Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Comment
 The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page.

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.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review.

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

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

  1. Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
  3. 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. You may also add a topic parameter to the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template to help reviewers find your article. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are:
    X = arts · langlit · philrelig · everydaylife · socsci · geography · history · engtech · natsci.
  4. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
  5. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.

How to remove a request

In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may close any

  • listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days,
  • listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity),
  • inappropriate listings,
  • articles that have become featured article candidates,

as follows:

  1. Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} by {{subst:PR/archive}}.
  2. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1).

The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, 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 use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews.
  • The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Please list automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2008 and link to them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page.
  • Feel free to improve the article yourself.

For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Other peer reviews:
Purge server cache edit guidelines


Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least one week old that have received no feedback:
February 19 • Kannada literature • Pectus excavatum
February 18 • List of One Tree Hill episodes • Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots
February 17 • Episode 210 • Disappearance of Madeleine McCann • Flag of Singapore
February 16 • McFly (band)
February 14 • History of York City F.C. • Tax protester constitutional arguments
February 13 • Flying the Flag (for You)

If you review one of these articles, please remove it. (update list)

Contents

[edit] Arts

[edit] 2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

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


I've listed this article for peer review because the page needs to be individually audited for quality for this featured topic candidacy. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 02:33 UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent good article.


Thanks, Vikrant 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 15:25 UTC)

[edit] Xenomorph (Alien)

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


I'm giving this article an overhaul but am having trouble figuring out the right balance between "in-universe" and "out-universe" description. Would appreciate links to any GA or FA level articles on fictional creatures for inspiration. Thank you. Serendipodous 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 12:30 UTC)

[edit] Saxophone

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


This FFA was completley rewritten around information from the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and the other sources present in the article. After realising that inline citations were ridiculous, it was converted to a largely bibliography-based referencing system, which permitted it to pass GA review. I'd like to know what needs to be done to get it back to featured status, particularly with consideration to referencing and additional content. I know a lot of (unsourced) information about specific composers and pieces using the saxophone was removed during the rewrite (here's a pre-rewrite version), and I simply dumped the entire "technique" section into saxophone technique, which is now a complete mess. Does some of this stuff need to be worked back in, or is it better off in the gutter? Happy‑melon 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, this article regretfully needs a great deal of work, which is sadly like most musical instruments on Wikipedia. Generally speaking it's underreferenced, but a few lines stick out to me: "It is suspected that Sax himself may have attempted this modification." Who suspects this? Everyybody? Saxophonists? Specialists? Writers? We need to know who suspects this, and very much need a source that verifies it. If it's annotated in one of the books that's listed in references, we need a footnote-reference indicating the page. "This extension was adopted into almost all modern designs." This is split-tense prose. It either should be "has been adopted" or "was adopted into most designs of the time" (or something to that effect). There are a number of other things which I don't have time for now, but tonight, I'll thoroughly scour through and see what I can help you with. In the meantime, just try to reference anything that potentially needs it. The line about Jazz being the most common use of Sax definitely needs citation, even though there's no real question about it, it's still a very BIG statement to just be sitting there with the reference not being pointed out (even if it is in one of the footnoted references, one is not going to read them all to figure out where it is confirmed. I know I'm not). I'll be back. --rm 'w avu 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 20:00 UTC)

[edit] Alto saxophone

Article (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch • Watch peer review
Contrabass saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Bass saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Baritone saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Tenor saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Alto saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Soprano saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch
Sopranino saxophone (edit|history) • Article talk (edit|history) • Watch

We have here a series of seven articles which are all, in essence, subarticles of Saxophone. What I would like to know (because of course there's no featured-topic potential here :D) is how editors think these articles should relate to the main saxophone article. What should be included on each page? What should repeated from the main article? What shoudl not be duplicated? Comments on the parallel peer review for saxophone would also be greatly appreciated. Happy‑melon 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I ran the semi-automated peer review script for Alto sax - if you would like it run for the other six articles, please say so and I will run it for them too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the start-class nature of all these articles, I'm not really concerned about MOS at this point. Thanks for running it on alto sax though. Happy‑melon 10:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 19:59 UTC)

[edit] Silverchair

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


Recently passed GA, now going towards FAC. There are some comments on the talk page that have mostly been dealt with, hence asking for more! :)


Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Some long sentences which I'll take a look at. I'd love to see a little more about the band's impact, Silverchair really helped drag Aussie rock out of its pub rock stagnancy and paved the way for the current burgeoning alternative rock scene. That's almost OR coming from me, but I'm sure you could find backups for that :) Just that the incredible iconic stature that Silverchair holds for many Australian musicians doesn't seem to come across. Overall it's a fantastic effort. Perhaps lacks the 'meatiness' I've come to associate with FA, but I don't know all that much about it. Good job. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 02:02 UTC)

[edit] Jack Warner

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


While I am not responsible for initiating this article, I played a role in expanding it. I have listed Jack Warner for peer review because I want to ensure that the article provides a comprehensive, balanced, and engaging treatment of the subject. Any recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks, twelsht (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 14:48 UTC)

[edit] Anatoliy Brandukov

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


After addressing the comments left by the last GA review, I want to put this article up for GA again, but I don't know what else can be done to improve it. I'm specifically looking for suggestions on what can make this article "broader in scope." As I see it, it has a comprehensive biography and information on his most important contemporaries, so I don't know what else to include. Given also that there's so little information on the person, I think anything else would be either a repetition of something already said, or a fabrication and synthesis of sources. ALTON .ıl 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 07:05 UTC)

[edit] Le chemin de fer

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


The article is quite short, but its pretty uses the entire literature on the internet about it and most printed materials too. What can I do to improve it, to even get it considered for GA (as it would probably be quickly rejected due to length)? ALTON .ıl 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 07:00 UTC)

[edit] London Calling

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

vfdf

This article about The Clash's 1979 album has gone through a complete overhaul. I would like to nominate it for FA status in the near future and any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) sdsdsdsdsdsdsđ

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 04:37 UTC)

[edit] List of Primetime Emmy Award winners

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


This list is comprehensive and accurate, but I would like some general article feedback before bringing it to FLC. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 00:17 UTC)

[edit] Irreplaceable

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


I've listed this article because a thorough peer review would be great before passing to FAC. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, --Efe (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

As promised, here are some comments. I haven't read the article in full (sorry) so this is more general stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • As I said to you in the past, the quotes need borders around them. Also, the second quote, "I wanted to make a record that women could relate to.", doesn't really stand out that much and could just go in the body passage.
Y Done
  • In the Background and inspiration section, the first 2 paras only really use 2 sources, so it doesn't look great to have the constant ref placement after every sentence.
Y Done
  • ""Irreplaceable" primarily uses gently-strummed acoustic guitar." - Can you describe the audio sample specifically?
Y Done
  • A free image would be good
Question. I cant find. There are some images of her, which are quite good, but uncaptioned which I dont know what song is she singing. (In Flickr)
I'm not sure if it matters too much. I took a look too, and there were photos from a 2007 tour (on which you had commented, I believe). Saying something like "performing at a 2007 tour" in a caption wouldn't be bad at all. Kakofonous (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But we are not really sure if she is singing "Irreplaceable". Yah, that was me "BritandBeyonce". Could you help me find one or two? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ""Irreplaceable" entered many charts around the world. The following table lists the various charts and peak positions." - That's fairly self evident
Y Done Removed.
  • The concession boxes at the bottom look a bit like overkill...so many!
Question. Do I have to cut it down?

I made a few edits myself...I hope this helps a bit. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Efe (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for the review guys! --Efe (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 February 2008, 01:19 UTC)

[edit] A'Cappella ExpreSSS

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


I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first major contribution to WikiPedia and I want to see your suggestions about this article's improvement.

Please, comment what I should add to the article about A'Cappella ExpreSSS ensemble. Maybe it lacks links or is improperly formatted, or maybe is simply not detailed enough? Please, comment.

And yes, I see it lacks photo. I'm already working on this ))


Thanks, Basilex (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Review from Kakofonous:

I did some basic formatting and copy editing on the article before reviewing it. See the Manual of Style for more information.

The main issue I noticed was the fact that this article is essentially a stub. Apart from the discography section, there are only a few short paragraphs explaining the band's history and background. Perhaps this is due to the fact that there are not enough references available, which leads me to another issue: there are only two citations in the article, not really enough for it to be verifiable. I suggest you spend some more time researching the band, gathering references, and adding content. It is not a problem if the references are in the Russian language. Kakofonous (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 February 2008, 00:55 UTC)

[edit] List of One Tree Hill episodes

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently updaded the article to standards seen from a featured list List of Smallville episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes and wanted to get people's oppinion on it. I would be greatful for any contributions and discussions, with pointers for improvements.


Thanks, Russell [ Talk ] 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 February 2008, 00:34 UTC)

[edit] Episode 210

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I could make constructive contributions to the article to make it as high quality as possible.

I would like to know how I could add more depth to the article and what kind of information would be needed to do that. I would also like to know what kind of information the article is lacking so that I, or other editors, could try to add that information to the article.


Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 19:06 UTC)

[edit] McFly (band)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I asked for one before but it was never done (apart from a auto bot one). I'd like to nominate the article for "good article" status but it quick failed before due to lack of references but since then, this has been improved immensely so I believe it should be reassessed. A peer review would tell us what else we should do to improve it.


Thanks, Stacey talk to me 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 February 2008, 20:05 UTC)

[edit] Aqua Teen Hunger Force

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


I've listed this article for peer review because the last peer review/GA nomination suggestions are over a year old, and I'd like some direction on how I can improve the article as it is now to be ready for a GA nomination. This is my first attempt at such an endeavor.

Thanks, Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article looks goo, it's pretty well written (wouldn't hurt to have a fresh set of eyes with the time to take out the red pen to have a look over it). It's also god a good scope, but it lacks comprehension in one major area: visual style. This is a must-have for any animated show/film article, where the visual style is discussed, deconstructed and built back up again, and what influences are in place for the style. I'd avoid using abbreviations (you use "A.K.A.", which should be expanded to "also known as"). Another thing is that you have only one image other than the infobox in teh entire article. While that's fine, it'd be a good idea to try to track down one or two more, because we're talking about something that's intrinsically visual and audible in nature; furthermore, the one image you do have seems to be in the wrong place (or seems very out of place to me, sitting in the cold openings section). Anyway, I think it's not far from exemplifying "wikipedia's finest" but it's not quite there yet. let me know when you go over these things and I'll let you know if there's anything else. --rm 'w avu 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:28 UTC)

[edit] Flying the Flag (for You)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it to FA before Eurovision in three months time. When it was listed as a GA, the reviewer said not much work would be needed to get it to FA, so I'm wondering what could be done.

Thanks, Will (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 19:22 UTC)

[edit] Devourment

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


This is an article I started rewriting after seeing it on AfD, but then got sick of it. It had been sat in my userspace for months, and I have only 'completed' it today, and would like advice on how to get it to good article. Specific things I would like advice on- how does the members' list look? Should I include cats to indicate the many formations/breakups, or just leave with the first formation date? Of course, absolutely any comments welcome. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now a good article. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burningclean

  • Just as a note, I am not sure on this, but I think there is an overuse on commas throughout the article.
    • Hmmm, I know I do use a lot of commas, partly because I use a lot of parenthesis- see point 2. However, I didn't properly copyedit the article, as I was keen to get it into the main space last night, and I knew I had to get up for work today... I will give it a copyedit now. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • “The band is currently signed to label” add “the” before label
    • Y Done I think both are acceptable, but I'll trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you know what the “other” labels are?
    • Are you referring to the infobox, or the lead section? I thought the links with other labels were too small to bother mentioning in either, top be honest. If you look at the discography, you see they are linked with Corpsegristle, United Gutteral, Displeased, Night of the Vinyl Dead and Brutal Bands, as well as self-releasing an album. Not bad considering they only have two LPs... J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Also add Unmatched Brutality to that list, I've found another cite... J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That is fine, I suppose with an obscure band like this it isn't worth mentioning all of the numerous labels anyway. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • “The third reformation years saw two rereleases of 1.3.8,” The word “years” looks kind of funny there.
    • Y Done Was meant to be 'years later'. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the info box, instead of using commas for the current members, could you use line breaks? I’d say you could leave the former members alone due to there being so many.
    • Wasn't there a debate about this recently? What was the consensus? Not sure I like formatting the current and former members differently... Y Done For now. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, on second thoughts, that looks better. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I didn't realize there was a debate.
  • “Henry had formed his own band- Dead Industry” Instead of the little dash, maby use a comma or —
    • Y Done Fixed throughout the article, that's something I have never got into the habit of. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Crap, I'm sorry, I should have clarified. In the members and discography sections it should actually be – —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Whoops, thanks, fixed. I assume it should be the little dashes in the discography too? J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The same goes for “band then put out their first promo, featuring two songs- "Shroud of Encryption" and "Festering Vomitous Mass",”
  • “The band had a release show for the album at Colarado.” ‘’in’’ Colorado (I lived there :P)
  • I think the Members section needs some cleanup. I think you should use the same format most band articles are like, despite how many lineups there were. Maby even make a template like Template:Opeth timeline.
    • I'll have a think about this. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The template was just a suggestion, it isn't nedded at all, I'm fine without it. However, the regular formating would be easier on the eyes.
  • Do they have any external links? (Official, Myspace, etc.)
  • It isn’t needed but a band template would be nice to have in related articles.
    • Something else I have never done- is it really worth it? There is the band article, and three (rather poor) album articles... J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually didn't see the album articles up unil now, so you are correct, it isn't needed.
  • One thing I forgot, are there any images available for the band. Images are a pain in the arsenal, however it is one of the GA criteria. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I may contact the band and request an image, but maybe not. Alternatively, I talk about an album cover in the article, I could stick that in? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m not the best at reviewing articles, but I think I covered the obvious points. Thank you for asking me to review by the way. Cheers, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks very much for the review. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

Comments;

  • "Majewski had previously worked publicizing the band and providing artwork, and had first seen them when their only song was "Shroud of Encryption", having been introduced to the band by his friend 'Hound'.[7]" - Sentence is somewhat awkward, and possibly needs splitting into two.

LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Devourment also released their second DVD in January 2007.[26]" - Does this DVD have a name, and have any outlets reviewed it? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware, no and no. The band site just calls it 'Devourment DVD 2' or 'The Second Devourment DVD' and similar, and I have not come across any reviews. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Criticism of the album included that it was too repetitive.[20]" - Who, writing for which publication, expressed this opinion? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Y Done Thanks very much for the review, further comments welcome. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M3tal H3ad

  • United Gutteral, Corpsegristle Records and others - "and others" is vague
  • the band released a demo - has released?
    • N Not done I think mine is correct- because I am saying "Since formation, the band released X and X before breaking up." Not just "Since formation, the band released X and X." In which case "has released" would be better. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "got together" don't like the use of the word "got"
  • Should there be spaces after em dash? i thought it was like—this
    • Y Done According to the Manual of Style, you're right. They really aren't something I'm familiar with. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • then put out their first promo - put out-> released?
    • Y Done It wasn't released as such at the time, but I have rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • having been introduced to the band by his friend "Hound", relevant?
  • The band then recorded
  • n 2006, the band a two album - signed a two
  • with bassist new Chris Andrews - new bassist
  • Despite no longer being with the Devourment - "the devourment"?
  • They have also - also is redundant
  • The band members list is confusing, can it be transferred to a seperate article and just consist of the current lineup, or would it likely be deleted?
    • That's honestly not a bad idea- the sourcing would be a bitch, though. Hmmm, actually, now I think about it, maybe it wouldn't, I could probably source the whole thing to the official site... It's relevent information about a notable band (not cruft) so, if it gets too unwieldy in the main article, it can be split away. I'll add that to my list of ideas. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Right, split it out into its own article, Devourment band members, as well as creating a template and sticking it at the bottom of the various pages. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Watch out for overlinking Blabbermouth.net in the references.
    • I was under the impression you should link in every individual citation? J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's about all, good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks very much for the review. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not allowed to use the done and notdone templates? That's the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The preceding sentence explains why: "This size of this page is limited. Please do not include any images...". This is also a guidleline at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 10 February 2008, 00:14 UTC)

[edit] Enter Sandman

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Good article, which has been reviewed once, failed FAC but was copy-edited since then by User:Malachirality of the League of Copyeditors. The only procedure missing there is proofreading, but it's taking a while for anyone to do that. Anyway, I'm very thankful to Malachirality. So, I think the article is near the FA quality, but I'd like to check any flaws it might have here. My aim is FA, tell me what the article needs to get there and what I can do. Any help appreciated.


