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• And if I may add, so far you've gotten a peer review above from some of the best editors on Wikipedia, and if you stick with their lead, this article will go far. (I only know from experience)  :) Good luck. ♫ Cricket02 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much for your help.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you need anything, let me know. ♫ Cricket02 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seegoon

I haven't read through everyone else's input, so apologies if I repeat anything.

• The opening paragraph is weak. It has no flow. I'd change it to something like this:

"Enter Sandman" is a song by American heavy metal band Metallica, taken from their self-titled [or "eponymous" - whichever you prefer] 1991 album. It was written by guitarists Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield, along with drummer Lars Ulrich. The lyrics, penned [or "written", if you feel "penned is" too informal] by Hetfield, deal with nightmares [or "the topic fo nightmares" or something, to flesh it out].

• • Is it better now?
• "tried to write lyrics about what he described as "destroy the perfect family; a huge horrible secret in a family"" - this is confusing. What he described as destroy the perfect family? That makes no sense.
  • I removed "what he described". Is "and tried to write lyrics about "destroy[ing] the perfect family; a huge horrible secret in a family" better?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "he could write better lyrics for the song, the first time anyone suggested that to Hetfield and he agreed" - this is a tad clumsy too. Maybe "which was the first time Hetfield had ever agreed to that suggestion".
  • Well, not only it was the first time he agreed, it was the first time anyone ever suggested that. What if I remove "and he agreed"? "the first time ever anyone suggested that to him."?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Metallica wanted to write simpler songs their self-titled album[1] and "Enter Sandman" is a departure from their previous works" - I don't think "and" cuts it here. Maybe "therefore", or "due to that" or something more functional as a connector.
  • "Metallica wanted to write simpler songs for their self-titled album,[1] therefore "Enter Sandman" (...)"--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Initially, "Holier Than Thou" was thought to be the opening track" - "thought"? Maybe "slated" to be the opening track, or "chosen". Likewise, "first single of the album Metallica", is, I think, unnecessary. We know Metallica is an album, and I think "from" is more fitting than "of".
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "in which he explained the rest of the band his point of view" - shouldn't this be "explained to the band"?
  • It may be. Ulrich is part of the band, that's why I'm not sure. He's telling "the rest" of the band, not "the band", because he is part of the band. Right or wrong?.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• In fact, the whole first paragraph in "Release and reception" is a little vague, and doesn't really explain why the decision was made.
  • I think everyone other than Ulrich felt Holier than Thou was the best single for the radio and Ulrich didn't. I'll research that from one of my dvds.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "The album was a huge commercial success that debuted at #1 on US charts[13] and sold over 15 million copies worldwide[14] and "Enter Sandman" became" - you use "and" twice here. Try to vary things a little. For instance: "The album was a huge commercial success that debuted at #1 on US charts[13] and sold over 15 million copies worldwide[14], leading to "Enter Sandman" becoming".
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Apart from the nominations to the entire album" - maybe this should be "apart from the nominations the album in its entirety received"?
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• You wikilink All Music Guide more than is necessary, and Rolling Stone should be in italics whenever it's mentioned.
  • Y Done--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• In "Music video", three consecutive sentences start with "it is". Try to vary things a little.
  • Is it better now? "Enter Sandman" was the second music video Metallica released, but the first from their self-titled album. Recorded on 3 July 1991 in Los Angeles, it premiered on 30 July 1991, two weeks before the release of the album.[15] The video was the first of six Metallica music videos directed by Wayne Isham.[23]"--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this gives you something to work with. I'll gladly help out more if you ask. Seegoon 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Tomorrow I'll work on the suggestions I haven't been able to address yet and also on the prose.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update from Serte

