Wikipedia:Peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
The path to a featured article |
|
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. Please limit nominations to two requests per editor per day. To add a nomination:
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
as follows:
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
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here. |
|
Related pages |
|
| Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) | Other peer reviews: |
| Purge server cache | edit guidelines |
[edit] Arts
[edit] Crocodiles (album)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially added to it and would like to get it to GA.
Thanks, JD554 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 11:55 UTC)
[edit] Bart Simpson
I've listed this article for peer review because it is of top importance to the the Simpsons Wikiproject, and is one of the main characters in the series.
Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
- For the fairly long length of the article, I'd like to see at least two paragraphs in the lead.
- During the first two seasons of The Simpsons, Bart was the show's main character; while later episodes started to focus more on Homer, Bart remains one of the most enduring characters on the series, and has proven to be one of the most well known characters in the history of American television animation. could be split up into two sentences.
- Almost the entire "Personality" section is unsourced. Also, some of it sounds POVish.
- The rest is actually pretty good. That's it from me. If you found these comments especially constructive, you might want to consider reviewing an article from Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, which is where I found this article. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
My first though was "looks better than quite a few character articles". My second thought was "need to tag this for excessive plot." The "Personality" section is 1314 words of plot summary, with only a single citation. For a character article, the plot summary should be concise, and every statement cited. The rest of the article, sans lead, infobox and references, is only 664 words. That's 664 words of good, out-of-universe information against more than twice as much in-universe when, if anything, the opposite should be true. There is a great wealth more than can be said about Bart Simpson, as he meets WP:FICT and beyond, but here we have only a smattering of out-of-universe information. Bart has been the subject of university studies, papers, and all kinds of stuff. Google Books is a good place to start :)
As a whole, I think it is at a great start. I highly applaud the use of nothing but reliable sources adn the primary work (not a single fansite, yay!). :) For ways to being it up to possible GA/FA, the plot needs to be cut down, the page reorganized an expanded on the real world size, and the lead expanded to follow. For some examples of high end character articles I'd recommend being influenced by, see: Himura Kenshin, Orochimaru (Naruto), and Rukia Kuchiki. Those are all recent character GAs properly organized and with an excellent balance between real-world and in-universe information. Also notice that the plot summaries are also sourced, and written from an out-of-universe perspective rather than being only summary. I hope that helps some, and feel free to reply here if you have any questions or if any clarification is needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 22:00 UTC)
[edit] Yazoo (band)
Listing for feedback in terms of prose, broadness, layout/style and of course references. Intending to submit to WP:GA. Thanks — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 16:34 UTC)
[edit] U2 3D
I created this article from scratch and would like to know how to improve it from its current condition to reach GA-status. Thank you for you help. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 24 May 2008, 23:36 UTC)
[edit] Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)
I've listed this article for peer review because, together with other Wikipedians, we are planning to propose it for a featured article. We are also working on a set of articles to cover the vast collection of euro gold and silver commemorative coins of the eurozone. So far this is the result:
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Cyprus)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Finland)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2002
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2003
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2004
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2005
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2006
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2007
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2008
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Malta)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Slovenia)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Spain)
We are currently ironing the other articles of the set (Belgium was the first one completely finished, Austria and Ireland are almost done), while we are constantly adding information on new issues. We are also searching for information to start the missing articles of the set. They will be so far:
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Germany)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Greece)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Italy)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Luxembourg)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Monaco)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Netherlands)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Portugal)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (San Marino)
- Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Vatican)
We might create a Portal, once we are close to finish all articles.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review) This article is excellent in both quality and presentation. Great and much appreciated. (peer review) --Buster7 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Serious lack of references in the descriptions for each coin: for example, No reference provided for "This was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released" - Same throughout article.
- Every single coin has "Designer: ?" This seems very pointless, why not just remove the Designer parameter altogether?