Thanks, Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J Milburn

  • "which deal with nightmares." Link to nightmare?
  • "in the US" Shouldn't that be U.S.?
  • Music sample- instead of ""Enter Sandman"'s original main riff" which looks silly with the apostrophe, why not rephrase to "The original main riff from "Enter Sandman""? Rephrasing it in the 'caption' would also be good.
  • "equal-rhythm guitar tracks" Link to rhythm guitar, and is there a link somewhere that could explain what is meant by 'equal'?
  • "Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep bedtime prayer and afterward reciting a variation of the childs nursery rhyme Hush Little Baby" I think they should both have speech marks (despite the fact the prayer doesn't in its article...) and 'To' shouldn't be capitalised.
  • ""Hush little Baby don't say a word, and nevermind that noise you heard. It's just the beasts under your bed, in your closet, in your head"." Why is 'Baby' capitalised, and why is that in italics? It may be meant to be in italics, but what guideline is that based upon?
  • "the same riffs of the buildup" Same riffs as the buildup, surely?
  • Last paragraph of the section is a little short- could it be merged elsewhere or expanded?
  • "a folklore character" how about "a character from European folklore"? Sandman is vague about where he actually comes from, otherwise a more specific link would be better...
  • "producer Bob Rock tells Lars Ulrich" Tenses- Bob Rock told Lars...
  • "opening track and first single of the album." It looks poor to not end a paragraph with a reference.
  • "the song was also nominated"- 'Also' is redundant- you've already said 'in addition to'
  • Not sure about the Richard Cheese category- the article isn't about his version of the song...

This article's fantastic, and the prose is brilliant. It will make a great featured article. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think everything is addressed.
    • Instead of U.S., it is United States.
    • By equal, I meant playing the same thing, the same music, the same riff. Is it more clear now?
      • Yup, that's better. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • About Sandman's origin, I don't know. Sandman's article is not that good, so I just use the information I've got from Encarta, which has a footnote, but does not mention his origin.
      • Yeah, no problem about the lack of details- the article's about the song, not the sandman. However, I would still change it from "The title is a reference to the sandman, a folklore character that makes children sleep." to "The title is a reference to the sandman, a character from western folklore who makes children sleep". J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • One question for you: "while the band plays the same riffs as the buildup intro in reverse". By "in reverse", do you understand it is the same riffs played the same way, but the last riff of the buildup intro is played first and the first riff of the buildup intro is played last, right? I'm asking this just to be sure, English is not my native language, so I have some doubts it is clear and if people can make a confusion between reverse and something like backmasking.
      • Oh, I didn't actually, I read that as the music being played backwards. Should have realised it wasn't correct, I absolutely love the Apocalyptica cover... You could perhaps rephrase to "while the band plays the same riffs as in the song's buildup, in reverse order." J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It was there before, but the user who copy-edited the article removed the word "order" and now I wasn't sure it was clear. I added it back again. Thanks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So, is it all ok now, for you? Any more suggestions? Thanks a lot.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 02:05 UTC)

[edit] United Abominations

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it the last couple of days and plan to take it to FAC. This is the first album article I have rewritten.


Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vox Humana 8'

Hiya - found a number of issues of style, spelling and grammar in the article: I have tried to fix all of them. If there's anything obvious I've missed, fix it yourself - if there's anything you disagree with, revert and take it up with me.--Vox Humana 8' 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would generally agree with J Milburn's comments on the matter. This is a long way off GA, never mind FA. Still, what are we here for? We're here to get it there...--Vox Humana 8' 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J Milburn

Not a fan of Megadeth, at all, but happy to go ahead and give a read and a review. Also, I found myself being really picky about phrasing, so I'll just go ahead and change that myself. Article has also been edited by User:Vox Humana 8', who I was talking to while writing this review.

  • I'd remove that banner- it's ugly, and honestly don't think it would help improve the article.
  • If we can't have a link for the Kerrang! review, can we have a ref?
  • "at the time" At what time?
  • "When Mustaine was asked in an interview why the lyrics" Interview with who, from where?
  • "When Lomenzo was asked" Who's Lomenzo?
  • "Big Fish Encinitas, California and Backstage Productions" Where or what is Backstage Productions?
  • "The recording line up comprised" Repetition of 'line up' sounds poor.
  • "Appearing at track 11, "A Tout le Monde (Set Me Free)" is a remake of "A Tout le Monde" originally appearing on the 1994 album Youthanasia." Sorry, why are we suddenly talking about that?
  • Not sure the "Gears of War" stuff belongs in that section...
  • "Mustaine stated "We're putting" Where did he state that?
  • "The completed album was leaked on to the internet in April 2007" Ref?
  • "received its official release on May 14, 2007. The first pressing of the album, released exclusively in Japan on May 8, contained a cover of the Led Zeppelin song "Out on the Tiles".[11] The album was released internationally on May 15 and a day later in the United States." Wow, what? Slow down. Chronological order. It was released in Japan on the 8th, then [where?] on the 14th, then somewhere on 15th ('internationally' isn't fair- you're writing too much from a US perspective- 'internationally', to me, generally means 'in Germany'...) and finally, the US on the 16th. Right?
  • "Finland, five in Canada" Can we have links to those countries, please?
  • "which will last until March 2008." Is due to- let's not say things are guaranteed to happen.
  • "Lacuna Coil, and" Link?
  • "prog-worthy chops" Link to progressive metal? I assume that is what is meant? It's late...
  • I am really not sure about that Mydenrocks interview- as long as we can be certain that it is genuine, we can reference the comments of Mustaine, but who's this Dave Myden character? Just some dude with a Blogspot account?

This really isn't your best, FA is a long, long way off. It really is lacking something, and I'm not sure what. Or maybe it's just me. Or maybe it's just because it's Megadeth. :) Seriously though, I wouldn't nominate for GA quite yet, nevermind FAC. Have a look around for some more sources, see what else you can find. There must be loads of good sources for something like this. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my first album article, so I don't quite have the hang of it yet. I am not nominating it for anything yet. I will work on this in a little while. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M3tal H3ad

  • Don't start the body of the article with a quote, move the unsigned thing before the quote
  • When Lomenzo was asked about, you need to introduce him
  • Shouldnt the picture of Cristina be in the section that talks about her?
  • United Abominations was originally set for an October 2006 release date
  • remove comma after but
  • received its official release on May 14, 2007. The first pressing of the album, released exclusively in Japan on May 8, contained a cover of the Led Zeppelin song "Out on the Tiles".[11] The album was released internationally on May 15 and a day later in the United States. A week after its release
  • starting in Canada opening for Heaven and Hell and Down, then in the U.S.A.,and a North America tour again opening for Heaven and Hell and also touring with Machine Head.
  • and often stated as a return to form for Megadeth. By who? and it's missing a word after and
  • gave the album a 7.5 out of ten possible points 7.5 out of 10
  • All Music Guide and Blabbermouth shouldnt be in italics
  • About.com reviewer, Chad Bower - it's Chad Bowar
  • The album was voted the best metal album of 2007 in the March 2008 issue of Guitar World. - by the readers of the magazine
  • pointing out false accusations as being such - eh?
  • 2008 - lasting - em dash
  • reflist|2

That's about it, good work. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 09:18 UTC)

[edit] Vädersolstavlan

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I spent a long time producing it almost a year ago and still think it does a credible job detailing its subject, but, because of my shortcomings in English, quite obviously still need copy editing by native English-speakers. Also, my use of images in the article is not conventional and should probably at least be discussed.

I'm biased of course, but I think this painting is very interesting, and that the article in spanning over various fields — including the Middle Ages, art history, and meteorology — with a little more effort might develop into a feature article.


Thanks,

Mats Halldin (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to ce it, but I won't be fast :). Marskell (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Seegoon

I only just got some free time, so here are my thoughts.

  • Have you considered providing either an audio sample of someone saying the title, or maybe an IPA inscription? Articles like Fredrik Ljungberg do this.
Y Done. Quality could be better though. I'm still new to Ubuntu, so I don't know how to increase the volume. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "over Stockholm April 20, 1535." - I'd make this "on April 20..."
Y Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to wikilink Stockholm twice in the lead. Likewise, maybe it's not necessary to wikilink "history of Sweden" twice either.
Y Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, it was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." - my objection to this is a personal one. I'd change the structure to: "It was previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, and was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." Again, this isn't something lost in translation - English natives do it all the time too!
Y Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "During the 20th century" - personally, I'd go for "twentieth", longhand.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer periods: "Use numerals for centuries (the 17th century), ...". So, I'll leave it as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "right, and an x-ray analysis" - I'd remove the "an", personally.
    • I may be wrong, but is this a UK vs US style issue? To me, US style always seems to cut out a lot of connecting words! 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, this can be left as it is, imho. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Just as in the Swedish painting, the panoramic view is not depicting a panorama actually viewed, but rather reality as known." - this is confusing.
Y Done This has been rephrased.
  • "dressed in 16th century armour." - "sixteenth", maybe? I'd take the word of a history Wikipedian as opposed to mine. I see you use "17th" in the next sentence. Again, I'd ask someone more in the know than me.
See above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "in 1998 the artist Göran Dahl furnished" - "the" isn't necessary here.
Per above: This can be left as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "posters, box of matches, etcetera." - I'm sure there are tidier ways of ending this abstract list that "etcetera", which reviewers might deem lazy.
Y Done Well, personally I don't have a problem with this, but it is reworded now.
  • The Gamla stan metro station picture causes a half-page gap on my screen. If you moved it to the right, that might solve the issue.
It is located on the right side, did you mean left? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Layout has been changed considerably. Should work now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The political relation between Sweden and Denmark" - "relationship", I think.
Y Done This has been scrapped from the article now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "a series of personal unions 1397–1524 which united northern Europe under a single monarch" - this is a bit unclear and clumsy.
Y Done As above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "1434-1436" - you use a different style of dash here than the one you did in 1397-1524.
Y Done The article has been copyedited and this problem should be solved at this time. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the entire History section might be criticised by some exclusionists as being circumspective, or irrelevant to the painting itself. Personally, I like seeing extra information like this, so don't worry too much about it.
Y Done It has been shortened considerably. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The landscape and a great number of notable buildings is veraciously rendered in such great detail" - if you're referring to multiple things, "is" should be "are".
Y Done Para rephrased now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are references 2, 3 and 14 separate? Aren't they all the same thing? The same applies to 9, 10, 11 and 13. Your system is a little confusing, and if you're referencing books, you really should be referencing the page number.
Hm, apparently someone tried to introduce a new kind of reference template for Stockholm diff. Author are different for these refs. Should I just restore them using the regular {{cite book}}? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I restored the refs. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the most I can give right now I'm afraid, but I hope it's all of use. Good luck! Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you review. Sorry for having backlogged it.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Isotalo

I believe much, if not most, of the historical information would be better off in articles on Swedish history and Olaus Petri rather than the article about the painting itself. And I'm a bit concerned about the structure of "History" being a tad confusing since it tries to describe a "prelude" and an "aftermath" of something that wasn't actually a historical event, but a work of art.

The section "Parhelion" seems to be almost entirely misplaced, even I can sympathize with the ambition of explaining the meteorological phenomenon. Just about all of that info is a detailed discussion of the nature and historical understanding of sun dogs, not Vädersolstavlan.

Peter Isotalo 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you,
I've had a discussion about the history section on the talk page. and, yes, I agree, it is to long. I'll try to rewrite it.
Seegoon 
Some of your points apparently have been solved by 4u1e. I'll have a look at the others.
Peter 
I completely agree on the history section, and the parhelion section is maybe a bit long, but it also explains why the painting is surprisingly accurate - even optical phenomenon not entirely understood before the 20th century are depicted correctly.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marskell

Mats, I'm ce'ing from the bottom, as everyone typically goes from the top. Can you rework "The large circle in the middle of the sky is a parhelic circle – a common halo (while full circles are rare) which is parallel to the horizon and located at the same altitude as the sun, just as depicted." Can't make this out at all. Consider two or three sentences. Marskell (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reworded parts of that section. Thanks for your time.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yomangan

Very interesting article. The look at 16th century and modern Stockholm is very good, but I would like to see more direct comparisons in the images as you've done with Riddarholmen - this really is a case where a picture speaks a thousand words. I agree that the history section needs trimming; the prelude could be condensed to couple of sentences. I also found the "Events" subsection disorganized. I suppose it was meant to be discussing the phenomenon and reasons for the production of the painting, but it skipped back and forth without really concentrating on any particular event. You could move the section on the sun dogs up here, so we don't have to wait until the end of the article for an explanation. I think the article also needs more on the lost painting and the link between the lost and existing versions. The extant painting is referred to throughout as being a copy of the original and at one point as an accurate copy, but there is nothing to tell us how this is known. The original is lost, and there is no documentation mentioned that establishes that the extant painting was copied directly from the original (other than perhaps the mention of "renewal", but this seems tenuous at best), or whether it was an accurate copy. Urban Målare is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text - why is the original attributed to him? The section on the parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - subsections for tiny paragraphs. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. more direct comparisons in the images - Good idea, I'll try that.
Y Done I've reworked the section and added more direct comparisons. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. the "Events" subsection disorganized - Yes, I will shorten the entire history section, so hopefully I will manage to bring some order to it.
Y Done This section has been shortened and reworked. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. more on the lost painting - but virtually nothing is known about the original painting (which is attributed to Urban Målare simply because he is one of the few painters known by name from that era). There is a sentence in the Painting section saying: "A dendrochronological investigation showed [...] the painting in question must therefore be a copy and not the restored original." The entire Medieval Stockholm section is an attempt to show the is indeed reason to believe the copy must have been made directly from the original. This should be made more clear in the article apparently. In the intro maybe?
Y Done I've added a "and virtually nothing is known about it." in the intro to clear this out. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - Yes, good point. move the section on the sun dogs up - it actually was one of the first sections while I was working on the article, so it is probably a good idea.
Y Done I've removed the subheadings in the parhelion section. I've been considering reordering the sections, but it just don't make sense to me. After all this is an article about the painting. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 4 February 2008, 21:57 UTC)

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

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


I'd like this article to be reviewed because I think it's well-referenced and well-written and am looking for any ways to improve it before I send it to WP:FAC. Thanks, Fbv65edel — t — c // 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lose the cast section it's redundent. Buc (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 4 February 2008, 02:23 UTC)

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] Robert Holdstock

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm interested in feedback on NPOV, peacocking, formatting and wording. I am also curious to see if others view the article as start class and low importance

Thanks, Npd2983 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 18:55 UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

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


I've listed this article for peer review because Kannada language is one of the oldest languages of India, with a history of over 2000 years. It has a literary tradition spanning 1500 years. Kannada writers have made invaluable contributions to Indian literature, both classical and modern. Hence I feel this article is important. The article is well referenced and cited. Please provide constructive feedback which would help improve the format, prose and presentation.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I will attend to this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The spellings are consistant with British English. I have trimmed the article and included several sub-articles. The titles of sections meet the auto PR requirement now.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:54 UTC)

[edit] Nahuatl

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to make FA before too long. I would appreciate comments about content, style, language (English is not my mothertongue), layout, image use, etc. All and any copyediting is also appreciated - I've been working on the article so long now that I have become blind to my own shortcomings.


Thanks, ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Peter Isotalo

Before getting into specific details, I'd like to bring up a general point about focus. As far as I know, language articles are treated as rather specifically linguistic topics. Literature is therefore treated in separate articles with some reasonable exceptions when describing the history of the language. I recommend making "Literature" a separate article.

Peter Isotalo 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it relevant to mention the literature because the body of existing literature is what makes Nahuatl stand out among the hundreds of languages of the Americas (as a number of the cited sources also state). Plus it is what the language is best known for. It is also the best studied aspect of the languages, and Nahuatl philology is generally treated by linguists as a linguistic topic. In the article about Mayan languages there is also a specific section about literature - albeit much smaller. I think the article would be incomplete with out a separate section about literature, but it could possibly be more summarical in nature. I do agree that we need a specific and much more detailed article about Nahuatl literature, as a matter of fact I have had that on the planning stage for a while now.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An idea: How about we move the things about rhetorical style into a section under the "syntax" section and call it "ethnography of speaking" or "stylistics" or something like that. That would bring it more in line with the linguistic topic. Then the literature section would be only a small summary of the kinds of literature that exists in the language. How does that strike you?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think sorting it under "History" would be more arppropriate since we're dealing with a literay tradition that is pretty much dead (at least in writing).
Peter Isotalo 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the first part of the article in more detail and made a copyedit of the lead and "History". I'll start with the minor pointers that apply to the entire article:

  • Make sure that you use either British or American spelling consistently. I've changed one instance of "marginalised" to "marginalized" since the article seems to be using American spelling, but I can't be sure.
  • The footnotes need to be standardized. There's a lot of them that come before punctuation and the notes themselves are a inconsistent. I've suggested the format "Smith (2008), p. 67" with a semicolon to separate references to two works in a single note. While this doesn't really matter that much either way, I don't believe the year needs to be specified to authors of only one source, such as Boas or Pickett.