OK, two days without any reply. Other than a copyedit, any issue you'd like to address? I'll be trying to do my best with English, check the Manual of Style for some things. I added something: during the Load tour, Metallica used to stage a destruction scene during "Enter Sandman" as can be seen on the DVD Cunning Stunts. Also, I'd like to have help on the line: "The mixing of the song took roughly 10 days because the band and Bob Rock had to find on it "the sound" for the rest of the album". To help you help me, what I mean with this is: Every song in an album has a similar sound, the way the guitars sound, the drums, the production, and so on. And Enter Sandman was the first song to be mixed, so it took a lot of time, 10 days, because they had to "create" the sound for the record in the mix. Any suggestion on how to say this in an encyclopedic way? Thanks for your help.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I just found this: [5] WesleyDodds 10:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool find, I'll have a look at it. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a Good article now. I need more feedback as I'm thinking of submitting the article for WP:FAC. Do you think it'll pass? If not, why not? --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The prose needs to be improved. I assume you've looked at other songs FAs like "Hollaback Girl" and "Smells Like Teen Spirit"; those two in particular are sound models to follow. Personally I'll take a crack at the prose at some point, but it may not be soon. WesleyDodds 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byron Nuclear Generating Station

I've listed this article for peer review because…

the coverage of U.S. nuclear power stations on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate and this article, which was just expanded, is really the first attempt on Wikipedia to cover nuclear power stations in the Unites States in any kind of encyclopedic and detailed manner. My main concern is about any missing data, any technical information or data that an expert would be appalled at seeing missing. The article was written by a non-expert with some background in chemistry and nuclear power through the military and through university. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

IvoShandor 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Really need a review or two here. I will return the favor. Thanks. IvoShandor 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Very good so far. I am also not an expert but here are some thoughts for improvement / clarification:
  • Images: there are four images which are basically of the cooling towers. Is there any way you could crop one or more of them to get more detail of the reactor buildings (or somehow get a closeup)? The black and white image in the infobox has some detail of the reactor containment structures, or the bottom color image from August 2005 is decent. Also, can these image captions be tweaked a bit? Two are just Byron Nuclear Generating Station and the date. Perhaps add "as seen from the southeast" or "as seen from near Dinkytown, IL" or "this is close to the station as one can approach now". Also would it be possible to add an image of the basic operation of the PW reactors such as Image:PressurizedWaterReactor.gif?
  • General - can you add metric units where none are now (2 miles west of the Rock River... was the only one I found). Be consistent about the names - is it "Unit 1" or "Unit One" (same for Unit 2 / Two)? Is everything in the lead found in the main body of the article? For example power to northern Illinios (capitalization?) and Chicago?
  • History - Can you add directions as well as distances (relative to Rockford, Bryon, etc)? What was the third group opposing construction? What will happen when the licenses expire (assume it will be decommissioned, maybe add a sentence or two on possiblities there).
  • Facilities and output - are the cooling towers numbered? If so, could this be added to a caption? What is the volume (capacity) of the cooling towers? Any information on the temperature of water entering and leaving the cooling towers (or the max. temp. at which the water can be discharged into the Rock River)?
  • Groundwater contamination - Braidwood contamination is explained, Dresden is not. Maybe mention here how many total nuclear power plants there are in Illinois for context (three problem plants is all, half, a few?).
  • Safety (and Security) - would it help to start this section with a few sentences on the NRC and its inspection levels (green, white, others?)? Would it also make sense to combine the Security section with this one, as it is fairly short now? Can you give any information on security before 9/11? How large was the security zone? Is there really no security zone there now? Can this be clarified?
• Finally, I will see if I can do a few copyedits that are easier just to do (being BOLD and all that) than to describe here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Woo. A peer review. I will incorporate your suggestions Ruhr. Thanks. IvoShandor 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished the copyedits and found that there were two broken refs in the safety section. I think I fixed them, but you should check (the first broken ref caused info about the NRC color coded inspection categories to not show up). I have a couple other suggestions - there are a fair number of entries in the infobox that are now blank which seem to have information in the article, so the infobox could have more info in it. There also seems to be some repetitiveness in the groundwater contamination section. Were there two Feb. 2006 reports? If not, can there be some consolidation there? Also, the new law is described in the sentence before the Illinois EPA action (in terms of Byron and Braidwood), then the whole new law is described again in more detail in the next paragraph, with reference to Dresden too. Again, there is probably a more efficient way to tell this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cow & Chicken

Requesting peer review on this article. It's an older cartoon series on Cartoon Network, no longer in production, yet still on the air. The article itself should be fairly stable, but would like to get the highest quality possible, shooting for GA. Pretty much open to any suggestions, comments, and what-have-you. I know that's a fairly wide open request...