- I would suggest that you submit this to FLC, not FAC (when its ready). It is more of a list than an article with paragraphs and paragraphs of prose.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wackymacs, thanks for the review. Answering some of your comments:
-
- It is difficult to put references to "trivia" ("This was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released" it is obvious since the euro was introduced in 2002 and this was the first euro commemorative coin ever mint by the Belgians) but I got your point, explanations like this will make the article by far easy to read. Will also search references to other descriptions.
-
- The "Designers", we are currently looking for the information, we left it blank hoping somebody can comment on it. Other sister articles like Austria, Finland, Slovenia ... that we are currently working on, they all have the designers.
-
- I am currently requesting the opinion of another administrator who made a similar article FA, instead of FL. You might be right about that one.
- Thanks again! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 04:51 UTC)
[edit] White Mountain art
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after receiving a GA from Moni3, she suggested that others might provide me valuable feedback before I submit for FAC. All reviews will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, JJ (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/White Mountain art/archive2.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 May 2008, 22:20 UTC)
[edit] Supergrass discography
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it can be improved.I think it's a pretty good discography list.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- dihydrogen monoxide
- Some of the references need formatting. Publishers, access dates, and the like.
- "an English alternative rock band from Oxford" - do you really need to say what city they're from?
- "The album reached number 1 in the UK where it stayed three weeks.[1] The album lead the band to numerous awards in the following years" - repetition of "the album" is bad for readability, and it'd be good to be more specific on these awards
- Rest of the lead needs some copyediting
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 03:35 UTC)
[edit] The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
Another user previously nominated this article for WP:FLC, which it failed. I'm hoping to nom this for FL once again, but before I do, I'd like to get a short peer review, with the focus on the episode list, and the crew/reception sections.
Thanks, Mastrchf (t/c) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: a lot of the plot summaries are still unclear, and poorly worded. Many of my suggestions haven't been taken either. Try to get an independent copy-editor. indopug (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps you should remove the link to Josh Wolk as I don't think an article will be created for him. Maybe you should add his title instead like "Television critic Josh Wolk" or something. Also, I don't know if it's standards but is Red the official colour used to seperate these items? It's a little hard, maybe a softer colour would be more appropriate? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article / list, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- I woud treat the FLC as a really detailed peer review and make sure every issue raised has been addressed (either fix it or have a great reason for not doing so). Then I would ask the people who made the reviews at FLC to look at the article again and see if they think the problems have been addressed.
- A model article is often useful for ideas - I note that The Simpsons (season 1) and seasons 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are all FLs and may be good models.
- Avoid short sentences that break up the flow of the prose - for example could The second season of the American television comedy The Office premiered in the United States on NBC on September 20, 2005 and ended on May 11, 2006. The season consisted of twenty-two episodes. be something like The second season of the American television comedy The Office premiered in the United States on NBC on September 20, 2005 and ended on May 11, 2006, with twenty-two episodes.
- This looks like a copy and paste error from the article on the first season: The show debuted as a midseason replacement which took the timeslot of Committed,[1] and thus had fewer episodes than its subsequent seasons.[2] since the article just said there were 22 episodes this season.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example Production does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- Also watch out for one or two sentence paragraphs like While The Office was mainly filmed on a studio set in Los Angeles, California, the city of Scranton, Pennsylvania, where the show is set, was also used for shots of the opening theme.[8] Either expand it or combine it with another paragraph.
- Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of Cast has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Article prose still needs a copyedit.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 22:58 UTC)
[edit] Mr. Freeze
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so it can become a future GA and maybe even become an FA.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment:This is a generally well written article, but I think it needs expansion in some areas.
- In "Other Versions" seems pretty minimal and might not deserve it's own tiny section. Either get rid of it or expand it or incoporate it into the article. Also, the average reader probably doesn't know who Elijah Snow or Planetary is so that could be explained.
- 1960's TV Series, Freeze's name shouldn't be bold.Both the 60's and New Adventures section seem very tiny in comparison to the Animated series information on the character.