I took the liberty of combining some footnotes to the end of a paragraph or a sentence, but that's only my opinion. Unless we're talking about highly contentious facts, I don't believe the mere mention of any random general figure (like "proto-Nahuatl speakers entered Mesoamerica around 500 AD") really requires a dedicated reference. Either way, you're welcome to revert it if you feel that it might be contentious enough.

I have some more specific comments about the history section:

  • Note 9, the one that explains the alternative theory of the origin of the Uto-Aztecan languages, seems like pretty important information. I think it would be appropriate to include it inthe main body of the article in a somewhat shortened format.
  • The second sentence of "Colonial period" says that "...the Spanish allied themselves with the Nahuatl speakers from Tlaxcala and later with the conquered Aztecs." What exactly does "allied" mean here? I was under the impression that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and subjugated them by allying with their enemies. Did the Spanish use the Aztecs as allies when conquering other peoples as well?
  • There's a mention of "mundane documents" as part of the colonial Nahuatl literature. Does this refer to bureaucractic by-products or profane literature such as works on agriculture and etiquette?

Peter Isotalo 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


I admit that it has a lot of sources - this stems from my experience in a previous FA where reviewers demanded citations for almost everything. I wished to be ahead pof them this time and have made sure to have good sources for any claim I made this time.
  • about note 9: I am reluctant to put it into the text because I am not certain about how influential the idea has been. I have read a lot about proto-uto-aztecan history for the past 5 years and I only stumbled on that article on google scholar the other day, and frankly I was amazed that this view would have been proposed, given the good evidence and wide consensus about Uto-aztecans northern origins. I have not seen it mentioned in any influential studies about uto-aztecan prehistory, in other words I suspect it of being a fringe view and I am afraid of giving it undue weight. I would like to investigate more about how the scholarly community have received the paper before including it in the article.
  • about the allies, yes that is exactly what they did. Cortés for example brought not only tlaxcaltecs but large numbers of mexica (aztecs) with him on his campaign to honduras. When the spanish and tlaxcallan forces conquered tenochtitlan they instated a ruler of their, which in effect made tenochtitlan a puppet state of the spanish. This meant that Mexican forces under the command of their own ruler (albeit a puppet) accompanied spnaish soldiers in their efforts to subdue other mesoamerican peoples.
  • It referred mostly to bureaucratic byproducts when I wrote it, but actually also the latter. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Very satisfying replies, Maunus. Thank you. My only recommendation is that you clarify "mundane" a bit more. "Profane" would probably be better, but you could also give one or two examples of what it actually meant.
When it comes to the citations, I think you could probably cut down on the references to entire books in some cases. The referencing should be proportional to the obscurity (even within the topic itself), vagueness and contentiousness of any given fact.
Peter Isotalo 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to my arguments about citations, my impression of the meticulous referencing in the article is that of slight overkill. For example, statements about what the Aztecs called themselves and their language seems like something that isn't the least bit contentious and not obscure enough to require a separate citation. I also quite don't see the point of providing separate references for language samples and the likes. Repeating references to pages 61-63 in Suárez (1983) over and over really just pads the number of footnotes without really improving the referencing in any meaningful way. If anything, mere translations of sample sentences and the likes does not require separate referencing.
Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the nomenclature, you'd be surprise how controversial it is. Not because there is any doubt in the sources or among specialists, but its the kind of things laymen drop by and argue against almost monthly - only because they believe in some other version they've been taught at school. I personally think that language examples and translations need meticulous sourcing simply because it is important that people know where the examples come from - because any translation can be argued against, and any example can contain mistakes. It is better that it is Suárez mistake than for it to be wikipedias. But of course a single not could state that all the examples given are from Suarez.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with how contentious language topics can be, but I'm also aware that the most stubborn and shrill criticism usually comes from people who haven't read a single page of scholarly research and usually motivate their actions by claiming they "know the language". The referencing of research is yours to decide, but I would like to insist that the translation references would be improved by not being scattered. You could just as well gather them up in one or two footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done that. It is a good point.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read through on down to "Grammar", and I have some more comments:

  • "The Nahuan subgroup of Uto-Aztecan is classified partly by a number of shared phonological changes from reconstructed Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA) to the attested Nahuan languages." This sentence in the first paragraph of "Phonology" is rather difficult to decipher. I see the general meaning, but I think I think the sentence needs to be somewhat simplified.
  • In "Phonology" I found this statement: "giving a complete overview of the phonologies of Nahuan languages is not suitable here." This would be suitable in an essay, but it sounds somewhat odd in an encyclopedia. The statement should be more along the lines of "the details are very complex" or something like it. The suitability of any given level of detail, however, should be more implicit.
  • I'm assuming that "phonemic stress" means that variying stress patterns can change the meaning of words. Whatever the case, it needs to be explained to those who aren't familiar with linguistic terminology.
  • There's a rather longish bullet list illustrating various phonological changes. In a sub-article like Nahuatl phonology it would be appropriate, but in a main article it's very tedious. Could this be shortened to just two or three examples and preferably converted into prose. "Grammar" is also rather long-winded in examples and could just as well be more stringent in its summary style.
  • The literal translations of the sample sentences need to be a bit clearer. The grammar needs to be clearly separated from the semantics, preferably with different fonts or something. For an example of how to solve this, see Nobiin.

Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been wanting to do the small capitals thing , I just didn't know how it worked. Its done now.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 14 February 2008, 15:36 UTC)

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] Duncan Edwards

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


I only initially began work on this article because I happened to be in Dudley and decided to kill some time photographing places associated with the player, but now that I've spent some time on it I reckon its close to FA status. I modelled it mainly on the existing FA on Gilberto Silva, but would appreciate comments on what I might still need to work on............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 19:01 UTC)

[edit] List of football clubs in England by major honours won

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I did a couple of edits on this today, and kept on going. I reckon it could be close to being FLC now, and wanted to find out what else is needed to push for featured list status. The only glaring omissin I can see is a few more refs to those clubs without an honours page on their official websites.


Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The columns do not sort properly. When sorting by Titles, Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal appear between Portsmouth and West Bromwich Albion, and when sorting by FA Cups, Manchester United and Arsenal appear between Old Etonians and Leeds United. However, for some unexplained reason, the Total column sorts correctly. – PeeJay 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And I can't work out why. I didn't enter the original table, but tried to re-enter the data but to no avail. Any clues would be most welcome. Peanut4 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed it. Simply changed the -s for 0s. It was previously sorting it as text, not numerals. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice one. I was going to suggest using the {{nts}} template, but this way is much simpler. – PeeJay 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Here's a few points:

  • In the second sentence I wouldn't say "clubs who have", I dunno if it is technically grammatically correct but it sounds wrong (to me at any rate) given that clubs are not people.
  • The FA Cup was first competed for in the 1871-72 season, not 1872 specifically
  • Maybe clarify that the Cup Winners Cup is no longer competed for?

All looks good other than that....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 03:02 UTC)

[edit] Lancia LC2

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of nominating it for GA, but would like some review of it first before I submit it.


Thanks, The359 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments

Just random stuff:

  • For a general audience you may need to give more detail on what things like factory team, Group C, Group 6 etc mean. Suggest in the lead you just refer to the 'recently introduced 'Group C' regulations', rather than mentioning Group 6 and the LC1.
N Not done I attempted to try and explain factory team, although I guess it is hard to describe. Intro changed to just say that the LC2 was their first car in the new Group C regulations. I'm not sure if I can really explain Group 6, since it was a bit of a wide-open class, but the premise behind Group C is there.
Looks better now. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'managed only three victories' - I think I may just have my NPOV-o-meter turned up too high, but I get twitchy when I see the word 'managed' and the word 'only'. Perhaps replace with 'won three of the X races it competed in'?
Y Done Changed it to that the LC2 earned three victories to eliminate NPOV potential.
  • I would personally give a little more background on the introduction of Group C at the start of 'Development', to give context, but you may feel that is too much.
N Not done I'm not really sure if an explanation of the shift from Group 6 to Group C can be done in a concise manner, except for possibly simply saying that Group C was introduced in an attempt to level the playing field.
A one-liner as you suggest (an attempt by the FIA to level the playing field) would be good - it just gives some idea of where this came from. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Added a statement that Group C was intented as a method to equalize manufacturers and teams.
  • de-stroked is probably jargon. 'reduce the capacity of'?
Y Done I had added the term destroked the other day, and had been looking up how to link it to an article, but it appears we have no article on destroking, so I'll agree it is jargon.
  • 'destroked to 2.6 litres to increase fuel economy, while two KKK turbochargers were added for power.' This feels a bit wrong - how about 'Two KKK turbochargers were fitted to a reduced capacity version of the engine to provide the required combination of fuel economy and power.'?
Y Done Changed to say that the engine was reduced and turbochargers were added to provide the fuel economy and power necessary.
  • You should give U.S. conversions for units.
Y Done Forgot that bit.
  • I think there's something missing from this sentence: 'At the rear, a pontoon-style design was adapted, with the large wing bridging the gap and the rear diffusers exiting from below the car.' What gap is the large wing bridging?
Y Done Another bit of a hard one, I had figured that pontoon inherently meant that there was space inbetween, but it is not always completely empty. I think I've made it a bit better now.

I'll come back with more comments. Hope these are useful. 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for this so far. No rush in adding any more, I know you have other work to do. The359 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No trouble. Further comments:

  • Are you sure you want 1 decimal place for cubic inches? I know that technically you've matched the number of decimal places in the original figure, but since litres are roughly two orders of magnitude bigger than cubic inches, it's perhaps not appropriate.
Y Done My mistake, I haven't used those auto conversion templates much so I wasn't quite sure what the 1 was for.
  • I would wikilink the 1983 season again at the start of the '1983' section. I know it's already linked in the lead, but that's a semi-separate piece, and the link would be useful here. Definitely link the seasons that are not linked in the lead (1984 and 1985) in the main text.
Y Done
  • tire or tyre? My favourite argument :) It's not as clear cut here as it often is for F1, which has on average been dominated by British teams. I've read somewhere that European English, representing an Italian team, sponsor and (mostly) drivers, follows UK English for spelling, but I don't know if that's the case in practice.
Y Done Yeah, honest mistake there. I tend to use Tyre on my results templates, but forgot it here.
  • 1000km Monza or 1000km of Monza? The article is called the former, but refers to the latter in the text.
I personally have preferred to use Distance of Location, such as in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. I brought up this problem with WP:SCR since some of the classic 1000km events had already been written, suggesting they be changed to "1000km of Monza" and such. However, there was no consensus, with the debate being that "1000km Monza" or "Monza 1000km" is the more popular usage in Europe, apparently. So the articles remain withou of, but I always tend to put it in the articles I write.
  • 'and the second car lost twelve laps to the winning 956' It finished 12 laps down, or it lost 12 laps with a problem? If the latter suggest you specify the problem, if the former, I think the wording needs to change to be clear.
Y Done Finished 12 laps down, not sure if it all happened at once (I assume not, they likely backed off towards the end to have enough fuel to finish).
  • Any idea why Lancia skipped Fuji etc in 1984 - were they competing in the Euro championship again?
There was no European Championship after 1983, so their reason for skipping Fuji is unknown, except maybe to save cost or because they were already statistically eliminated from the championships.
  • '1985 became a year in which Martini Racing needed to show etc' Did it 'become' such a year, or was it such a year from the start? What changed during the year to make this the case?
Y Done Was, due to the lack of success in the first two years.
  • I may just have learned an intolerance from user:Tony1, but I'm finding that there are a lot of words like 'actually',' ever' and 'managed' that can be cut from the text without changing its meaning. The theory is that this makes the text more concise and to the point. I've had a go at some of it, but there may be more opportunities to do this.
I agree, I probably do it too much, they seem to just fit too naturally in my writing. I'll try to think of some alternatives.
  • Lancia was or Lancia were? Either version is acceptable, but it should probably be consistent.
Y Done I've attempted to change it to Lancia were (as well as several instances of LC2s were, rather than LC2 was, since there were multiple LC2s).
  • What has happened to the Lancia machines since? Are they competing in historic events, for example?
As far as I know two were used in historics in the US, but I believe one was sold and checking the major Group C organisations, none are currently running. I'll try and dig some info up though on how many were used in historics and such (the US HSR series website is down at the moment it seems).
  • Nothing wrong with online refs, but is there any chance of getting hold of some hardcopy ones?
Unfortunately I lack any sort of sports car texts, beyond official race programs for the past few 24 Hours of Daytona (AKA, not much help). They're rather expensive and I spend enough on my diecast hobby as it is. However, looking through the WP:Motorsport library, I did notice that you and Diniz have the Autocourse annuals for the 1983 through 1986 period, which did cover the World Championship, so some tidbits might be available in there if you can find some.

Nice clean article, which I have enjoyed looking at. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 23:14 UTC)

[edit] List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on whether or not it satisfies Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before I nominate it. Currently, it is missing images, and I am looking to address that, but I wish to see any additional feedback. Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 20:43 UTC)

[edit] List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on whether or not it satisfies Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before I nominate it. Currently, it is missing images, and I am looking to address that, but I wish to see any additional feedback. Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 20:43 UTC)

[edit] European Golden Boot

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the list has improved a lot, I would like to know whether I should go for FL, as it is essentially a list, and is in a list category. Thank you for your time NapHit (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

  • "in all the top " - in all of the top or in all top...
  • "Soulier d'Or" - translate.
  • "or the spring-fall season before in relevant countries" not clear to non-experts. Plus should we not use "autumn" as "fall" is very US-English.
  • "because of suspect scoring sprees in Cyprus." this needs expansion and citation. I don't understand what it means at all.
  • "of which France Football is part of" - no need for last "of", and what is the relevance of France Football; indeed, what is France Football?
  • "which is weighted according to the relative strength of each of Europe's leagues" - this probably needs to be expanded, perhaps highlighting the range extremes, so strongest league (serie A perhaps?) has higher weighting than, say, Cyprus league?
  • "golden boot twice" - Golden Boot twice.
  • " the amount of games" - number of games.
  • Hugo Sanchez's notes box isn't rendering correctly (I'm using Safari on Mac OS 10.5)
  • If you use rowspan or colspan, it tends to mess up sorting (try it - it goes bananas).
  • Rather than Country, I'd identify the League in which the top scorer was playing.
  • "Pancev affair" again, this should be expanded upon in the text rather than be consigned to a footnote.
  • Zviad Endeladze deserves an article, albeit a stub!
  • Arsen Avetisyan's final column isn't rendering properly.
  • Henry/Forlan final column isn't rendering correctly either. Plus similar problems with sorting and colspans etc.
  • "France Football decide to " - decided?
  • Fill in the {{Cite web}}s completely, including accessdate=
  • Use the Category:Football (soccer) in Europe category instead of the sport in europe cat.