Yngvarr 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Milburn

I prefer wide open requests, so I can write about what I like. Here are a few things I would do to improve the article-

• The article is seriously lacking in references. That seems to be the main problem here. Every statement should be referenced.
• Remember about section titles- they should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Some titles seem to be capitalised when they shouldn't be.
• Is it 'Red Guy', 'the Red Guy' or 'The Red Guy'? You seem to alternate between them within the article.
• The character listings are a little patchy, grammatically, and could do with a copyedit. Some examples-
  • Slappy McCracken is missing a space.
  • Photo-Realistic Beaver has a capital mid sentence.
  • Ditto for Blind Mud Puddle Johnson, which also says 'he's', instead of just explaining who he is.
  • Some say (voiced by...) others just have the voice actor.
  • Others.
• Whenever referring to the name of the series, it should be phrased as Cow & Chicken. Note the italics and the &. An example of when it is not can be seen in the last line of 'History'.
• "Cow and Chicken are a brother and sister who are a chicken and a cow" this implies the cow is called Chicken and the chicken is called Cow, which I know is wrong, because I remember my younger brother watching this.
• Episodes should always have speech marks around them. Note the last line of the section on Chicken.
• The last line of 'DVD releases' is missing a full stop, which should go BEFORE the ref.
• Despite using only a few references, some of them are unreliable. Both h2g2 and IMDB rely on user-submitted content, and so are counted as unreliable.

I am happy to review further, drop me a line on my talk page if you would like me to. J Milburn 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• More references needed, for sure.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayne Mansfield

Nice article on a ground breaking Hollywood actress with many awards and more controversies. A lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. It has gone through tremendous surges of changes, of which the recent versions of 28 July 2007, 3 March 2007 and 14 December 2006 may be worth taking a look at. A lot many suggestions I could make on the current version are there in these previous versions. This pretty important article shows all the possibilities of becoming a "good" or even a "featured" article. Please, take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, but is it possible that someone takes a look at the current and three previous versions to provide a specific review? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By Totnesmartin

The thing that strikes me here is the whole tone of the article, as if it was written by a mass of fans. It really needs someone to edit the entire article, top to bottom - there are things out of place or over-emphasised, and a fair bit of peacock terms. In all, not an encyclopedic article, even though the information is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 2:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Can someone cite a few examples from the article where the out-of-place stuff are or what kind of stuff is overemphasized? The rest, as well as the peacock terms can be figured out from there. Some more critique and review would be appreciated as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some specifics then:

• Introduction: having a star at the Hollywood Hall of Fame is merely a detail and doesn't belong in the introduction, unless it's her biggest honour. There should be an "awards and honours" section it could go into. Also, the detail about her gravestone can go into the "Death" section - again it's too minor a matter for the introduction, unless it's a big part of the Jayne Mansfield mythos, and I don't think it is.

Y Added "Recognition" section, rewrote the intro. In fact, one of the earlier versions had a "Recognition" section (mostly helped by my poor self).

• Reference 1 is to the IMDb, which Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source. Please find another source.

Y It is no more the first citation.

• early life: a few minor problems with links, which are easier to fix than explain. I'll do it after this. The only one that needs discussion is the Paul Mansfield redlink - relatives and friends of notable people do not usually justify getting an article in themselves (although there's an exception for royalty]]. Is Paul notable outside of Jayne?

Y Paul is not redlinked anymore.

• Acting career:"good roles dried up for Mansfield after 1959, the year after she married Mickey Hargitay, a Hungarian-born bodybuilder who had been Mr. Universe 1955." This makes it look like her marriage to Hargitay interfered with her career. if it did, it needs citing; if it didn't, it must go.

Y Removed.