Justice League section has no citations-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, this is a great article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: As asked, here are my comments. I think the article has a lot of information, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful for ideas and to follow for style, refs, structure, etc. There are some comic character FAs: Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Batman, Superman and even Watchmen, that may be useful models.
- For a character who started life in print, there is relatively little on his comic book appearances, especially before the first Batman TV series. See WP:WEIGHT
- There are many short paragraphs and sections (one or two sentences), which makes for choppy reading and interrupts flow. Either expand these or combine them with other paragraphs or sections.
- Format of references looks good - needed information seems to be included - make sure that the sources meet WP:RS, for example are action-figure.com or mobygames.com reliable sources?
- Since this is about a fictional character, make sure to write from an out of universe perspective, see WP:IN-U
Also make sure to provide context to the reader - explain In the Pre-Crisis continuity perhaps-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)- Avoid needless repetition - the lead should summarize the article, but the story of Freeze's wife is given more than once in the article (as one example)
- Article needs a copyedit to clean up a bit - for example Freeze has found a home in the Arctic and somewhat started a family with his adopted son, Kunac, his frozen wife, Nora, and his two pet polar bears, Notchka and Chokka. what does "somewhat started a family" mean?
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem
- There are six fair use images in the article - this may be a problem at GA or FA.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 01:08 UTC)
[edit] Crown Fountain
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is well on its way to becoming a FA. I would like some second opinions on this, as well as ANY comments that could help get the article to FA status.
Thanks, Torsodog (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support. I have nomed this twice at WP:FAC and it has failed. I have tried PR and did not get much feedback to improve the article. When you nom at WP:FAC let me know and I will sign on as co. I am the leading editor by edit count. I think the article may need some technical expertise that I don't have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a well known artwork. Here are some suggestions for improvement, most of which are failry nit-picky, with an eye to potential problems in FAC:
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are 68 FAs at Category:FA-Class Architecture articles and some of them may be useful model articles.
- Since the lead is a summary of the article (or should be), refs are not really needed in it except for direct quotes. See WP:LEAD
- One of the most difficult FA criteria for many articles to meet is to have prose that is professional and near brilliant. The biggest problem I see is that the article prose needs to be cleaned up some. See WP:WIAFA
- I have not heard of the Loop being referred to as a "community area" before - is this common? If not, is there a better word that cold be linked to the article? See Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain in Millennium Park, in the Loop community area of Chicago ...
- The article tone needs to be more encyclopedic in several places - frolicking in ... makes the fountain a place not only to go to see others and to be seen frolicking with friends and family ... or
- Another problem is general wordiness - FA prose is supposed to avoid redundancy. For example, this sentence from the lead
- The fondness of the public for the aesthetics of the fountain caused several elements of Chicago's society to voice a unified public opinion against the controversial use of surveillance cameras, which resulted in the immediate removal of the cameras.[8]
could be modified to something more like
- When surveillance cameras were installed on the popular fountain, a public outcry led to their immediate removal.
- Article needs a copyedit - some examples follow:
- normal usage seems to be "the Governor of Illinos", not "the Illinois Governor"
- "reputed" does not seem to the right verb in The fountain and the entire park in general are reputed for their universal design.[9]
- use photographed or filmed instead of "shot" in Of the original 1,051 subjects shot, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.
- I like some of the multiple images in one frame, but they seem overused. FOr example Image:20070616 Crown Fountain.JPG by itself seems fine to me - no need to put a second image beside it. In general articles are only supposed to set single image widths to thumb to allow reader preferences on size to take over - see WP:MOS#Images
- Have a zero before a decimal "0.25" not ".25"
- Some things seem illogical - Plensa decided to use four-minute videos for each face and one minute of spouting water.[7] Thus each display is five minutes,[3] makes it sound like there is no face video when the water spouts out, but the photos and other descriptions make it clear this is not the case. Or The water is filtered and pumped from the underground parking garage. - makes is sound like ars are parked in the fountain reservoir.
- Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
- Any negative criticisms of the fountain?