Hope these are useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:44 UTC)

[edit] KitKat Crescent

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


Any improvements that can be made to this page? Any more content in particular? Currently at GA, but would be interested to see if anyone thinks it could reach further. Main problem is probably lacking enough content to include for a higher status to be achieved. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments Hello Matty, I share your concern that perhaps the article is not big enough for FA but I've seen shorter ones than this make it. I've given it a reasonably thorough examination, so here are the things that I noticed.
    • Consider just stating "association football" instead of football in the lead, especially oop north!
    • "it has also hosted a pop concert and a firework display and also an American Football and rugby league match." 3 x and in a short sentence, could do with a bit of work.
    • "relatively inaccessible" - relative to what?
      • Y Done I've tried to clarify this a bit. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "their support" - doesn't flow correctly after talking about the stadium.
    • "Bootham Crescent had been used by York Cricket Club for a number of years. When the cricket club..." a) how long (cite?) and b) can you merge these sentences?
      • N Not done I am unsure how long they occupied the ground, but it mentions that "Cricket had been held at Bootham Crescent for many years. In June 1890, Yorkshire beat Kent by eight wickets on this ground in what remains the only County Championship match played in York."
      • Y Done Merged. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "first big match" - big in what sense? Needs quantifying.
      • Y Done Mentioned how they were the first First Division side to visit the ground. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Link FA Cup on its first use.
    • "third round tie match" - just third round match?
    • "a record attendance" whose record? York's, KK C's, or the league?
      • Y Done Club record, so I've added this in. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "air-raid" or "air raid"?
      • Y Done Consistently gone with "air-raid". Mattythewhite (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • " During the war, big crowds came to the ground." a) "big"? b) quantify and cite.
      • Y Done Removed. Seems hard to get evidence on how the crowds were actually "big". Mattythewhite (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "completed by the late 1940s and early 1950s" - it was completed at a singular point. It can't have been completed over a period of time?
      • N Not done Of course, but neither the book or the club say when exactly! Mattythewhite (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Main Stand was extended towards Shipton Street in the summer of 1955, which was helped by profits gained..." - the summer was helped? You get what I mean? rephrase.
    • "major FA Cup" according to whom?
    • "They were official switched on in a friendly .." - a) officially and b) switched on for (not in) a friendly...
    • " Shipton Street End" or " Shipton Street end"?
    • "Simeltaneously", "also the addion if a new referee's" - recommend a spell check.
    • "The capacity was reduced in 1994 as the family area of the Main stand was increased, due to popular demand, as well as complying with the recommendations made in the Taylor Report, and 326 seats replaced a standing area, resulting in reduced capacity and also stricter rules concerning the density of people standing as a result of the recommendations made in the Taylor Report after the Hillsborough disaster further reduced capacity." - sentence is too long, starts illogically, repeats Taylor Report and is a little too much for my small brain!
    • " A water tower" - why? For watering the pitch? If so, say something along that line.
    • "relayed" - I suspect relaid is better here!
    • " as the poor quality of the pitch was blamed for the team's poor home form the previous season." - by whom?
    • "A fully stocked and modern club shop " advert warning! A club shop... will suffice.
    • "It is expected to be built on one of the British Sugar, York Central or Nestlé North sites." don't understand this really - British Sugar site? I've got one of those about a mile away and I reckon I'm around 250 miles from York!
    • "A Football League XI side beat the Northern Command 9–2 at the ground in a representative match on October 17, 1942.[8] It held its first Schoolboy International in May 1952, when England, who were captained by Wilf McGuinness, who later became York manager, beat Ireland 5–0 with a crowd of 16,000.[7]" - the other uses section starts badly - the opening sentence doesn't talk about the stadium at all and then the second sentence says "It held..."...
    • " The most recent time ..." not particularly elegant.
    • You could expand on the incredible number of lines going in and out of York station.
      • N Not done Any idea what sources could provide this? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Double check your references, I've got one dead one - use this page to help!
      • Y Done Removed broken links with functioning ones. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hope that lot helps - I have a feeling that FA could be possible. You need to work more on the prose but I think you've got most of the things that could be covered here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 14:36 UTC)

[edit] System Shock 2

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the last week rewriting 90% of it and I think the article is really good now, but not up to FA quality yet. I need opinions on what can be improved. Sections I believe need the most work are:

  • The development section - may be a bit clunky, need opinions.
  • Reception section - need to make sure its neutral and informative
  • Edit: Character Section - It might be better to delete this and expand the setting section. Suggestions?

Basically, the article just need eyes prodding making sure it flows and covers all the bases so it can join its Shock brethren as an FA. Ill be around to respond to posts. Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it. Noj r (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 February 2008, 06:56 UTC)

[edit] Anfield

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is capable of reaching FA status. It is also part of my drive to get Liverpool F.C. to Featured Topic status. The article is based on the structure of existing Featured Articles such as Priestfield Stadium and Portman Road. Thanks in advance, as always, for your time and comments. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello NapHit, here you go...

  • "...formation in 1892 and was also the home of Everton F.C. until 1892." reads oddly. Did Liverpool therefore "evict" Everton or did they share?
  • "internationals matches at senior level" - one too many s's? And you could probably link (somehow) to may the England national team?
  • "There are plans to replace Anfield with a new stadium in Stanley Park. It will hold an extra 25,000 fans and is scheduled to open in 2011." - would merge these to make lead a little less choppy.
  • "John Houlding" - not clear what his relevance is?
  • " Liverpool Association Football Club" - why in bold? The article is not about Liverpool F.C....
  • Wikilink gable.
  • "second League Championship in 1906" - consider linking the year to a relevant football season article?
  • Spion Kop - is there a suitable link about the Boer war hill?
  • "huge roof" - bit POV.
  • A number of sentences which are split by a comma e.g. "In 1957 floodlights were installed and on October 30, 1957, they were switched on for the first time ..." - where I'd either use a semi-colon or an "and" rather than a comma to separate.
  • Link Shankly (or explain the gates were named after him, or both!).
  • "Lennart Johansson" - explain his significance.
  • "RFID" - expand on its first use... I had no idea!
  • "The Kop takes its name from a landmark hill in the township of Natal, South Africa. The stand was originally built in 1906 as an uncovered terrace capable of holding 30,000 people, a large roof was added in 1928." - feels a little too repetitive from the history section.
  • Bold Anfield in Future section - why?
  • Other uses - four "however..." sentences in quick succession reads awkwardly.
  • "ans during the inter-war" - typo.
  • " city ad finishing " - ditto.
  • Consider an average attendance graph.
  • Five external links feels a bit too much. Stick with official and that's about it...

That's it for now. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC}

Dealt with all comments, except graph which I will produce soon hopefully if I can find some way of producing one NapHit (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From the directions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Looks good, here's some minor points that need looking at:

  • "was the home of Everton F.C. until 1892, after they left following a rent dispute" - should be when they left....
  • "hosted numerous international matches at senior level, with the last being" - reads like there will never be another such match at the stadium, which while quite likely is not confirmed, so maybe consider changing to "the most recent"
  • "The record attendance is 61,905 was set in...." - grammatically incorrect
  • "Each of its four stands have...." - should be "Each of its four stands has" as "each" is the subject and is singular
  • "There are plans to replace Anfield with a new stadium in Stanley Park, it will hold ....." - should be which will hold.....
  • "first League match at Anfield was played on 9 September 1893 against Lincoln City, Liverpool won 4–0 in front of 5,000 spectators", either change "Liverpool won" to "Liverpool winning" or make it a new sentence
  • "was similar to the main stand at Newcastle United's ground St James' Park, the stand proved to be a landmark in English football" - as per the last comment
  • "It was the largest Kop in the country" - maybe clarify prior to this sentence that other grounds also have/had stands with Kop in the name, otherwise it sounds like it was the largest out of a field of one
  • "floodlights were installed and on 30 October 1957; they were switched on" - no reason for a semi-colon there
  • "Shankly's wife Nessie" - as Shanks was dead by this point she was technically his widow, not his wife
  • "The Anfield Road stand, is use to house" - no need for a comma there, and it should be "used" not "use"
  • "the stand was once a simple low-lung stand" - is "low lung" a genuine architectural term (could be for all I know), or is it a typo?
  • The opening of the new stand by the Duke of Kent is mentioned in two separate places in almost identical terms, it really doesn't need to be in twice
  • "In 1921 Wolverhampton Wanderers and Cardiff City met in front of the King and Queen" - add wikilinks to indicate which King and Queen this was
  • "Wolverhampton won the replay, though Wolverhampton lost the final" - apart from the fact that Wolverhampton should not be used twice in such quick succession, the fact that they lost the final is irrelevant to an article on Anfield
  • "they went onto win the final, becoming the first club to win a semi-final at Anfield and go onto win the FA Cup" - both uses of "onto" should actually be "on to"
  • "The last international to be hosted at Anfield, was England's 2–1 victory" - no reason for comma after Anfield
  • "Liverpool did not lose a league match during the 1893–94, 1970–71, 1976–77, 1978–79, 1979–80 and 1987–88 seasons." - I think the words "home" or "at Anfield" are missing from this sentence

I know this seems like a lot, but they're all minor points which should be easily corrected. Other than that the article looks excellent, best of luck with it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 February 2008, 21:03 UTC)

[edit] Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have been improving this article, but can't seem to find any more ways to improve this article on my own. I would like to know more ways how I or others could improve this article to make it better.

Thanks, Hello32020 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • All problems listed there have been fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 February 2008, 15:46 UTC)

[edit] List of managers of the England national football team

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Well, I could barely believe that this article (or one like it) didn't already exist so I knocked this up. I'm hoping for it to make WP:FL in the future, based loosely on the List of Manchester City F.C. managers which placed as much importance on the history and prose as it did on the stark reality of the facts in the list. I'm sure, yet again, it's riddled with issues, two solid days of work on it means I'd like to float this out to the community for any comments or advice. As always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from PeeJay

  • I haven't got time at the moment to look into this in great detail, but I will say one thing: perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "List of England national football team managers". I will take a better look later, but this is the thing that stuck out for me straight away. – PeeJay 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I've had another look, and I'm really struggling to find anything wrong with this list. I really like the amount of detail in the managerial history section. Some might say it's a bit too much, but I think it looks good. – PeeJay 11:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey. Thanks for taking the time. I agree that some may find the history section a bit big - it's halfway house between article and list, but there you go! We'll see what happens when I take it FLC in the future! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Struway2

  • Very briefly, will review it properly later (my list of what to review properly later is getting out of hand). At first glance it's a terrific piece of work, though I definitely see it as an article with a very helpful summary table at the end rather than a list. MCFC managers had 2 pages history and just shy of 4 pages list, yours is pretty well the reverse. I like it, whatever it is! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I guess if it's an article it'd need a bit of breaking up into sections? Dunno. But I'd appreciate your review when you can find the time!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Koncorde

  • There's a couple of repeated bits of information (I think you mention the fact Winterbottom was the longest serving manager twice for instance within a relatively short space of time, as well as the Ramsey World Cup thing) and its current format is a little 'wordy' due to the use of the 'full name' of every event/club (such as "Uruguay national football team instead of Uruguay).
  • Some bits of the prose is clunky, but that's just a feature of the fact it's trying to include a pocket bio in each.
  • Breaking at each change in manager, and perhaps a summary at that point would be useful for navigation.
  • Walters bio in this is actually more complete than the one in his main article, which really needs looking into (I'll see what I can do for him). Also Walters bio suggests he was a professional (if only for a short time) with Man Utd. I don't know who is right, but possibly a couple of fact checks need to be done on what's in the article.--Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Koncorde, thanks for taking the time to have a look at the article. I've addressed the "national football team" bit (I forgot to pipe a few as you spotted!) and will look at the repeated information. Interestingly I originally intended the article to be a list, not an article, but there turned out to be quite a bit to say about the managers so it now looks like I'll need to address this as a potential FAC. Thus I'll need some sections so hopefully that'll iron out the breaking/summary issue you've noted. As for improving the prose, that's something I'd like this peer review to help with. Finally, the Walters bio, I didn't even look at it funnily enough. But I will have a scrabble around to see what his prior experience was. I was going by a single secondary source for that bit of info so it could be that there's a mistake with it. Thanks for pointing it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry to butt in. If you break after every manager, that could in fact make it more of a list than an article, if you'd still prefer to go down that route. And the table could be just as much a helpful summary at the end of such a list as it would have been at the end of an article. Just a thought. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I like that. I wonder if that would be a half-decent precedent for this type of article? I'll have a play... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • See the History of West Ham United F.C. for what I did. With each individual section dedicated to a managers tenure, and links at the end of each tenure to relevant competitions within wikipedia, plus their own articles. I know you mean this to be a list - but for me there is a great article waiting to come out of this.--Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
            • That's a fair article but I'm looking for an overview here really, rather than a history of England football. So something in the middle I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Having looked for the repeats, do you mean the stuff in the lead is repeated in the main body? I can't see any other repeats. If that's the case then there's no problem as the lead should provide a summary of the article which will inevitably result in some repeated information. If not, can you point me to exactly where there's an issue, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's the way in which it is said repeats itself. If you're going to say Winterbottom was the longest serving manager, then you need to find two ways of saying it so as to not end up saying "Winterbottom was the longest serving England manager" twice. Basically just repeated 'language' and sentence structure.--Koncorde (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, in the lead I have "The first, Walter Winterbottom also held the position for the longest" and in the main section I have "He remains the longest serving manager of England." - they say the same thing in different ways. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I'm not sure what you're getting at - repeated "language"? It's typical for the lead to summarise the article and potentially repeat detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Both essentially say the same thing. There's "summarise" and then there's repeating. For instance the below would be the main text in the body:
Walter Winterbottom was the first manager appointed, in /year/, and served for a total of /x/ years as manager. His /x/ years in charge remain the longest period for any England manager so far (with his successor, Ramsey, behind on /x/ years). During his tenure he successfully lead the team to their first 4 World Cup finals.
And this would be a summary:
Walter Winterbottom served as manager for longer than any other."
Don't mean to nitpick language, but just making a point that parts need fleshing out or structured in such a way as to stay fresh.--Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, no worries, nitpicking is good... I'm still stuck in the midst of working out if I should reduce the flesh a bit to focus on a list or expand further to make an article. Or both. Or neither (and just stick to Ipswich articles!). I think there's loads of scope for similar national coach articles (at the very least Scotland would easily have enough for something similar) so I'd like to get this right. What's the way forward, article with summarising table for FAC or brief intro and expanded table for FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's an equal call for both. Looking at a few of the managers bio's they rarely focus on the England career (even in the case of Winterbottom) so there is clearly scope here to not only improve their biographies, but to also create a full "International" collection of pen-bio's, history and events. I would say this article should focus on provided the data and pen-bio's, facts and other managerial information you wont find on History of the England national football team.
Meanwhile a lot of the info, references and detail you have picked up on clearly should be incorporated into History of the England national football team which is pretty much empty of references in a rather atrocious way.--Koncorde (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so focussing on this article, at least initially, would you suggest I concentrate on making this more article-ish? I get the overall feeling that it seems the best way forward (I didn't imagine how much information there was really, poor foresight) and I'm prepared to do more work to expand it. As for the existing England pages, I've not really looked into them much, I know the England national football team page stinks. That's one of the reason I decided to create a half-decent (in my opinion) fork for the managers. If someone wants to back-incorporate info here that's fine, I'm currently concentrating on this article! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think you should concentrate this into more of a database to which the articles for the individual managers and National team etc would plug into. Perhaps condense down the history and get it watertight for each one (the Man Utd managers one is pretty tight on the history with little wasted repeating of information and limited links). The vast amount of info really should go into the England History and the Managers own bio's and it'd be good to get some of your links and cites referenced over in the other articles.
I'm going to 'adopt' the England history article and start working it into something more suitable.--Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Oldelpaso

I think we're in article territory here rather than list - there's enough out there about "the Impossible Job" itself to merit it. To this end, I think the article would benefit from a section about the role itself as opposed to the incumbents and their actions. In particular, the intense media scrutiny associated with position is worth covering, and things like the reasons for the appointment of a full-time manager. It might be worth seeing if your local library has a copy of Niall Edworthy's The Second Most Important Job in the Country, which I hear is the best of the books about the England job. Actually, having just looked it up on a well known site named after a water feature I might buy that one myself, it'd be useful for when I finally get around to having a stab at getting Joe Mercer to FA, and second-hand copies are going for a penny. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the way my mind is heading with this. I think the role, its history and the guys involved are worthy of a summarising article, along the lines of England national football managers. I'll have a look for that book as well! I'd like to get this conceptually right as I think it could be expanded across to other national manager articles. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 12:27 UTC)

[edit] History of York City F.C.

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


I'm looking to see how this article could be further improved. The main problem is the prose which could use a good cleaning up, and so I have added it to the requests at WP:LOCE, but I'd like to get suggestions from the wider community. The ultimate goal is WP:FA, which will help contribute to York City F.C.'s push to WP:FT. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 14 February 2008, 16:21 UTC)

[edit] Manchester City F.C. seasons

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


This article had a failed nomination at featured list candidates a few months ago. Since then a number of similar lists for other football clubs have gained featured list status (e.g. Aston Villa F.C. seasons). What does this one require in order to join them? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, here are some pointers which may be of use.

  • Use the en-dash for season separators.
  • Have you got an image we could use?
  • Lead is a bit unbalanced - short long short - consider merging into two medium size paras.
  • If "ordinary matches" is italicised for a reason then it should be linked or explained.
  • The lead also is primarily about pre-1900 Manchester City - like it's suffering from anti-recentism! I'd rework it a bit to cover a general history in a couple of paras rather than focus on the early days.
  • Write an article for Hugh Morris, and other top-scorers without articles.
  • Cup rounds in the table could be abbreviated, centrally aligned and then added into the key.
  • A trend has come about to bold the new division when going up or down (that may make the end of the table all bold, I know but it's easier for us to see.
  • S. Turnbull or Sandy Turnbull? And don't use /, just use a line break.
  • I don't like World War I, I prefer First World War. Same for WWII.
  • "Subsidiary Tourn. 1st" - what does this signify?
  • Check out some of the cell colourings in say Ipswich Town F.C. seasons for winning, runners-up etc.
  • Cup Winners' Cup winner etc - link to relevant season's tournament articles.