• "(In Kenneth Anger's book Hollywood Babylon II, a photo from an unknown source reveals a shot from the movie's set in which Mansfield displays prominent pubic hair.)" This is irrelevant to her acting career if it wasn't in the film. The Hollywood Babylon books appeared long after she died, so this reference has no place in the section, or even (in my opinion) the article.

Y Removed.

• "Celebrity and publicity stunts" - a bit awkward as a title; as the content is just publicity stunts, then maybe the title should just be "publicity stunts".

Y Reworded.

• "(the line was written for Paar by Dick Cavett)." - this is irrelevant to JM and should go.

Y Relevance established.

• "Mansfield was compared (sometimes unfavorably) to the reigning blond bombshell of the period, Marilyn Monroe" - "blond bombshell" is unnecessary. and, er, Monroe wasn't a blond, but a blonde :D.

This needs a bit more thinking for me, I guess.

Y Reworded.

• "But her reliance on the racy publicity that had set her path to fame would also prove to be her downfall. Fox didn't renew its contract with her in 1962." - if her racy publicity led to her failure to renew her contract then it needs a citation; there could have been other reasons, such as her films being flops.

Yes, this needs a citation. I'll see what I can do.

• "(whom Mansfield considered her professional nemesis)" - another statement needing a citation.

Yes again. This article needs a lot more citations. I guess, I should ask people who are in the ownership of those Mansfield bios to take a look.

• career outside film - the part about her conversation with Queen Elizabeth is actually pretty boring and can go. Our Brenda has many, many frivolous mini-conversations with celebrities she sees for thirty seconds at official functions etc, and this is just another of them.

Y Removed.

• The "Nightclubs" paragraph has half a sentence about singing in nightclubs, but the rest is about her personal troubles. Move this to the "Personal life" section, or rewrite so that it's about her nightclub work.

Y Reorganized.

• The "Television" subsection could be expanded, it's not much more than a list of what shows she was in.

Let me see what I can do, though I can't see much happening any soon.

• Recordings - is it just me or are the two statues in the picture looking at each other with expressions of "is this what we've come down to?" :)

You can't blame them. Really.

• Personal life - much detail about her sex drive and her many affairs. should be cut down except where they affected her marriages or public image.

May be that celebrated sex-drive was her personal life. There was a nice quote on one of the earlier versions to that end. I need more advise on this.

• The acting success of Mariska belongs in her own article, not her mother's article.

In fact, the whole Mariska article needs to develop as there should be a new page on Jayne Marie.

Y Mariska reduced to ashes (and, yes, I have done a fair job on the Jayne Marie Mansfield article, I guess). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• The paragraph about her pink mansion is way too long, and maybe not even necessary at all. Certainly the list of people who owned it afterwards can go. After all, it's on Sunset Boulevard, where pretty much every house has been owned by a succession of celebrities.

Y Shortened the Palace part, but theres still a rambling list of all things pink in it. What to do? Remove?

• In the final paragraph: "(Mansfield: "The real stars are not actors or actresses. They're personalities. The quality of making everyone stop in their tracks is what I work at")" a two-sentence quote interrupting a single sentence is bad English and should be re-positioned within the paragraph. The second quote is preceded by "Or perhaps this quote sums it up best:" - some editor imposing their POV. We can't have everybody's favourite quote. personally I suggest rewriting the whole paragraph.

Y The whole paragraph removed.

• Death - "Her gravestone is a beautiful carved heart" - spot the word that can go!

Y It is gone.

• Popular Culture - these sections are cruft magnets and need regular weeding. So what if she was mentioned in a song by some band? Get this down to 3 or 4 references, and watch the article to ensure they don't start creeping back in.

I guess, this section could very well be split into an article on its own. Then I can put a {{dynamic list}} tag on the top and pray for the best when keeping an eye on the new article. I have been thinking of doing this a long time now. A little encouragement would immediately take me there.