- Overall this gets most things right - the refs look good (although you might want to check that all meet WP:RS, there is a lot of information and great pictures. It just needs some polishing of the language.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 18:22 UTC)
[edit] Cold Feet (series 1)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I'm looking for feedback on this article ahead of a potential FA run. Language and prose suggestions mostly but any other comments are welcome. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have not seen. Here are some suggestions for improvement:\
- A model article is often useful for ideas to follow - I note that Smallville (season 1) is a FA and may be a useful model.
- The lead needs to summarize the whole article - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the video and internet release are not mentioned. See WP:LEAD
- I also think the lead should be written with the most important things about the series in the first paragraph, but we really don't get a summary The overall theme of the first series is love, sex and commitment. until the second paragraph.
- The lead should be weighted about the same as the article - I am OK with the six lead actors, but do we need all the guest stars listed?
- Looking at the Smallville (another show I have never seen) article as a model, it tells us the main roles in the lead, so the plot summaries make more sense. WHen I read this, I have no idea who Jenny and Pete and the rest are. Would it be possible to have some sort of brief summary in the lead or just before the epsidoe list that says something like "The series focuses on three couples: Jenny and Pete, who are married and about to have their first child; Karen and David, ... and Adam and Rachel, ... Provide context for the reader WP:PCR
- I realize the six main cast members were cast for the pilot, but could there be a bit more on them in Casting? It seems odd to have almost nothing on the six main actors and lots of detail on supporting cast.
- In Writing the caption on the block quote needs to be clearer - I think this is from the script as originally written, but that is not made clear. I also think the caption does not match up with the text - I read the caption first and had a very different idea of what it meant than the text said.
- I would mention the car crashing through the shop window in the Episode 3 plot summary, otherwise the image makes less sense. Perhaps also mention in the caption.
- Refs look OK, although I am not sure what makes for reliable sources such as Red Dwarf.co.uk. and Sendit.com here - see WP:RS
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your comments. I've started on some of the minor points you've raised and will tackle the major points over the weekend. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Response to Ruhrfisch Okey-dokey, I've made several changes based on your comments. Funny you should recommend using the Smallville article as a model, as I basically just stole the layout of that and changed the colours and names.
- I've expanded the lead to include who the characters are (a bit of a daft omission) and written a little bit about what the characters do to complement the overall theme. I've also added info about the DVD and net releases, as well as a couple more notable award noms.
- I've not added anything on the casting of the leads as it seems strange to include info from a separate production. However, I have added a link to the casting section in the pilot article.
- Captions fixed up and plot summaries expanded to include info and context for later on.
- Refs check out: The Red Dwarf link is an interview with Bathurst. The website is the show's official website and is run by the same person who compiles the behind-the-scenes documentaries for the Red Dwarf DVDs. As for Sendit, they're an internet shop, so their data for DVD/video release dates will be accurate. They're quite well known for having an archive of--it seems--every release date of any video or DVD ever released.
Bradley0110 (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 12:58 UTC)
[edit] Politics of Harry Potter
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been accused of bias, and since it falls under WP:BLP, I felt it should be addressed by the wider community.
Thanks, Serendipodous 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will take a closer look at it over the week, but at a quick read-through I will venture this. It seems to me that there is a general failure to distinguish between 'the politics of harry potter' and 'harry potter in politics'. you should have a clearly delimited section that talks about what political metaphors and references Rowland did (and didn't) build into her story lines. you can then have a separate section that talks about the interpretations that various political actors have made of it. this should clear up any implication of bias, since none of the third-party interpretations will be confused with Rowland's own acts. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 06:31 UTC)
[edit] My Happiness (song)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's been a GA for a while, and I'd like to get it featured at some stage.
Specific things; prose, article layout (is it clear? does it flow?) and ensuring all the sources are OK.
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Happiness (song)/archive1.
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 11:19 UTC)
[edit] Heaven Up Here
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially expanded it and believe it has potential to be rated as a good article.