That should help for now. All the best with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

A few more to add to those from TRM.

  • I prefer R1, R2, etc for the progress in the cups, then a key at the bottom. It looks cleaner and easier to read.
  • Not fully necessary, but I'd link repetitions of top scorers
  • Perhaps bold the divisions for a change of division, and bold positions / cups when they're won.
  • Do you have refs for the 1894-95 & 1895-96 FA Cups to explain why Man C didn't enter and then were withdrawn?
  • Try splitting the Others column (see Bradford City A.F.C. seasons or Leeds United A.F.C. seasons. It keeps it nicely aligned and makes it easier to read.
  • Perhaps put the key at the bottom.
  • Can you create entries for the two red-linked Lge Cup finals.

Think that's all. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

  • Some of these were things on which opinion was divided on the FLC. Subsequent FLC's appear to have resulted in consensus on most of them, which I have now done. An exception is the colouring of winners and runners-up. The colours seem too high contrast to me, and tournaments won are already bolded.
  • A couple more are explained by the fact I attempted to keep the list in one screen width on 1024x768, but this has proved too difficult, so I have now abandoned it.
  • I've referenced the failure to enter the FA Cup in 1894-95, but the reason for the withdrawal the following season is not clear. It is likely that the club viewed the Manchester Cup as a higher priority, but the exact reason for withdrawal is unknown. A home tie against Oswaldtwistle Rovers was scheduled but never played.
  • I'll take a look at revamping the lead.
  • Creating articles for the redlinks is an ongoing project. I have part-articles for some of them in userspace, but in a couple of cases there is very little information in modern publications. I won't blacklink them as an article would be possible, just very difficult - getting anything beyond basic statistical information would involve spending lots of time in the archives section of Manchester Central Library. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks really good now. Well done. Just a couple of minor points.
      • Some of the scorers and other tournaments have central alignment but most are left aligned.
      • A few of the refs need a full stop.
    • Overall keep up the great work. Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd like to left align all scorers, but I can't work out how to do so on the rows with more than one "other" competition. Can any table gurus help? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks Struway. I had run into the same problem as Peanut, misplacing the | marks. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Peanut caught the one (hopefully just one) I missed, though. Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

People have already said most of what I would have done. Few odd bits:

  • I'm not particularly keen on the gaudy orange and grey colouring for winners and runners-up either, though the compromise version implemented on Birmingham City F.C. seasons isn't too intrusive. Winners/runners-up is abbreviated to W/RU, the colouring is only applied to cup competitions (not league position as on Leeds Utd) and, for the Other comps column, only the Round column gets coloured. At least I do notice the gold/silver, which is more than I can say for the whatever-colour-it-is that indicates promotion, which is why I always nagged for bolding the change of division as an additional aid for the colour-visually-impaired.
  • Seeing as the mcfcstats fixtures/results pages for the war years don't match the information shown here, I'm assuming your War league info comes from book sources. It'd help if you added a note giving a basic idea of what they were called, how they worked, as there don't seem to be Wiki articles for anything but the 1945–46 league and the Football League War Cup.
    • What are the discrepancies specifically? Some of the WW2 matches counted for both league and cup but are only listed as cup matches on mcfcstats. Would this explain it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • In general, it is the cup games counting towards the league as well, but that's the sort of thing that needs explaining, on the offchance anyone's persistent enough to fight their way through mcfcstats to look it up. One miscellaneous discrepancy is that mcfcstats 1941-42 has only 16 second-half games where you have 17. Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where you link to a particular season of the UEFA Cup, I'd probably link the Round column rather than the competition name. Where there are several occurrences of Charity Shield (for instance) all linking to the main CS article, the reader might be led to expect all the occurrences of UEFA Cup just to link to the main UEFA Cup article thus not being worth clicking, but if the Round is linked, the reader might realise it's a link to something specific.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I see your point, but I think that it would introduce its own inconsistencies, as I wouldn't want to, say, link every season's FA Cup article in the same way. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 20:43 UTC)

[edit] Legacy of Kain: Defiance

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it has taken major steps towards being a better quality article. Citations are provided where needed, more can be added if found necessary, notability has been established through secondary sources, and the article is of reasonable length (to me at least). I'd like suggestions on how to improve the article further.

Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a note, most of the edits made the last few weeks were by me. This is the most recent revision to the article prior to the series of cleanups I've made: [1] The Clawed One (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krator

Thanks for the request at my talk page to review this article, I appreciate that! I hope the below helps. Note that since I think I have reviewed articles you wrote (or co-wrote with S@bre I think) before, I omit some explanations here and there. Feel free to ask for more information on any specific point.

  • The lead section needs to be expanded. Try to include the following data: release dates, a random aggregate review site score, a gameplay summary ("action adventure" can be a lot of things. try to grab the essence in a sentence or two).Y Done
  • I would like to see some introduction to the general story before being rushed into the series' plot. Also, some reviewer must have some point remarked on the obvious Christian mythology present in the series. This seems of note, and fits in the story section. Furthermore, the story section details on "Kain's part" and "Raziel's part", before I even know what this whole division into parts means. It is general practise to put a Gameplay section above the Story section, perhaps this would work to explain the parts thing. See below. Kudos on the nice story description otherwise.
  • Two "standard" sections are missing: Gameplay and Development. Check some of the example articles on WP:VG/A for good examples on Gameplay sections. The Notes section could be merged into any new Development section.
  • The article uses only few independent references. This needs to be improved throughout the article. Using the reviews as sources for just about anything usually helps.
  • In the Reception section, adding Gamespy is close to mandatory. Especially because it's a low score, the exclusion of this major site may be seen as "selective". If other reviews (check the really positive and really negative ones on Mobygames) add some new or surprising criticism, add them as well.Y Done
  • Screenshots, perhaps?Y Done

User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I would appreciate marking points in this review with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made because of it.

Thank you for the assistance. I agree that screenshots would be helpful, but unfortunately I have absolutely zero knowledge of the copyright laws and the policies, etc, about uploading images of any sort, so I have no idea how to acquire them. As for the rest, I'll work of them and mark them with the appropriate template you provided. The Clawed One (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently looking for more independent sources regarding the game's development and the series' allusions to various mythos as a whole. My thanks for the review and I'll continue to work to increase the article's quality in the future. The Clawed One (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" APR t 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was told to do so. The Clawed One (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I didn't know it was not allowed in kindly asking to do so :) - who made up those rules anyway? User:Krator (t c) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 15:05 UTC)

[edit] Fulfordgate

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


I'd like to see how far this article could be taken as I look to get York City F.C. related articles to WP:FT status. Sources on it are limited, so even GA is looking tough. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Hey Matty, that's good work considering how little I expect there is out there on the topic. Just a few minor points:

  • Don't think the first sentence needs that comma in the middle, although personally I prefer the "F.C." to have dots, especially given that that's how the club's own article is titled (also the dots are used in the infobox within this article)
    • Y Done Removed comma and added dots. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "the highest attendance at the ground" not "the ground's highest attendance"
  • "eight acres of land" is plural therefore it should be "were purchased", not "was"
  • "A major problem of the ground was its relative inaccessibility" is a bit garbled, maybe try "a major problem for the club was the ground's relatively inaccessible location"
  • "in a one-mile radius of Bootham Crescent" - I think "within" is a more appropriate word than "in" here
  • "and there was however some opposition to the move" - should be "although there was some oppostion to the move"
  • "An Amateur international" - no reason for capital letter on "amateur"

Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" APR t 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

  • You said in the GA review that you have the ground co-ordinates, so why not add them into the article?
    • I have the link to it, but have idea on how to convert this to coordinates. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I used this geocoding site to add it. I just did it by eye, which on maximum zoom is more than good enough I reckon (within a metre or so?). I think the co-ordinates within the Google URL you supplied could be used for a more scientific method, but I haven't looked into that too deeply as yet. --Jameboy (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't mention where the road called Fulfordgate fits in. Did it pre-date the ground or was it built afterwards?
    • The source doesn't say, so I'm unsure... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What was built on the site after the ground's demolition?
    • Housing, by looking at Google Maps, and I've reworded this to more closely fit what the source reads. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

cheers --Jameboy (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found OS maps from 1931 and 1936 that answer my 2nd and 3rd points. Fulfordgate (the road) and Eastward Avenue replaced the ground after its demolition. Hope you like the image I added. --Jameboy (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fantastic, thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 10 February 2008, 12:06 UTC)

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] Kobold

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


I've recently expanded this article greatly from it's stubby beginnings. I'm looking for any sort of feedback that would help the article make it through Featured Article Candidates. Also useful would be suggestions for more pictures (most of the ones used come from the same PD source). Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add: I'm a bit unsure what to do about the "Media" section. Kobolds appear in all sorts of fantasy literature, video games, and role-playing games, but a long list of these seems unhelpful. I searched for some sort of third-party source analyzing how kobolds have been depicted in fiction, but I struck out. Any leads would be much appreciated. — Dulcem (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 06:59 UTC)

[edit] Huldrych Zwingli

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


I am requesting a peer review before taking the article to WP:FAC. OK, reading a long article on a sixteenth century theologian might sound pretty dull. But then maybe this article might convince you otherwise. If not, then at least tell me why!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated review

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Carter

Lead might be a bit long, particularly the first paragraph's content regarding the subject's academic career, unless there's evidence that he is in some way notable for his academic career, which doesn't seem indicated. It would probably help if you indicated Wildhaus was in Switzerland. Not sure if Henry Wolfllin really merits being included by name, as there seems no content on him at present. Linking citations directly to content being sourced, rataher than always at the end of the paragraph, might help as well. For FAs, it generally helps to have at least two reference citationss per paragraph, by the way. Might bear some pruning in some sections, but I'm not knowledgable enough about the subject one way or another to be sure of that. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I reduced the lead section. The universities are mentioned because they were centres of particular types of studies (humanism in Basel for example) and scholars mention these centres as early influences on Zwingli. I debated about giving out the names of Wölfllin and Bünzli, but since both Gäbler and Potter named them, I thought that wouldn't do much harm. As you noticed, each paragraph has a cite because each are summaries of several pages of text from the sources. When there are two cites to a paragraph, it means the two sources gave the same content. Sometimes there are statements that came from only one source. In that case I added a cite on the sentence. If there are specific statements that ought to be cited individually, then please point them out and I will add the cites. As for pruning, the article is not overly long compared to other FAs, but perhaps "Early years" and "Music" are candidates for some editing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

  • "Although his name is practically forgotten". What do you mean by that? He is well-known. Do you mean that there are not as many followers of his religious views nowadays as Lutheranists and Calvinists.
The clause is taken straight out of Gäbler. I believe his statement referred to the fact that the average person who worships in a Christian church (whether Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc.) would instantly recognise the names of "Luther" and "Calvin". But "Zwingli" would often draw up a question mark. Concerning his "followers", the legacy section gives some explanations. To explain, you may notice that there are "Lutheran" churches, but no "Calvinist" churches. Those who follow Calvinism are called Reformed churches and they trace their heritage to several sources. Zwingli is considered to be the pioneer. However his impact on the church order, confession, liturgy, and theology comes largely through Bullinger and Calvin. But Zwingli's name is largely forgotten, which is unfortunate! There is a nice, complete explanation on the Reformed Church of Zürich's website (unfortunately in German only, under Zwinglis heutige Bedeutung) --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "He perfected his Greek and took up the study of Hebrew. He read widely from classical, patristic, and scholastic sources. He exchanged scholarly letters among a circle of Swiss humanists. He studied the writings" I don't like that much the prose here. A bit choppy and no variety of expressions.
  • Similar comments here: "He specifically rejected the veneration of saints and called for the need to distinguish between their true and fictional accounts. He casted doubts on hellfire and asserted that unbaptised children were not damned. He questioned the power of excommunication. He attacked the claim that tithing was a divine institution."
  • "his was nearly two years after Martin Luther published his Ninety-five theses. The council of Zürich refused Sanson entry into the city. The authorities in Rome were anxious to contain the fire started by Luther. The Bishop of Constance denied any support of Sanson and he was recalled." Again a bit choppy IMO.
  • Some of your captions could be a bit more informative. E.g. in the photo of "First rifts (1522-1524)". How old is he here? Who pictured him?
  • Again:"Luther and Philipp Melanchthon arrived shortly thereafter. Other theologians also participated. The debates were held from 1-3 October.".
Many thanks for your comments. I will work on these. I really appreciate more criticism on the prose (as you can see in my introduction above)! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have taken care of all five items now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you need the "See also" section. Some if these links could be within the text. E.g. zwinglianism.
I hesitate wikilinking Zwinglianism. As stated in the legacy section, there is no agreed definition of "Zwinglianism". It was someone else who put a redirect of Zwinglianism to Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. The Theology article and an article on Zwinglianism are really not the same! I much prefer using "Theology of Huldrych Zwingli" because it makes no claim what is "Zwinglianism", but simply describes his theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Although his name is practically forgotten, Zwingli's legacy lives on in the basic confessions of the Reformed churches of today.[62] He can rightfully be called, after Luther and Calvin, the "Third Man of the Reformation." Besides my question on the substance above, this is exactly the same wording you use in the lead. Not a nice repetition.
Changed the lead now. It was a bit of laziness on my part as I hurriedly wrote the lead after working on the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, a very nice article.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you see more bad prose, please don't hesitate to comment! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 6 February 2008, 17:47 UTC)

[edit] Social sciences and society

[edit] Cannon

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


Hello. Cannon is the current main collaboration of the Tzatziki Squad, and some outside eyes may be quite helpful. The article is currently A-Class and is reasonably complete, but suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

  • The paragraphs in the lead ought to be recombined, 1-3 line paragraphs are rather too short.
  • The opening sentence of Etymology is a little confusing.
  • That section also has a liberal use of the dash which can be a little detracting to the readability.
    • Sorted, I left one pair of dashes that I thought were appropriate, are they alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The aforementioned paragraph comment applies to the History section too.
    • Maam, yes maam. I think the entire page is filled with the damnable em dashes. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Cannon are a descendant of the fire-lance,—as are other firearms—a gunpowder-filled tube," the comma before the dash, is that correct?
    • Nope, there were quite a few comma-dash combinations. They're all taken care of now. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would alternate the images from left to right.
  • "Bacon described firecrackers, "used in certain parts of the world"." is missing an [as]
    • Added, didn't need the square brackets though, as it wasn't in the quote. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No no I didn't mean for you to add the [], that was just me highlighting which word I thought needed to be added :) SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The restoration section may need expanding to more than just restoration in the sea
    • I'm not sure there's much material to write about there, is there anything specific you would find helpful? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there any information on restoration of just rusted or buried cannon, or disassembled, or cannon that has been disabled by firing it into the ground, say? I'm a layman at the topic so if there is nothing else to go in there I'll take your educated work over my guess SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How useful is the patent section?
    • Not useful, I moved the stuff to the external links section. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The first link in the External links section needs to be [www.google.com like this] rather than www.google.com like this
  • Are there any more categories to add?

All I can see at the moment, the content is good, hence the lack of comment on it. Mainly nit-picks really, good article. SGGH speak! 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback, I'll get right on it. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff, let me know if there is anything else. SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

</noinclude>

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 22:32 UTC)

[edit] Recycling

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


I've expanded this article significantly over the past couple of weeks, and now could really use some fresh perspective to see if it's going in the right direction and point out what more needs to be done. Thanks! --jwandersTalk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 23:18 UTC)

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments

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


I've listed this article for peer review as the next step before submitting the article for FA status. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't find the automated review... left message on talk page. Morphh (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Should work now, sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 14 February 2008, 19:11 UTC)

[edit] History

[edit] Francis B. Wai

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently added a lot of references and tried to improve this the best I could. It was difficult considering that Francis Wai died at an early age and you have to really search for sources. I want to nominate this as a good article but I need some constructive criticism.

Thanks, --Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 00:28 UTC)

[edit] Expo '88

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


I've listed this article for peer review because this is a current B level article and I would like to see this progress through to FA status. I'm aware that inline citations are an issue with this article, however I would like some reviews on what is missing to make this a more complete article.