There's been a drive recently aginst "...in popular culture" articles, with many being deleted - mainly because they were simply lists of every occurence of the subject in songs, cartoons and films etc. So make sure, if you do start an article, that it's not just a list of trivia, but a discussion of her influence and the variety of uses of her name and image, with just enough examples to illustrate the topic. Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it dosen't fit into an existing article and can't survive on its own, may be it was never ment to be! Taking another look at the prospects right now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Well, reading the essay WP:POPCULTURE, I suddenly became bold and have finally done it. Wheeeeee. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Finally (at last!) There should be a section on her legacy and influence - have any actresses or meodels based themselves on her, or were inspired to act/model by seeing her? This would be a good section to have.

Y I have brought back the part on her estate from a previous version. I'll check if anyone followed her footsteps.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a list of complaints (we Brits love a good moan), but acting on them will shape up the article immensely. If you want more help, then I heartily recommend WP:ACID.

Hope this all helps! Totnesmartin 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, us Bangladeshis can beat anyone at moaning anyday! :D I am working on your comment already. Some parts been done, others will be, I hope. Thanks for this enormous amount of help. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody can outmoan the Brits? Blimey! :) Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Now, I think I'm getting kind of familiar with the tremendous help you're rendering here. Can you please take a look at the peacocks dancing around in this article? There are way too many I'm afraid, and I'm not too good at locating them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By Aditya

Citation! Can someone identify the places where an inline citation is a dire necessity and tag those lines with a {{fact}} tag? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By SandyGeorgia

I made some sample edits to get you started; there are a large number of MOS issues, including WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. Solo years should not be linked, full dates should, and emdashes are not spaced on Wiki. The citations are not fully formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting to the style issues soon enough, promise. But, I'd definitely like to solve the tone ans reference problems first. Doing a thorough copycheck before that may lead to some amount of wasted effort. I can already look forward to some amount of material removed, and some totally rewritten. But, please, someone guide me to some specifics. Living so close to the article for so long has blinded me to some extent, and I really need help on this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By 138.67.44.69

She is a fascinating subject for an encyclopedia article. However, since it is an encyclopedia article, I feel that the subject throughout the article should be "Mansfield" instead of "Jayne." In some sentences, for instance, it will say, "Jayne was known for her great acting abilities." That sounds too informal to me. Another issue: Do you really believe that she had an IQ of 163 or whatever? Do you know how rare that would be? I doubt it, and if I were writing the article, I would treat that with skepticism.

There are three Mansfields in the article - Jayne, Paul and Jayne Marie. I think its prudent to use the first name in the body, and the last name in the leade (as there is only one Mansfield in the leade). Checking for the IQ thing, but if its strongly verified, it may remain as a fact. If not... well... Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done by Nasmformyzombie. Looks nice, I must admit. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that I hope will be added is basically a modern analysis of Jayne Mansfield. For instace, what is her legacy today? Can you find any modern reviews of her movies, for instance? I am curious to see how people view her in the 21st century. How do feminists feel about her? Which entertainers have been insprired by her through the years? I would bet that Anna Nicole Smith tried to look like her, for instance. Good luck on your journey to Featured Article status.138.67.44.69 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do about this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Patrick

There has been quite a lot of work done to Saint Patrick since the last peer review, and the article has been fairly stable for a while, so this seems like a good time to ask for a review. What needs added, removed, rewritten, referenced,...? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I thought the article is so good that I have put it forward as a Good Article nomination, and as a candidate for featured article with the Portal:Saints. The article is rich in academic references but they are unusually interesting. My only suggestion is that the preamble does not fully assert his notability; the impact of converting the Irish to Christianity had an important consequences for the spread of the monastic establishments during the Dark Ages is highly significant from a European perspective. --Gavin Collins 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council of the European Union

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to FA standard, but I am unsure if the content and the standard of content meets such criteria. So I'd like to know what might keep this article from FA status or any other general suggestions for improvmenet. Thanks! - J Logan ^t: 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User:JayHenry

I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for feedback. I know how frustrating waiting can be for these! This article is in quite good shape, and I'm sure this can get to FA, but I think some work is needed. It looks like you were the primary author of European Parliament, an excellent article, you can largely use that article as your guide.