Thanks, JD554 (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - I know that Echo was a drum machine and once saw the Bunnymen in the lobby of a hotel (my brush with greatness) but I do not know this album. It seems fairly close to GA to me - here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples on structure, refs, style, etc. There are a large number of albums that are FA at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be useful models
- Please see WP:LEAD the lead should probably only be two paragraphs long. The last paragraph is quite short and could probably be combined with the second paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article: my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
- Picture of the album cover has a fair use justification but needs the template {{album cover fur}}
- Provide context for the reader - for example identify the band members better in "Background". Could be just adding a word or two is enough, i.e. In the liner notes to the 2003 remastered and reissued album, [singer] Ian McCulloch ...
- In "Releases" it says It was released elsewhere on Korova's and Sire's parent company's label, WEA. but in the history table it says it was released worldwide on the Korova label - Worldwide 1981 Korova LP KOW 58320.
- Citations are generally good, but a few statements seem to need refs - The album was [originally] released on CD on May 16, 1988. for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Please see WP:CITE and WP:V
- I do not write music articles, but I have reviewed several and I have never seem separate Acclaim and Criticism sections. Criticism is just one sentence, so I would combine the two sections and get rid of the subheaders - just have them together under the "Reception" section header. Perhaps preface the negative review by something like "Not all critics' reviews were positive..."
- I would aks someone who knows more about music articles for advice on the refs - some seem to need more information.
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 07:59 UTC)
[edit] Echo & the Bunnymen discography
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded and reformatted it substantially and believe it has potential to become a Featured List. I'm not sure if I've missed anything though so would be greatful for someone with a keener eye to glance over it.
Thanks, JD554 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
This looks mostly good, fixed some things myself. the remaining are:
- expand the lead to about two big paragraphs (it is a 30 year old band). take note mention landmark album popular singles, major lineup changes etc.
- put the EP table just below the studio albums and format it like an aal bums table rather than the singles table. ie, include release date, format, label in bullet points
- delink the albums in the singles table
- include the references just below the chart headers in the table. see The Strokes discography
- the Videos should be formatted like an albums table. dont overlink the formats
- No music videos? No miscellaneous releases: charity compilations, soundtracks etc...
- The A B C superscripts in the singles table is the wrong way. see The Strokes discography studio albums. Also note B seems unnecessary, plenty of singles get reissued, we only ention them if they did better than the original
- Although there is discussion *ssome MOS conflict) about it, you may want to bold album names in all the album tables for clarity. indopug (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 12:05 UTC)
[edit] God's Son
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently up for GAN and i think it contains enough information to make a FA. I would appreciate a peer review to find out where the article needs to improved to make it a FAC.
Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I have heard of Nas, but do not know this album. The article has a lot of information and here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music including Enta da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which may be useful models.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current lead could be expanded. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, Singles, and Production do not seem to be in the lead.
- Article needs a copyedit - for example Inot a complete list): It reached #12 on the Billboard 200,[1] and obtained a platinum certification from the RIAA a month after it was released.[2] (obtained is an odd verb here), or Although guest appearances are made by Kelis, Alicia Keys, and others, God's Son is considered to be a personal album, in which he covers lyrical themes of his own emotional experiences[3] needs a period and could start something like Although Kelis, Alicia Keys, and others make guest appearances... - this avoids passive voice too. Or In December, Nas appeared in the video for a 2Pac single, "Thugz Mansion (N.Y.)," a song of which an alternative version was later released on God's Son, featuring two verses from Nas and only one from 2Pac. needs to be cleaned up.
- Article needs more references in a few places - otherwise they sound like original research - for example During 2002, fans and critics speculated that Nas was still willing to make commercial music as he started associating himself with artists from Murder Inc., a pop rap distributing label. - who were these critics? cite them please Not sure if fans speculation is notable.
- Article needs more specific info for some refs: Although God's Son is rarely considered to be Nas' best album, some consider it to be a notch below Illmatic and Stillmatic.[3][14] It is considered to be highly emotional and personal, but some consider Nas' self-involvement to be a weakness.[3] I would be more specific - who considers it to be his best album? Who considers it a notch below? etc.