Thanks, Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article since the automated peer review listed above so would appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 22:15 UTC)

[edit] Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a well written, neutral article with lots of sources. I cannot find any faults with it, but I would like a few other opinions before nominating for GA or maybe even FA status depending on what other editors think. I don't think the fact that she was only assassinated in December 07 should hold back this article's nomination to FA status.

Thanks, Zaindy87 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not automated review for this article on the given link. How come? Zaindy87 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I somehow didn't copy it in the right place - fixed now, sorry APR t 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the article:

  • The head image appears to have some fair use/copyright issues that need to be resolved
  • Lots of references, but a few are not properly formatted and do not have access dates
  • Should the Template:Campaignbox Pakistan attacks go at the bottom of the article? I am not used to seeing it at the top but maybe it is allowed?
  • Pakistani Peoples Party is spelled out and abbreviated in different places. Be consistent. Either spell it out the whole time or just once and use the abbreviation therafter. I think always spelling it out is best.
  • Some of the aftermath subsections are just 1-2 sentences long and probably do not merit their own subsection title. Maybe they should just be combined into a general aftermath section.
  • Under responsibility there is an external link at the end of the text rather than a reference.
  • Per Wikipedia:Layout the external links section should come after the references.

Good job with the citations but they seem to be a bit too much in some places. Do you need four references for when she was declared dead? Also some more pictures would be good. Some ideas might be to put freely licensed pictures of Bhutto, and Musharraf and any other important figures you are discussing. Biomedeng (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 13:54 UTC)

[edit] Wu Zetian

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


I've listed this article for peer review because this article deals with an individual of high historical importance and has been expanded recently. It may be difficult to get it up to feature article standards, but I'd like to see what other people think and can contribute to.


Thanks, Nlu (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:WuZetian.jpg appears to have no source information - how can anyone verify that it really is a depiction of Wu Zetian? (There's a bit of Chinese text, but it doesn't look like enough to be a source citation.) --Davepape (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I have the same concern myself. It's often used by other Web sites to depict her (and the appearance of the image suggests that it is old enough as not to be copyrighted), but I actually can't find any sources that states that it is in fact a portrait of hers. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I try to run the script, but it didn't work for me. (Perhaps it doesn't work on Safari?) --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I reran the script and fixed the link above - sorry, should work now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Will take a look. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Something that I'd like specific comment on; should the subarticles be created? --Nlu (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 11:39 UTC)

[edit] Belair Mansion

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


I've listed this article for peer review because its historic significance as both the Colonial Governor's mansion as well as the cradle of American Thoroughbred Racing, home of the Belair Stud. I've done extensive research and editing and would like to take the article to GA status. Thanks, Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Doncram comment 1 I find my way here in response to a request to Assess the Belair Mansion article that was posted in Assessment subpage of the wp:nrhp WikiProject. The one comment that I can make now is that, although the article appears very good and has multiple sources, one source that it is lacking is the official NRHP "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" documents (text, photos, and sometimes also correspondence) for the site. These are often 20-30 page write-ups by a historian and further editors, and often include invaluable information describing a property, its historical significance, and specifics on boundaries of what is covered in the NRHP registration, including pieces that cannot be found elsewhere. I want to highly recommend your obtaining these documents, which are free, by request to the National Register Reference Team at nr_register at nps.gov, providing your postal address. I requested a set for another property recently and was told it is currently taking about 2-3 weeks for copies of these documents to be provided. For NRHP sites that are also NHLs, these documents are scanned and available on-line at the NPS, and for some states they are provided by a State website (but I don't know about Maryland), so your best bet is just to put in the request. In terms of assessment, I am personally requesting that articles reflect these documents before receiving higher ratings within WP:NRHP. Again, nice work on the article. Hope this helps, doncram (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip - will do immediately. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully you have asked or will ask for the NRHP docs for the separate NRHP that is the stables (refnum 73002163) associated with the mansion (refnum 77001520), too. The article should explicitly address the separate NRHP of the stables, I believe you would agree, including mention of its 1973 NRHP listing before the mansion's listing in 1977. The alternative would be develop a separate, linked article on the stables and relating the two articles to one another. If a section on the stables turns out to be very large, then that could be split off as a main article, eventually, however. doncram (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Double-checking, I find there is an article Belair Stable Museum already existing, to which Belair Stables is a redirect, and I see that you do have a link to this from the "Today" section of the mansion article. Well, that article should be developed simultaneously and considered as part of this same peer review, I believe. It is impossible to consider the contribution of the mansion to horse-racing, without considering this article and where the bulk of material on horse-racing as opposed to mansion details should be. It seems the importance of the mansion is largely related to the importance of the stables. doncram (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have requested the documents for both sites. You raise a good point. There's also a related article on Belair Stud Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Belair Stud article, despite its name, seems to be about the stables and should be merged with the museum article material into an article titled Belair Stables (currently a redirect to the museum article). The Belair Stud article oughta be about the horse and line of horses, or it ought to be deleted, IMHO. I commented along these lines just now on Talk:Belair Stud. doncram (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doncram comment 2 The referencing in the article is fairly extensive and precise. It appropriately gives page numbers in references. The reference links are constructed as complete new references with just the page number changed, however, so the references section then appears somewhat bloated and there is unnecessary duplication (although most of that duplication is not visible to the reader). I suggest you adopt the two-section style of referencing using "Notes" and "Bibliography" (or you could call it "Notes" and "References") as used in Joseph Priestley House, an NRHP article recently promoted to Featured Article. doncram (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I second several of the comments of the automated peer review, namely:

  • "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 (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==." The section now titled "The Woodward Era" section should be retitled.
  • "As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings." Drop the link to Civil War in one heading, and another link in another heading.

Those automated peer review suggestions have been available for a few days. You can go ahead and make changes in the article to address those suggestions and any other suggestions made here, and reply here when those issues are resolved. doncram (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 23:05 UTC)

[edit] List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I and co-developers would like feedback towards attaining Featured List status for the article and its subarticle, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City. There are 50+ NHL list articles in progress, but none have yet been nominated for Featured List, so standards aren't entirely clear. A lot of work has been done on this article, on the NHLs in NYC subarticle, and on the NHL articles they index, by many people. Its current condition is built upon work done by others elsewhere (in developing the NHL list table format, on developing NRHP infobox format and generator tool, on many supporting articles on architects, NRHPs and NHLs in general, and many other topics). This the biggest state list (it has 257 NHLs in two parts), and it is easy to get bogged down for a long time in implementing any specific additional improvement to the site descriptions or to the 257 articles it covers, so peer reviewer guidance that weighs cost and benefit considerations especially would be appreciated.

Thanks, doncram (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive1.


(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:57 UTC)

[edit] Train horn

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs overall improvement in preparation of nomination for a featured article.


Thanks, MakeChooChooGoNow (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Peripitus

  • The lead as it stands does not adequately summarise the article ( see WP:LEAD). In particular it needs to cover the history and operation sections
  • The article is very US-centric and needs to cover a worldwide view (Railroads in India, China, England will operate differently). Too much talks about horns and usage in the United States with not much about the rest of the world. The "Train horns worldwide" section only references the United States.
  • Although some of the article is well referenced much of it lacks inline links. Sections like "How they work" have statements that could be challenged and need a reference to back up non-obvious factual assertions.
  • The section names need some work. eg: "How they work" would be better as "Operation"
  • History needs to be expanded. There have been diesel locos since the early parts of the 20th century, Electric since well before this and some steam locomotives may have used horns in the 19th century.
  • I'm not sure that the "Location and Placement" section is required. Unless there is a good reference this section could well be regarded as original research and the Gallery is better on Commons (which is linked to at the bottom of the article)
  • In popular culture sections are usually to be avoided and the text in "Train horns and popular culture" should really be incorporated into the rest of the article
  • There is some overlinking that does not add to the readers understanding. 1990s, pedal, 1960s, 1910s and individual years need not be linked. United States is linked multiple times and there are probably others I haven't seen.

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 February 2008, 14:04 UTC)

[edit] Geography and places

[edit] Crawley

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…

It has been improved significantly through a lengthy collaboration between myself (Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)) and another user, Tafkam. Crawley is an important town in South-East England, but before the rewrite, which took place in userspace, its article was stub-like, listy and messy. (Diff dated 30 August 2007.) Since the rewrite (first diff), the article has been stable and has had more content added as per WP:UKGEO's style guide to writing about UK settlements. The intention is to seek FA status after this review, but as neither of us have attempted this for an article before, we would appreciate guidance on tone, layout, use of images (too many...?) and length (too long? Too much detail in some sections? Should some be split off into separate articles?).

Thanks, Tafkam and Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 13:41 UTC)

[edit] Beckton Gas Works

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… the article has gone through substantial development by a relatively new editor, and he needs to be given some indication of how his work fits into the wikipedia quality process.

Thanks, Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The principal editor would benefit from feedback on:

Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:07 UTC)

[edit] Europe

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


I've already done small amount of work on this article but it is rather long and I would like to get some suggestions for how to improve it further, with a view to getting it to GA or even FA status.


Thanks, Harland1 (t/c) 13:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't actually find the review. Harland1 (t/c) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I reran it and fixed the link - should work now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Harland1 (t/c) 10:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through everything up to Geography, and have given detailed comments below. I'm not a historian nor a professional writer, so take everything I say as suggestion. Overall, I think it's a very good article, bound to get through GA and maybe FA without too much more work. --jwandersTalk 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Para 1: "Physically and geologically..." isn't this the same thing and redundant?

removed. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Para 2:

  • The lead image doesn't include Russia, but the text says Russia is Europe's largest country.
It includes the part of Russia generally considered to be in Europe but not the rest. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This para switches twice between discussing Europe compared to other countries and comparing the countries within Europe. There should only be one switch, and these could perhaps be separate paras.
Changed Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Para 3:

  • "...after the beginning of colonization" should specify which colonization is being referred to.
Changed but perhaps not enough
  • This historical summary skips the North American fights for independence; perhaps this is notable enough to be included?
I would say not? This is just one episode of a colony fighting for freedom, we can't include them all so not just one. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice linked map! I'll have to remember that and steal the tech sometime ;-)

Etymology

Para 2:

  • The formatting of "...see Prithvi (Platia)" looks off. Consider adjusting the punctuation (no need for the semi-colon), or better, working the "Prithvi" wlink into a natural sentence.
Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The majority view should be referenced, ideally to more than one source as it is the majority view.
  • The last sentence does not read well. I think the problem is a combination of the unfamiliar names, unusual letters, and the quoted punctuation. Perhaps expanding to multiple phrases would help?
  • I don't believe "see also X" is accepted wp:Manual of Style form. Again, try expanding into a full sentence including the appropriate wikilink, or at least put the "see also" in parentheses.
Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Para 3:

  • Rephrase "A majority of major..."
Y Done Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is "Turks" an accepted term for "The Turkish people"? It sounds unencyclopedic
Changed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence says "for centuries" but doesn't indicate which centuries it's referring to. Is this still true today, or was it the case from 700-400 B.C.?
Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory

Para 2: The information on the roman empire seems out of place in this section.

Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Para 1:

  • "Isolated monastic communities in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere" Be more specific than "elsewhere" or just say "Ireland and Scotland".
Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "disappeared from European popular currency." I've heard the word "currency" used to refer to the value of ideas, but not to the ideas themselves. Are you sure this is proper usage?
Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Para 2: In summary style, it's always hard to know how much detail to include, but I would suggest expanding this para on the Black Death to a few more sentences.

Done a bit

18th and 19th centuries

Para 3:

  • No mention of N. America's independence from Europe? I'm not a historian, but it seems this might be worth a sentence.

Added a sentence will add more. Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note about Karl Marx's manifesto seems out of step. Either expand it to show context and relation with the rest of the para, or remove it.

20th century to present

Para 2: This sentence is very hard to parse as it's main cause is modified both beforehand and afterwards: "Economic instability, caused in part by debts incurred from the First World War, brought about the worldwide Great Depression during the 1930s, precipitated by the Wall Street Crash of 1929."

Para 3: First sentence is too long, should be split into 2 or 3.

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 13:37 UTC)

[edit] Brisbane

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the most important articles related to Australia and the last peer review a few years ago yielded no fruit. Any suggestions or comments would be great, I would love to see Brisbane featured one day in the very near future, I and many other locals have spent a lot of time on it :)


Thanks, James Pinnell (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Peripitus

Just reviewing the opening sections for redundancy and tone - I haven't looked as coverage and accuracy.

  • The colony was moved to what is now the current location of the Brisbane CBD in 1825- moved is already past tense and current expresses "what is now" better...other bits in the lead with writing issues as well.
    • Y Done, although another set of eyes would not hurt. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The city developed slowly until after World War II, when it played a central role in the Allied campaign as the South West Pacific headquarters for General Douglas MacArthur - this is very unclear and reads as though the Allied campaign was after the war. Needs thought and rewriting - perhaps as two distinct sentences (1=slow growth, 2=role in WWII)
    • Y Done. Removed the slow growth section as I could find no sources for this. Reworded the WWI section. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead is too short and does not summarise some important parts of the article. There is information in geography, governance, economy etc... that would do well to be mentioned here
  • They knew the areaTo these people the area that would become Brisbane was known as Mian-jin, meaningwhich means 'place shaped as a spike' - everything struck out is clear from the preceding sentences and context
  • 260 hectares - needs acres as other units have been converted previously and the source will be in acres
  • Queensland was proclaimed a separate colony in June 1859 withand Brisbane was chosen as its capital, although. However, it was not incorporated as a city until 1902.
  • "The tower’s other significant claim to fame" - perhaps identify clearly that the tower is the Windmill's tower
  • "Royal Historical Society of Brisbane and effectively runs as a museum" - does this means it runs well as a museum or that in effect is is run as a museum ?
    • Y Done although I've changed this a little bit and added that it is also used for functions. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Another historic building is The Shrine of Remembrance in ANZAC Square,. dedicated on 11 November 1930, the Shrine of Remembrance is Brisbane's main war memorial. - not necessary to restate that this section is talking about historic buildings
  • Queenslander-style - should be wikilinked at the first occurrance rather than the second as, even to other some Australians, it is not self-explanatory. Perhaps reorder the part of Geography this comes in; so the definition comes before the first usage
  • 43.2 °C (109.8 °F) on the 26 January 1940 - per MOS it seems that dates are not written with an indefinite article.
  • the most severe drought in over a century, as supplying with dam levels dropped dropping below one quarter of their normal capacity. - the way this is written it seems that the dam levels are the cause of the drought.
In the Utilities section
  • Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine, all of which are at all time lows. This is a statement that dates quickly. They certainly won't be at all time lows for all times that the article is read. At the least revise to read "as of February 2008"
    • Y Done Not at all time lows any more due to rain so this removed. Reworded this to make it a bit clearer. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No information as to what the proposed pipeline is and where it runs
  • "opened up the retail energy market" - no information as to what structure it had previously. Better to say "Until XXXX the energy market was controlled by a monopoly supplier then ....."
    • Y Done, but worded differently to above. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 7 February 2008, 20:12 UTC)

[edit] Engineering and technology

[edit] PHP

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it as a Featured Article in the near future, and I consider it a good resource as a summary of the PHP programming language.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