• "Special Council of Ministers", set up to counterbalance the High Authority (the supranational executive, now the Commission Did the Special Council ever do anything significant? Did they make any decisions that are still important today? If so, this should be outlined; if they never did anything significant, the article should explain why. Its current powers are outlined by the Maastricht Treaty, but did the special council? In short, I think the history is still a bit thin.
• Somebody at FAC will direct your attention to WP:DASH. I consider this fairly trivial, but it's probably better to clean up dashes now.
• The section "Legislative and budgetary authority" seems to be largely about legislative procedure, rather than legislative authority. Also, an explanation somewhere of the meaning of "There are various legislative procedures used in the Union. The Codecision procedure is the most common (43 areas) which gives the Parliament and Council equal powers, in that legislation can be amended or rejected by both chambers. However older procedures, still used in some cases, give the Council greater power." would be really helpful. That left me scratching my head.
• This: Although from 2007 every three member states cooperate for their 18 month period, providing greater cohesion for the agenda. is a bit unclear to me. The example that follows it only says that Portugal is the president, and doesn't explain what Germany and Slovenia are doing, or how their actions contribute to cohesion. This needs to be spelled out clearly.
• The lead says, It is composed of 27 national ministers (one per state), the exact minister depending upon the area being addressed; for example agriculture ministers meet to discuss matters regarding agriculture. It's unclear to me what this means. The section on Configurations explains this a bit more clearly. For an agriculture meeting the 27 national ministers meet with the various countries' agricultural ministers and commissioners?
• I'm confused by the heading Civil Service -- aren't virtually all European Union jobs Civil Service?
• Under qualified majority, different states have different voting weights, as follows (of a total of 345 votes) Does this mean that the representative from Germany gets 29 votes on an issue? European Parliament very clearly explains the membership/voting. We need more of that clarity here, I think.
• In whole, the article still needs fleshing out, but is definitely heading in the right direction. The article only briefly touches on what the council does at powers and functions, but as this is the primary role of the council, this really needs to be dealt with in more detail.

I've watchlisted this review and the article, and I'm happy to help with further improvements or to clarify my points above. --JayHenry 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! They're extremely helpful. I am a bit tied up at the moment but I will be getting onto this ASAP so you will probably hear from me soon. Thanks again! - J Logan ^t: 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doping at the 2007 Tour de France

Listed because the above was a rapidly changing event that was in the media spotlight. Now with the sport moving on, the furore has calmed down, the article is edit-stable and has multiple references. Looking for suggestions as to how to get it up to GA for now. Many thanks Dick G 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeLarge

Hey, I remember this. At an AfD. Hehe, that was amusing. Anyhoo, back to the review...

My first thought was that, as per WP:LEAD#Length, the opening is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I don't necessarily agree with that guideline in every instance, but in this case it highlights the article's biggest flaw (point two, below):

1. Expand the lead; a straight cut/paste of the second paragraph in the Overview?

Y Done Slightly re-worked as wanted to farm off some of the content elsewhere Dick G

1. After doing that, if you re-read the article you basically have a very short Overview, a "rogues' gallery" of bad boys, and a very short Other developments epilogue. Insufficient actual content. Give us more! So...
2. Expand the Overview, by merging the Other developments into it?

N Not done Only because I think it is important that the article emphasises the events during the Tour. It seems there is much less gravitas on the post-Tour developments - most of the talking/action occurred when Rasmussen exited . Thoughts? Dick G

1. Start the Overview with a summary of the Operación Puerto doping case. Even though it has its own article, it's mentioned on this page four times with no description at all, and therefore forces an unfamiliar reader to navigate elsewhere.

Y Done lifted the lead from OP article which seemed to work Dick G

1. Looking at the citations, there's a lack of references from continental Europe. I don't know how multilingual you are, but I bet there's a bazillion enraged op-ed pieces in Le Monde and La Gazzetta dello Sport from fuming cycling journos who've seen their sport desecrated. NPOV is a good thing, but the last two sentences are (in my eyes) insufficient indication of how gigantic a debacle this was in Europe. This can be a Reactions and criticisms section, or some similar name?