- I do not think that copy vio lyrics sources (ohhla.com) should be linked to and doubt they would be considered WP:RS
- Ref 24 needs more information - publisher? Youtube is also not generally a reliable source.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 11:35 UTC)
[edit] Supergrass
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there are ways in which I can improve this article and whether it it meets the good article criteria.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to format the references, remove copyvio links (magazine articles reprinted on that fan-site) and not link to unreliable sources (such as the strange ones FAQ) as I've done here. Try to ref as much as possible to the magazine articles reprinted on the fansite (double-check them if you can with the actual articles), and also search sites like Guardian.co.uk or nme.com. Refer to The Smashing Pumpkins for a model band article on what content to include, writing style, appropriate sections etc. indopug (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 10:02 UTC)
[edit] John Zorn
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has expanded significantly since it's last rating and I would like some objective feedback as I progress it to GA status. I still intend to add some sound file examples as soon as I can work out how to do this and also fill in some of the red links. I would like some fresh eyes to check this article and provide constructive feedback. Thanks DISEman (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfsich comments: Interestuing and generally well done article - here are some sugestions for improvement, many of which are nit-picks:
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article (per WP:LEAD). I fear that the long list of artists he has worked with is a bit off-putting and also worry about the one sentence first paragraph (FAC tends to jump on one sentence paragraphs anyway). I also would not link to Dekoboko Hajime in the lead or article since it is a redirect back here. My rule of thumb is to include every header in some way - you may need fewer headers too (another suggestion).
- A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several musician FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be suitable models
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation - so John Zorn was born in New York City and, as a child, played piano, guitar and flute.[8]
- Provide context for the reader - perhaps a little more about his parents and siblings would make He absorbed musical influences from his parents and siblings which included classical music, world music, jazz, chansons, doo-wop, and rock and roll[9]. clearer, or saying what he studied at Webster College (now Webster University) in St. Louis, Missouri ... under Oliver Lake[11]. See WP:PCR
- Watch overlinking - Downtown music is linked at least twice in two paragraphs, for example.
- Article nees more references, for example the last half of Early composition section or last two paragraphs of Breakthrough recordings section or the whole Music romance section are all uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example, the first two paragraphs of Etymology are uncited, or the second bg paragraph of Geography. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- I also would switch the book ISBNs in the article to citations and move the ISBN to the ref. Also avoid external links in the article (Chamber Music Society of Southwest Florida) and convert to refs
- Article has a lot of short paragraphs that could be combined or perhaps expanded with others.
- External links looks like a bit like a link farm - see WP:EL
- Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
- I am not a music expert, but the level of detail seems a bit much in places - we are not told his parents names or the number or gender or names of his siblings, but we know who played violin on "Le Mômo"?
- Since he is a musician and artist, what about more critical reception?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 02:41 UTC)
[edit] Ready to Die
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed as a GA and I would like to know of areas which could be improved.
Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed Nas' album. I have heard of The Notorious B.I.G., but do not know this album. The two album articles seem to me to be similar in their areas that need improvement - here are some suggestions:
- A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music including Enta da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (both debut rap albums too), which may be again useful models.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current first paragraph could be expanded from one sentence and a third paragraph could be added. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, Songs, Lyrics and Production do not seem to be in the lead.
- I assume Big Poppa is a nickname for The Notorious B.I.G. - this has to be made clear / explained in the lead It was nominated for Best Rap Solo Performance for "Big Poppa" at the 1996 Grammy Awards. Ditto with Biggie was signed to the Uptown Records label ... see WP:PCR
- Article is better written than my previous review, but still needs a copyedit - for example (this is not a complete list): Upon its release, Ready to Die received strong reviews,[10] and unlike other acclaimed East Coast hip hop albums released at the time (including the Wu-Tang Clan's Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) and Nas' Illmatic), such critical success was matched commercially, with sales driven by strong radio and MTV airplay for the singles "Juicy" and "Big Poppa". sentence is a snake and should probably be split into two sentences, or The album ends with "Suicidal Thoughts," a song where The Notorious B.I.G. contemplates suicide and finally commits it. Since he did not commit suicide, this needs to be made clearer. ALso needs a ref, I think.