  • Lead needs to be expanded to form a concise summary of the article.
  • First two paragraphs of the lead are made up of short sentences, making the prose choppy. These could be expanded into longer, more flowing sentences.
  • "Zeev Suraski and Andi Gutmans, two Israeli developers at the Technion IIT, rewrote the parser in 1997 and formed the base of PHP 3, changing the language's name to the recursive initialism PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor" needs a citation
  • History section is made up of a lot of short paragraphs. These need to be expanded in a similar way to Milton Friedman.
  • "Currently, PHP 5.x is the only stable version that is being actively developed; active development on PHP 4 ceased at the end of 2007." Needs a citation – it doesn't seem to link with the next sentence, but I'm no expert so it may do.
  • The "Usage" section is made up of short subsections. Could these be expanded or integrated into the rest of the text? It doesn't seem to warrant subsections at its present length.
  • "Server-side scripting" section has only one citation.
  • The last paragraph of that section is only one sentence; it would look better integrated and referenced.
  • "Client-side GUI" section is unreferenced. But the subsections will need to be expanded or integrated if you're looking at GA/A/FA
  • The second paragraph of the "Syntax" section has only one reference. Also, as I'm no expert, it would seem better to have a reference for "The usual Hello World code example for PHP is..."
  • "Note that the delimiters are required to process PHP statements." Needs to be changed. It's an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual :) Also, avoid italicising words in the prose (except quotes and technical things and so on).
  • "Everything outside the delimiters is ignored by the parser and is simply passed through as output." Needs a reference. Also I'd avoid the use of "simply", as to me it doesn't seem simple!
  • The paragraphs are again too short, and could be expanded or merged.
  • The last few paragraphs in "Syntax" (under the HTML text) are unreferenced.
  • I'm not sure the phrase "It should be noted" should be used here, but I'm not sure; I'll leave that to yours/someone elses judgement.
  • Although you wikilink a number of technical phrases, explanations of what they are might be helpful within the article. Eg. "The program may otherwise output invalid HTML and make the website vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack." Not all readers will see that and know what it is (eg. me :))
  • Sentences in "Data types" are short, as well as the paragraphs. That whole section is currently unreferenced.
  • The list of data types. As this is about PHP, it might help to have an explanation of what they are and what they do.
  • "Arrays support both numeric and string indices, and are heterogeneous." What?! The technical language needs to be explained: those who study IT or computer science might know, but not everyone will. You could follow on with something simple like "...which means..." or something. If a user doesn't understand your article, they won't read it.
  • Functions: similar, short paragraphs, unreferenced. It doesn't seem to me very comprehensive (as it's quite short) so can a bit more info be added? (Again, it might be, but I'm no expert so I apologise for this)
  • "...with the PHP new operator..." Why is this bolded?
  • If you're using HTML text, I would probably italicise it, or use: <code>text</code>. Eg. "PHP supports quasi-anonymous functions through the create_function() function."
  • "Function calls may be made via variables, where the value of a variable contains the name of the function to call. This is illustrated in the following example..." The following example means very little to me! Maybe have a paragraph explaining (in prose) what the HTML text is doing.
  • "Object handling was completely rewritten for PHP 5, expanding the feature set and enhancing performance." needs a citation
  • More citations needed in the "Object" section, only one so far.
  • In the resources section, the "libraries" could be expanded. Perhaps detail a couple of the biggest/most important ones.
  • You need citations in the "Resources" section.
  • Alphabeticise the Further Reading section by author's surname

That's about it so far; it might be best to have someone familiar with computer science to have a look as well. I apologise for my complete lack of knowledge on the subject! GCSE was as far as I got with this subject, but we didn't look at any of this. It was enjoyable to read, and I think it can get to FA, but for me it needs a bit more info, lots more citations, and maybe a bit of rearranging of info. Feel free to ignore any comments that you disagree with, and good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 09:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 22 February 2008, 23:21 UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

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


I've worked a lot on the MARTA article in the past year and a half with several other core editors. About 9 months ago the article achieved GA status. I would like to continue improving the artice, perhaps to FA status, but I am unsure of what areas need improvement. Thanks, Biomedeng (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments: Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole article and should at least mention (even if only a word or phrase) all of the headers and subheaders in the article. You need to do this. Images are supposed to be set to "thumb" size so the reader's preference takes over, although sometimes a map can be made larger to help with legibility. One of the images have no caption Image:MARTA Rail Map.svg and one needs better explanation of the numbers in it Image:Beltline-breaks.png. Every paragraph needs at least one reference (the first two in "Heavy rail network" have none). Include dates in information that is likely to change, one example is the "Fare structure and operation" section. Headers should not have the title in them, so "Misuse of MARTA funds by employees for personal expenses" could be "Misuse of funds by employees for personal expenses" as one example. The references mostly do not follow the MOS: internet sources should have the url, publisher, the date accessed, and the title. Some sections are pretty list-y too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I know the references need to be formatted and that is a big task when I have some time. Thanks for the head up on the lead section...I will star working on that. I will also change up the images and add references to the sections that have none. All of this critique really helps. Thanks. Biomedeng (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented some of the changes and used strikethrough to corss them off. I will work on the reference formmating when I have more time. Biomedeng (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I updated the references so that they all follow the MOS and also added additional references to the sections/paragraphs that were largely unreferenced. Any additional feedback is welcome. Biomedeng (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed lists and instead incorporated the information into prose/paragraph format. I feel I have now addressed all of these suggestions and any additional feedback for the article would be most appreciated. Biomedeng (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 20 February 2008, 03:24 UTC)

[edit] Faidherbe Bridge

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


I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if i could propose it for FA.


Thanks, Mario1987 13:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments on the article:

  • Lead section is only one sentence. The lead should be 1-2 paragraphs for an article this size and summarize the whole article.
  • Some paragraphs have no references.
  • "With all it's difficulties" should be its not it's.
  • Some of the images seem to have licensing problems. The stamp image has a licensing statement saying it can only be used on an article illustring the stamp. What is the date of the postcards? It says 100+ years beyond the author's death, but you don't give a publication date for either card
  • The picture legends on the postards should be relevant to the article. Discuss the picture and not the fact it is a postcard
  • The references are not properly formatted and don't have access dates for the urls.
  • Overall the writing needs improvement. It is certainly understandble, but is not well written enough to be FA status as written. Biomedeng (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 18 February 2008, 13:50 UTC)

[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics

[edit] Gas

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished re-writing it and I wanted to get some feedback on quality and clarity.

I am planning on moving on to the simplified gas models such as ideal and perfect gas and later creating some more related articles.

Thanks, Katanada (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by RJH

I have a few (hopefully useful) comments:

  • Please take a look through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to see how it can be applied.
  • The lead is much too brief. See: Wikipedia:Lead section. As written it might also be applied to a plasma (you specifically mention ions and electrons), so I think more care needs to be taken to distinguish the states of gas and plasma.
  • The "Physical Characteristics" section shouldn't refer to the "aforementioned particles" (or depend upon the content of the lead section), but should instead start from the beginning. I.e. the lead is a summary of the article body. The "force field" analogy seems a little unorthodox to me, but I guess it's okay.
  • The article needs inline citations so that editors know where to look in order to confirm the facts.
  • Virtually all of the sections are far too short, resulting in an overly long table of contents. Some have multiple "main article" links embedded within the section, rather than at the top. Please consider merging and/or expanding the entries.
  • There are too many bulleted lists. Please consider converting these to prose.
  • Please run it through a spelling/grammar checker. I'm seeing "througout" and "with with" (DONE), for example, as well as some minor grammar issues. Also you'll need to check for passive voice such as "it is typical", and vernacular such as "over-kill" (DONE).
  • Please remove the "NOTE:". It looks unencyclopedic. (DONE)
  • The "See also" section is empty. Please remove it. (DONE)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 05:44 UTC)

[edit] Pectus excavatum

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it could use some general help.


Thanks, Stepshep (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Stepshep (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 00:21 UTC)

[edit] Noble gas

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to make it a GA. I am just not sure what would it require besides copyediting. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I will try to make some comments in the next day or two. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Me too. Sorry for the long wait! --Itub (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Itub

Note: I'm not focusing specifically on GA criteria, but just on improving the article in general.

In general, I think the article is too short. I know much of it is summary style, but still I think more meat should be brought in from the articles on the specific gases and other subsidiary articles. Specifically:

  • The history section could be expanded to include the "pre-history" of the discovery by Henry Cavendish of the anomalous density of atmospheric nitrogen, and also to mention the order in which all the noble gas were discovered and when. Also mention the history of noble gas compounds.
  • The applications section could also have more examples taken from the articles on each gas and also from the article on neon lights. I suggest adding some figures here; for example I happen to like the ones below. :) There are probably many important applications missing, but a huge one that comes to mind right away is the cryogenic use of liquid helium (without it we wouldn't have NMR and MRI! ;-).

Neon gas. This is the most commonly used of the noble gases.

Argon (with mercury). The second most common after neon.

Helium.

Krypton.

Xenon.
  • The physical properties section could use some descriptive text in addition to the data table. For example, a description of the group trends. Perhaps a plot could be added showing how the melting and boiling points change throughout the series.
  • I would rename the "chemical makeup" section to "chemical properties". Perhaps I would also create a separate section about noble gas compounds. Some specific examples of the most common compounds (such as the xenon fluorides) should be added, ideally with figures.
  • I suggest adding a discussion of the theory of bonding in noble gases, and particularly the three-center four-electron bond. This could probably go under chemical properties, or maybe under compounds.
  • I suggest adding a section about production. Most of the gases (Ne-Xe) are produced together, from air, so this is the perfect place to discuss the whole process in more detail than can be given in articles about specific gases. It is also the perfect place to add a table comparing the production volumes and price trends for each gas. As references, I suggest the articles on noble gases from the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia and from Ullmann's Encyclopedia, as well as the chapter from Greenwood & Earnshaw.
  • I would add some mention of the abundance of each noble gas in the atmosphere, whether in the production section or some paragraph elsewhere about "natural occurrence". A brief mention of abundances in other planets might be good.
  • Some mention of the infamous role of radon: its radioactivity, how it is formed, and the health risks.

Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62 The Noble Gas Notation section needs:

  • Expansion
  • Better explanation for t3h noobs
  • References

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I agree with the previous comments - the references need to be greatly expanded and the article needs to cite more print sources (the individual articles I checked have decent refs). I would also do more comparisons of the specific properties of the elements and their histories - for example the etymologies of the individual gases could be given. Specifics are better than generalities - perhaps more tables of properties. Show where they are different too - not all these gases react, only the last two are radioactive, etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 6 February 2008, 04:09 UTC)

[edit] Radon

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it a GA. The only problem for it to become a GA is that its compounds section is non-existent. Is there anything else I am missing? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The only objection in the last GA nomination was about references and reliability. While there has been a lot of improvement in terms of inline citations, the applications section doesn't have any references yet. Especially some of the more far-fetched ideas such as the "radon spas" would definitely need a citation IMO. --Itub (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The History section is almost devoid of references as well. --Itub (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Reaper X

It looks like this article is on its way. But here are some points that may help.

  • For general GA requirements, see WP:GA?.
  • Make sure that all your inline citations are in proper format. For help with this using templates (which I find extremely useful), see WP:CITET.
  • Either expand the compounds section, or merge it with another section.
  • I'll echo Itub and say you definitely need some more references. Anything with a [citation needed] tag should be taken care of ASAP.
  • Use Xenon as a model! It's a featured article, and it should definitely give you an idea of what this article should/can look like.
  • Find a few free images to integrate into the article. Found one for you: Image:Electron shell 086 Radon.svg.

Besides that, I wish you luck. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any more questions. Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is ready for GA yet and even don't think this should be A-class. It is simply not comprehensive enough given the element's importance. Xenon is about as if not less important and interesting, but its article is twice as long. The compounds section is a stub section and many other subsections have single paragraph. A general and extensive expansion is in order. I'll add it to my list but I'm a bit burnt out on chemistry right now; I'll first have to put a geology or National Park article through FAC before I start to expand this article. --mav (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This article has since been significantly expanded and is getting real close. In fact, I was planning on expanding this article tonight but almost everything I wanted it add is already there in some form (and cited). The major issue I saw is that the ==Precautions== is too long and repeats itself in several places. For example, radon's role in causing lung cancer is mentioned throughout the section and pretty much the same thing is said in a few different locations (2nd leading cause and indoor air pollutant come to mind, not to mention the fact that the U.S. EPA is fully linked a few times and its standards for exposure are repeated at least twice). This needs to be brought together and condensed. I suggest two subjections; ===Exposure=== and ===Health effects===. Neither subsection should be more than 3-4 paragraphs long. Do that and address the points brought by others in the PR and I think this article will go through GAN easily. After that, if you standardize the referencing and perform a real good copyedit, then I think this would also pass FAC. Oh, and I already think this article now merits its A-class status. --mav (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that the lung cancer theme is repeated in too many places. Wherever it ends up, it needs to be stated more precisely and put into perspective. I went and read the reference for the statement that it is the second cause of lung cancer (PMID 11762803), and found a few surprises: 1) the paper only talks about the UK, but exposure to residential radon varies by orders of magnitude from country to country (besides the geographic variation in radon production, in warmer climates houses tend to be more ventilated and there is less radon accumulation). 2) only 1% of lung cancer deaths were attributed to radon alone, compared to 5.5% radon+smoking and 83.9% to smoking alone. The remaining 9.6% is from other causes. So while it is true that it is the second cause after smoking in the UK, it is a very distant second. This should be stated quantitatively so that it doesn't sound more dangerous than it is. I already did this at one place in the article. --Itub (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks by RJH

I agree with Mav that this article needs more work and expansion to be GA level. Here are a few observations:

  • The article needs many more in-line citations, especially when opinions are expressed ("...shocked to find...", "...prompting local fears...", &c.) It could also use a couple more illustrations.
  • The lead section is too brief. It doesn't cover the history or the applications sections. Also, I think it would be more scientific to say "densest" rather than "heaviest".
  • Vague quantities should be clarified. ("...high levels of exposure..." and "...normally have low rates of lung cancer.")
  • What is the origin of the name "Radon"? The History section does a better job of explaning the name "Niton".
  • It says "named after radium", and originally called radium emanation. I think the name is reasonably clear, considering that other parts of the article show how the gas is in fact produced from the alpha decay of radium. But perhaps it could be made more explicit.
    • Looks like an explanation was added since my comment. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What does "brilliant phosphorescence" mean? Does it literally glow? I'd assume it might from the radioactivity, but perhaps that could be explained?
  • In the "Characteristics" section, I would expect to find information on the density (both liquid and gas).[2] It should also mention that the gas is odorless and tasteless.
  • In the second paragraph of "Characteristics", what is the "saturated zone of a soil"? Is this in reference to water saturation?
  • The article should describe how radon is extracted from the atmosphere, especially since it is chemically inert.
  • I doubt it can be extracted from the atmosphere, as it is so unstable that it only exists in the tiniest of amounts. The real question for me is how did Ramsay and Whytlaw-Gray manage to measure its density. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, bad assumption on my part then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraph that begins "The European Union recommends..." uses the units Bq/m³ and pCi/L. The first occurance of these units is unlinked. Also it would be helpful if Bq or pCi were explained in terms to which an average reader could relate.
  • The "Testing and mitigation" section does not explain how Radon is detected. Only that kits exist. How does the radon test kit collector absorb Radon? How did the Apollo 15 and Lunar Prospector detect radon (as opposed to some other radioactive element)? It would be helpful if these were explained.
  • According to [3], radon is collected using charcoal. I don't know about Apollo 15, but I imagine that they assumed it would be radon because a gas would be the most likely source at 110 km over the moon, and no other gases emit alpha particles as far as I know. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 4 February 2008, 21:41 UTC)

[edit] General

[edit] SCO v. IBM

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article is complete in its current form - it is unlikely to change for a long time due to the process of law, I'm just unsure where this article needs to go.


Thanks, outboxing (work • yada) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 17:28 UTC)

[edit] Robert Falcon Scott

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a complete revision of an article which had in my view ceased to be a proper biographical article, due to some highly partial editing. I would welcome views as to whether the POV tag should now be removed, and any other suggestions about improving the article.


Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 00:59 UTC)

[edit] Ipswich 2006 serial murders

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a detailed and well sourced article about a widely publicised series of events. I think the tone is appropriate, the information well sourced, and the article in general is an important event.


Thanks, Blammermouth (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 00:23 UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLII

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


Nominated for GA status a bit too soon. I'm hopeful this PR can help to get it to GA and maybe even FA status. Buc (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 24 February 2008, 07:31 UTC)

[edit] Virtua Fighter (anime)

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


I've listed this article for peer review. Needs an assessment since it was recently created.

Thanks, Ominae (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 01:14 UTC)

[edit] Vengeance (2005)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like for the article to be a professional wrestling Good Article. Any helpful feedback, would most be appreciated.