Y Done where most of the effort has gone. Am not multi-lingual (shame) so have had to crib second-hand references from British media but it seems to work Dick G

1. Once you've expanded the Overview and merged in Other developments, all that's left is the Positive/Affected riders. Personally, I'd try and merge them into the general Overview, but if you'd prefer the current sections (what I referred to as the "rogues' gallery") then that's not a problem, since they're well-written prose. I definitely think that if you keep them they should come at the end, after all the other sections.

Y Done as regards the latter suggestion. To merge them into overview seems to blur the chronology and would burden the Overview section which is better off as an indicative summary of how the events unfolded. Adding detail of Vinokourov's denials, Astana's voluntary suspension or Contador's protestations seems to clutter that ideal. Dick G

1. And as someone who always checks his layouts in multiple resolutions, well done on an article which looks good at all screen widths between 500 and 2000 pixels. That's not easy with photos down both sides.

Y Done wish I could take the credit but not my work unfortunately. With expanded sections the article probably needs more images. Any ideas/assistance?Dick G

Other, minor issues:

• I see one day/month not wikilinked (July 31, in the Vinkourov section).

Y Done think I've picked them all up now Dick G

• I'm not 100% on what style guides recommend, but personally I'd spell out "fifth", "twelfth", "seventeenth", where they occur; every number from 1 to 20, plus 30, 40, 50, up to 100 in words, others written in numbers (but check the Chicago Manual of Style or similar for confirmation that this would be correct).

Y Done in part. I am not keen on spelling out placings as I think it is ugly and unnecessary though happy to defer to any MOS sticklers.Dick G

Hope all this helps, regards, --DeLarge 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: reading over my comments this morning, I'm not 100% that I did a decent job of communicated my suggestions. I therefore created a sandbox at User:DeLarge/2007 Doping to illustrate what I meant; hopefully that'll help. Y Done in part. Comments above refer to any departures from the suggested order Dick G

Also, after re-reading the article, one small issue I have is that because riders aren't excluded immediately (i.e. they're tested in stage 11, but not excluded until five stages later), it's not immediately obvious that the article's in chronological order. For example, I'd suggest changing "Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni tested positive for testosterone after stage 11, in which he finished 102nd. After finishing stage 16, he was immediately pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis." to "Immediately after he finished stage 16, Italian cyclist Cristian Moreni was pulled out of the Tour by his team, Cofidis. He had tested positive for testosterone in a sample taken after stage 11, where he finished 102nd." That might better emphasize the "chronologic" (sic) of the page. Y Done Think I've addressed this now as article is more chronological. Happy to be shown any errors or fuzzy chronologic Dick G

Further regards, --DeLarge 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very grateful for your time. Regards Dick G 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner -- I ended up taking about a week's holiday shortly after you posted, and I'm only just getting back up to speed.

Just to let you know that everything seems fine now, at least as far as my peer review is concerned. Obviously any GA- or FA-candidacy is likely to attract a more thorough examination, so I offer no disclaimers, ha-ha. I think what you now have is the basis for a good article -- improvements to it will come from tweaking, rather than major additions of content. The only comment I might make is with regard to the layout of the photos (ironically, my suggestions may have messed these up slightly). All the pics are in one small section of the article, and I thought spreading them out might help? Perhaps moving the Vinkourov image up a bit to where he's first mentioned (During the Tour)?

As for more images, the only suggestion might be to do a search on Flickr. There's an advanced search function that allows you to look for only CC-licensed images. While they're not all compatible with WP (we can only accept those with no commercial restrictions, or something like that), you might get lucky and find a suitable shot. Alternatively you can contact the photographers directly and ask nicely. I was able to get a photo that way once. (see Image:Mitsubishi i 2.jpg and the original image). --DeLarge 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

Hey, I think the article should have one more peer review, just to see if there is any way to improve the article, as like a sort of maitnence procedure. Please post some helpful advice. If you are looking for the old peer review click here. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Route 33

I've listed this article for peer review because its a GA article that I want to upgrade into a Featured Article, which would be my first. I just need some advice for it.

Thanks,

Mitch32^contribs 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

• 2007:
  • September (current)
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2004
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1