- Article needs more references. Every paragraph, every statistic, every direct quote, and every extraordinary claim needs a reference - see WP:CITE and WP:V - for example After a brief period dealing drugs in North Carolina, Biggie returned to the studio the following year on Combs' new Bad Boy Records label possessing "a smoother, more confident vocal tone" and completed the album. (direct quote) or "Big Poppa" was nominated at the 1996 Grammy Awards for Best Rap Solo Performance. The album boasts production from Easy Mo Bee, The Hitmen and DJ Premier. Guests on the album were minimal, with Method Man being the only featured artist. All need a ref and I think the production sentence belongs in Production. This article does a nice job in most cases identifying critics, etc.
- External links in "Accolades" table should be inline references.
- Refs seem decent, although I am not an expert on rap music and its sources.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 20:43 UTC)
[edit] The X-Files
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
In light of the new movie coming out this summer, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, I think it would be great to feature the original X-Files article on the main page on or around its release date. Therefore I'd like to get it ready for an FA nomination. Unfortunately I don't think it's anywhere near that point yet. It's too long and too weighed down with fan cruft. Please post your thoughts on cutting it down and improving it, with FA in mind. Thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive2.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 17:54 UTC)
[edit] I Want to Hold Your Hand
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a great song, and is an important part of the Beatles' history.
Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I removed the semi-automated peer review to save space at PR (the link to it is still there, above) and to follow the directions. I also note that I thought the article had received a review from a real person because of the SAPR - I will try to make some comments on it next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the FAR for this article and agree very much with it. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:
- The main problem is that it needs more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, for example the last five paragraphs of "Launching the invasion" are uncited and s are many stats and extraordianry claims. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - see Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK - example: Most notably, bop-guitarist Grant Green included a stunning jazz recording ...
- Several places read like original research - one example It could be argued that Lennon is leading McCartney, as Lennon's vocals are more prominent on the recording; ... Some of this may be the writing style. It would be better to attribute this - "Critic XYZ argues that Lennon is leading McCartney..." also not sure if the cite addresses this point or not. Or the Note: Hand claps are evident on overdub but can not be accurately assigned to all four Beatles without definitive proof. If it does not say in relaible sources who did this, then it should not be in the article WP:NOR
- done, well not really in the article, but I know of a reliable source that could be used
- Refs are incomplete in terms of information given. Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
- I would try to follow chronological order where possible - now we go from the single to 1984 and airbrush out Paul's cig, then back to the early 1960s and the album
- Two uses of essectially the same image in the article (infobox and US single cover) might be seen as abusing WP:FAIR USE - what does each provide that is unique?
- Article has a lot of short paragraphs that could be combined or perhaps expanded with others.
- External link article looks like it should be used as a ref instead, assuming it meets WP:RS
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:08 UTC)
[edit] Joker (comics)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so it can become a future GA and maybe even become an FA.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article with a lot of detail, obvious has had a lot of work done on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement - please note I tend to give examples of problems and that these are not usually an exhaustive list (if I give one typo, there may be many more):
- A model article is often helpful as a guide and for examples to follow. I note that WikiProject Comics has 16 FAs, including Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which may be good models.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header should mentioned somehow in the lead, even if only as a word or phrase. Also nothing major should be in the lead that is not also in the article itself - so the actors who have portrayed the Joker should also be in the text.