Thanks, Zenlax T C S 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, just want to watch out for a few things.
1)The dates like "May23rd" you should change to -->May 23, 2005 that way you can wikilink the date. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
2)With that, you should wikilink dates. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
3)Also consider covering a third feud in the BG section. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

--TrUCo9311 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good good, lastly I would recommend having someone copy edit the article, and also wait for the automated peer review. Then we shall see how it goes from there.TrUCo9311 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 19:55 UTC)

[edit] Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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


Look to be close to FA status. Hopful this PR can give it the final push. Buc (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Buc (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 18:03 UTC)

[edit] Treehouse of Horror V

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


This looks to be close to FA status. Hopful I can nominate it after this PR. Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the older episode pages I did, but it does still look pretty good. The lead needs expanding for sure, and there should be some more reviews, consider it is often regarded as of the best ever. I'd probably get rid of most of the plot images as well. I'll see what I can find on Newsbank about the episode. Gran2 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give a small review tomorrow if I can, but I was wondering, why wouldn't Gran2 nominate the article, when he did most of the work on it? The article is also still a bit away from FA status. Hell, it doesn't even have all the commentary information in it. xihix(talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You basically answered your own question there. But what is commentary information? Buc (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really feel like listening to the commentary again. Why don't you give it a go? xihix(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wha...commentary? you've lost me. Buc (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment
  1. 4 fair-use images is pushing it a bit much. I'd reduce that to 2, or at max, 3. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Any segestions on which I should lose? Personally I think the lead one is the worst of all. Buc (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. WP:LEAD - Waaay too small, not enough plot summary, doesn't really mention/summarize the other sections at all. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll think up some more stuff later. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 14:38 UTC)

[edit] Flag of Singapore

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


This article failed GA twice (although the article history erroneously shows three failed GA nominations). GA reviewer Ncmvocalist's primary concern was that several sections, "In general" and "In culture" in particular, were not written in summary style. Please point out other issues that need to be addressed if the article is to attain GA status. Jacklee (the primary contributor) and I will work on the article when we have the time.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 14:33 UTC)

[edit] Enya

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article for the FA. It has all the references.


Thanks, Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are my suggetions to improving the article:

  • References are not properly formatted per the MOS. Also all websites need an accessed date listed by them in the references.
  • At least one place has a space between the sentence period and the reference
  • Several places do not have sufficient inline reference (example: the part about what her parents did has no citation) and there are complete paragraphs without citations
  • The article has several citation needed tags that need references
  • The comment that Enya is a very private person seems rather subjective and not verifiable.

I don't think this is ready for FA status because a lot of statements need referencing. Biomedeng (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 02:37 UTC)

[edit] Over the Edge (1998)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…I want it to become at least a GA and future FA article. Please comment with any concerns, edits, errors. Cheers.


Thanks, TrUCo9311 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only gone through a couple of paragraphs in any detail, but I have a few comments:

  1. Where did Dude Love return from (or return to)?
    Y Done-RewordedTrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. How and/or why did Dude Love and Vince McMahon form an alliance? And how does this relate to the match with Terry Funk?
    Y Doneexplained better.TrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Is the Austin-Love match with Brisco, Patterson, and McMahon the one at Over The Edge (I haven't read ahead yet)? It's unclear when you say "McMahon announced a match".
I Changed it. Check markY
  1. Was The Nation of Domination simply going by The Nation at this time?
Yes they were.TrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually they were called both the Nation of Domination and The Nation, The Nation is just a derived version. So is it still ok?TrUCo9311 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It's not grammatically correct to say "..., thus ____ winning". It should be "..., thus ____ won".
  2. Remember to keep verb tense consistent (in the past tense). There are a few places where you switch to the present tense.

I'll look it over in more detail when I have a chance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Check markY, I also have done tense changing. For the background section.TrUCo9311 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From the header: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why?TrUCo9311 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Again quoting from the instructions above "This size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews..." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a few things that stood out at me:

  • Raw and SmackDown! should be italicized when referring to the actual show (not the brand).
  • Remove all the bolding per MOS:BOLD.
  • All awful lot of the text is wikilinked. I think the article might suffer from overlinking.
  • The Other On-Screen Talent table is awkwardly placed, at least it is on my screen. The table is messing up the right-hand justification of the Results. Maybe moving it up or to the right would look better.
  • By more consistent with the date linking. When you write out the whole date (ie. June 1, 1998) link both parts. There are places in the article where you write out the whole date and it isn't linked. If you only write out the month and day (ie. June 1) don't link it. Actually, it might help with the overlinking problem if you eliminate the year in most cases when writing out the date and de-link the month and day.

Nikki311 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I will get to that in 2 weeks.--TrUCo9311 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 01:32 UTC)

[edit] College (1927 film)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first submission of a movie plot and I would like feedback on how to improve future submissions.


Thanks, Mrtuttle (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is written like a teaser, and should be more factually stated. Do not worry about giving spoilers. Also, Peer Review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", not individual sections. If you need further help don't hesitate to ask me or someone at the Village Pump/Assistance. ALTON .ıl 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 February 2008, 19:26 UTC)

[edit] List of county routes in Rockland County, New York

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want a better idea what can be thrown into it and its sub-articles (1, 2, and 3). Another user, Airtuna08, and I are putting together future FLCs here and could use any improvement ideas you have. We're accepting anything so...


Thanks, Mitch32contribs 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

Just a few random comments.

  • The bold stuff in the lead (New York, etc.) could be wlinked where relevant.
  • I'm really not sure how sourcing on these lists normally works
  • "Most of the routes act as primary roads in the less developed areas and also serve to interconnect the various villages and hamlets of the county." - Could do with a source?
  • Most of Route articles redirect back to one of this list's subarticles. Are these links necessary?
  • The tables in the "Statistics" seem to have different colouring to the ones above. Streamlining is good.

As I said, someone with more knowledge about these types of articles may be able to help more. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:22 UTC)

[edit] Shimon Peres

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it has stalled in its progression and I want to find out how to develop it towards GA and FA status.


Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Brianboulton

I'll suggest a couple of areas to work on, to get started.
  • Rewrite the lead. It's a muddle of offices and dates and uninspiring to read. It's also pretty confusing - how can he have "served three times as the eighth Prime Minister of Israel"?And aren't you stretching it to say that his political career has lasted over 65 years? That's before 1943 - yet you also have him "moving into politics" in 1952 (3rd para). You open the article with his birth details, then repeat these at the start of your third paragraph. Also, do you "join" the Knesset, or are you elected to it? You need to sort these things out, but also to generalise a bit more about his career rather than listing every office he held, and every party he supported. The lead should summarise the article, so use it to say interesting things about the man - his principles, his stances (e.g. dove or hawk), his apparent indestructibility, or even his capacity for losing elections - and then make sure these are followed up in the article, which will be more interesting if it isn't simply a record of his achievements in the various offices he held.
  • Sort out the infobox. It is completely confusing as it stands - perhaps you're trying to give too much information. Suggestion: Delete the reference to Olmert in the first box, delete the various presidents from the second box. Or find some other way of showing clearly who is preceding or succeeding whom.

I hope this helps Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Jayron32

  • The lead could use some work. I agree with Brianboulton about that. The infobox I am not so worried about. I think it makes sense to me; unless it was changed since he commented, but as it stands now I think it reads fine. Given the split-executive nature of the Isreali government (with both a president and a prime-minister), I don't see how it could be presented better.
  • Take care on the referencing. Both GA and FA are fairly strict about referencing (FA more so than GA). Some things that will DEFINATELY need to be fixed before making either commendation:
    • The quote in Personal life: Poland will need a citation. ALL direct quotes must be cited directly in the text.
    • Information about Kibbutz Alumot and and the Zionist Labor movement appear unreferenced.
    • The entire Military and Defense section needs reworking. Besides being unreferenced, its quite vague and it jumps a lot. Is there no more information we can put in here? I mean, first of all, "were of great importance" is so vague, we don't know WHAT deals he was involved in and WHY they were important. Also, it jumps a LOT. We go from joining Haganah in 1947 to becoming Deputy Director General in 1953 with no transition. The whole section could use both expansion and reworking, along with some references, which it entirely lacks.
    • The ENTIRE Political career section contains no inline cites. A good rule of thumb is that at MINIMUM each paragraph should be cited to the work and page it was taken from, and certain phrases in here, such as "as was expected," (expected by WHOM?) needs specific attribution, since they make claims which are likely to be challeneged. Also, statements like "As party leader, Peres favored pushing off the elections for as long as possible. He claimed that an early election would jeopardize both the September 2005 Gaza withdrawal plan and the standing of the party in a national unity government with Sharon. " need specific cite, as they contain interpretations of motives. Without inline cites, it is impossible to verify if such potentially contentious statements are true.
    • Likewise the Political views needs specific cites. How do we KNOW these are his views? Where else is it written as such?
    • The last three references (19, 20, 21) are improperly formatted. ALL references should have full bibliographic information, such as author (if availible), publisher, work it was published in, publication date, and access date.
  • The section on "President of Israel", while referenced well in the state it is in, is far too short. I mean, he's been president for 7 months. Has the ONLY things of note he's done is speak in Turkey and negotiate with Japan? He's his nation's official Head of State, and this is ALL that can be said about that role? Plus, I don't see why this is a separate == header; wouldn't this be better organized as a === header section under Political Career?

That should give you enough to work on. Its a decent article, but needs some real work before being Good Article Standard or Featured Article Standard. Good luck, and if you need any further help, just comment here (I have watchlisted this PR) or on my talk page. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re my comments on the infobox, I'm not sure about the "split-executive" nature of the Israeli govt - surely the Prime Minister is the executive and the President largely ceremonial? Anyway, my objection is simply that, as it stands, it looks as though PM Olmert was preceded by Dalia Itzik, likewise that President Ezer Weizman was preceded by Yitzhak Rabin, and so on. It's a question of ordering the information - it's got to be clear to everyone, not only those with a knowledge of Israeli politics. I'd ask a few people what they think before deciding to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 14 February 2008, 14:05 UTC)

[edit] Heroes (TV series)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

Introduction and Welcome I am requesting that this article be peer reviewed. I has gone through so much progress since its last review and looks totally different than it did when it was first reviewed. I also hope to get a larger number of editors to review the page, as only two editors reviewed the page the first time it was reviewed last year. I acknowledge that the reflist needs major major clean up to meet Wikipedia standards...but I and I am sure the other project members would love to know what other improvements we can all make to this page to get it to featured article status. Please review this article entirely and if you have time, take a look at the subpages and other Heroes related pages located in the template at the bottom of the article. Please help us improve this article! Your thoughts matter! (smile)--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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


(Peer review added on Thursday 14 February 2008, 12:26 UTC)

[edit] Tomas Van Der Heijden

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be a hoax. I have not been able to find independent confirmation. Neither have others. I submit this external link to a blog by someone who apparently put a lot of effort in checking the story: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127114619AAjFjwu jimbo (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Ereunetes (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I checked the internet and Google newspaper archives and could find no information about this person or any Renoir's stolen from the Louvre, it doesn't look real, but you can see if the person who created the article will respond about its authenticity before you get it deleted. Medvedenko (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of adding a hoax warning on the page. This seems to be a kind of "urban legend" which in itself is fun :-) But indeed, let's first hear from the perpetrator--Ereunetes (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 22:14 UTC)

[edit] Marjory Stoneman Douglas

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


Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a powerhouse in her lifetime. The article has reached GA, and I'm seeing if I have material for an FA. It will go to LOCE in its near future, but any feedback you can give me on prose, content, style, etc. I hate formatting references. With a purple passion. But I'll do that too. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your lead image is from a problematic source, and probably not free. See [4], where they note that the source information for many images was lost. It seems much more likely to be a scanned author photo from one of her books, than work of a Government employee; note how there's a less-cropped version on this random MySpace page. --dave pape (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 16:54 UTC)

[edit] Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You need the following sections
  • Background - the conception of the album/how it came about/ any collaborations
  • Recording - when/where/producers/any difficulties etc
  • Reception - What did the critics say/quotes/ style etc
  • Information on promoting the album such as tours. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get to work on that soon. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would add that these same criteria apply for all the Harry and the Potters albums you have listed here - the main problem seems to be a lack of independent, reliable sources. WOuld it make sense to combine them into one main article (they are all pretty short now)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure. I would strongly appreciate an example of this type of article, but I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I do not write music articles and do not know of an example - have you asked at WikiProject Music? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 February 2008, 06:39 UTC)

[edit] Diversity Day

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working with it for a while, and am hoping to put it forward through to GAs. I'm hoping to get any constructive feedback I can from the review to help this article get to the best possible shape it can be.


Thanks, Mastrchf91 (t/c) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from MaxVeers

Nice job. I'm a big fan of the show and I enjoyed reading this article.

Overall, I think the article looks pretty good. Here are my specific comments:

  • I would recommend reintroducing Brown as "Mr. Brown, the corporate consultant..." in the Plot section. I know he is introduced as such in the lede, but the rest of the article is supposed to explain itself own without the overview provided by the lede.
  • The direct quotes used in the Reception section are rather lengthy. Consider shortening them or paraphrasing to clarify what point you want to get across by using them. Also, the EW quote could use some bracketing or an introduction to show that "it" refers to The Office.
  • Consider including the actual quote from the audio commentaries -- not essential but nice to have. For an example, see Halo 2.
  • This episode was nominated for a Writers Guild of America Award in the Episodic Comedy category.[5] The Reception section of the article should mention it.
  • It's standard practice to include an IMDb link in the External links section, e.g., "Diversity Day" at the Internet Movie Database

Hope this helps. By the way, if you'd be willing to peer review my article in return, I'd be grateful. MaxVeers (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 February 2008, 02:19 UTC)

[edit] List of largest buildings in the world

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this list to featured list status but I am stuck as to how to improve it further.


Thanks, CStubbies 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I would merge the "Sources" subsection for shopping centers into the single references list, but that's the only thing that stuck out for me. Good work! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the special buildings section, two of the entries are for the largest slaughterhouse and the largest wooden temple. How can they be listed as the largest when they have neither a specific size nor a citation to back it up? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we have more entries in the list of largest buildings by volume? 3 is not a lot. JMiall₰ 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The special categories seems rather arbitrary, can the largest of any type of building go in here? If so some other types of building you could have the largest of: house, shop, castle, greenhouse, nightclub, restaurant, stadium, prison, school, cinema, every type of religous building. There could also be the largest buildings made of different materials such as wood, stone, brick etc. Also there's no history of largest buildings. A table showing what the world's largest building was throughout history would be interesting. JMiall₰ 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 19:03 UTC)

[edit] Lucy Lawless

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article and it meets with the criteria.


Thanks, Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmesssageme

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


There are a few general things that can be done to improve the article:

  • The lead needs to be expanded significantly as per WP:LEAD
  • There is a lack of references. This is a biography of a living person, so needs to be thoroughly referenced.
  • The personal life section could maybe be moved after the section on her career?
  • I think the section on her career playing Xena needs expansion; this is no doubt her most notable role, and really needs to be expanded.
  • Please wiki-link dates ie 13 October not 13 October.
  • There are quite a few one sentence paragraphs, short paragraphs are discouraged.
  • The inline citations should be formatted so that the title of the article and publisher are also included. The best idea may be to use the templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates.

Thats all I have for now. Not a detailed list. I think the article needs a bit of work before it could be considered for nomination at WP:GAC. - Shudde talk 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 10 February 2008, 00:00 UTC)

[edit] Rail transport in Victoria

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded, and believe it covers all relevant points of the subject. I have also referenced all relevant statements, and want to know if there is anything I have missed myself.

Thanks, Wongm (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Peripitus

Just a few notes - not a subject I have any expertise in.

  • The lead section is too short and should summarise the entire article per the notes in WP:LEAD Y
  • The lead gives the impression that Victoria only used broad, narrow and standard gauge. Although the word narrow links to an article on that subject it's not comprehensive. A list by Tim Fischer tells me that both articles are missing details on the lines made with.
    • "Starvation Narrow" - 4'0" - used in the 19th century only at Starvation creek
    • "Rubicon Narrow" - 3'4 1/2" - Ribicon forest in the 19th/20th centuries
    • "Lorne Log Narrow" - 3'1" - Lorne Pier to Mill
    • and other lines of gauges: 3'0", 900mm, 2'6", 700mm, 2'3"Y
  • The history section, for better flow, should come straight after the leadY
  • Lots of one-sentence paragraphs that need to be grouped into larger paragraphs following a common theme.Y
  • add non-breaking spaces (& nbsp;) between numbers and the units to prevent them breaking over lines and becoming difficult to read.Y

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - any other thoughts? Wongm (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 05:40 UTC)

[edit] Brandi Sherwood

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


I have requested peer review because I and another editor are constantly flipping the birth year of Brandi Sherwood. I state that her birth year is 1971. The editor "Cloverfield" states that it is 1974. However, 1971 as her birth year is documented fact and I have given a reference to it to verify my claim. I can find additional references too reasserting my claim, but I can find none which backs up the 1974 claim.

I would appreciate a ruling or some other intervention because this consistent false data of 1974 is tantamount to vandalism.


Vincent Ree (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • PR is really not for dispute resolution. Have you tried seeking a third opinion (both editors have to agree to do so and to agree to abide by the third opinion)? You could also try a request for comment. If you have two reliable sources that disagree, I think you should quote both in the article (according to X she was born in 1971 but Y states it is 1974...). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 1 February 2008, 08:10 UTC)

[edit] WikiProject peer-reviews

[edit] Archives

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review"
Personal tools