- It is important when writing about fiction to maintain an out of universe perspective and to provide context for the reader. For example, in the lead the murders of Jason Todd (the second Robin) and Jim Gordon's second wife Sarah Essen. the second Robin provides context, but I did not know who Jim Gordon is (I think of him as Commissioner Gordon). See WP:IN-U and WP:PCR
- The article has seven fair use images, which seems like it may be a bit much, especiallyy in WP:FAC. See WP:FAIR USE
- Article needs a copyedit for grammar and to tighten prose - for example just in the lead That characterization continued through the late 1950s and 1960s before the character
became[was] again depicted as a vicious killer. - I read the GA and GAR and agree that this is seriously under-referenced. Every quote (In the one-shot Underworld Unleashed, the Trickster remarks, "When super-villains want to scare each other, they tell Joker stories".), every extraordinary claim (The Joker is renowned as Batman's most unpredictable foe.), every statistic and every paragraph needs a citation. See WP:CITE, [[WP:V]
- Article has realtively little material from independent third-party sources - what do comic critics and historians write about the Joker?
- The end of the article (long bullet point lists) needs to be turned into flowing text.
- There are several short paragraphs sections that could be combined with another section or perhaps expanded (Other media). Short paragraphs and sections break up the flow of the article too.
- Refs look OK, but beware at FAC there are questions about what makes a source reliable. Some of the websites may be doubtful (comicvine.com? newsarama.com?) - see WP:RS
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 9 May 2008, 02:03 UTC)
[edit] Bloc Party
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I would really like some constructive feedback on this article, with the aim of FA status. I know there's more to add, but I don't know exactly what to include in the article. Any WP:ALTM members interested?
Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sillyfolkboy Comments: This is an informative and generally well referenced article worthy of its GA status. However I feel that it could be more in-depth and the article does not cover all the aspects of the band. Also needs some copyediting and proofreading:
- In the lead it should state "BBC" radio one DJ Steve Lamacq to clarify.
- done
- In mid-sentence full dates such as "February 5, 2007," need a comma following the year. I fixed the first instance of this but can see a few more in the article.
- done, I think
- Try to avoid referring to seasons: e.g. "In Spring 2006 they finished their tour". This can cause confusion: seasons are inverted from northern to southern hemispheres while equatorial locations climates generally have wet and dry seasons. Replace "spring" with "early" (or "winter" with "late" etc.) for clarity.
- done
- In the "Silent alarm" section this statement should be sourced "The band became one of the most popular new bands of 2005".
- Removed
- Following their first full mention "United Kingdom" and "United States" should thereafter be abbreviated to "UK" and "US".
- In "A Weekend in the City" the word "leaked" should be wikilinked to internet leak for clarity.
- done
- "In the build up to the release of the album, BBC Radio 1 DJ Zane Lowe aired a live set from the Maida Vale studio featuring a mix of old songs and new ones on his evening radio show on BBC Radio 1". There is no need to state that he's a "BBC Radio 1" DJ considering the later statement.
- In the same section: the third paragraph needlessly restates the year (2007) with the dates many times. The large amount of links here reduces readability already. Whilst the other links are useful/neccesary these redundant ones can be dropped.
- "The first UK performance of their single "Flux"" should read "live performance".
- In musical styles it would be better to split the list of bands in to: citable influences from band statements, comparisons made by reviewers/critics. Otherwise any number of acts could be listed here with little benefit to the article.
- In the quote "some truly R'n'B styled beats, a song where [Tong] and [Moakes] play drums simultaneously [and] both eggshell-thin fragility and trouser-flapping hugeness" the quote should either be split after "beats" or the previous part of the sentence rephrased. It's ambiguous whether the first part refers to the album or a certain song. Also instead of [and] use [with].
- All song titles should be in inverted commas e.g. Flux should be "Flux". Scan through to ensure all songs have been listed this way.
- I would recommend splitting away parts about the future of the band from both "history" and "musical style" sections to form it's own section. It would make more sense to mention future plans there, especially in respect of the former section. (ps Have they done absolutely nothing so far this year?)
- Lyrical styles/themes should be noted in addition to musical ones. Some information from Kele Okereke may be useful, i personally remember comparisons with Sylvia Plath's work being made in the press.
- Comment should be made relating to differences between the sounds of their live performances and album works, if any.
- A section describing the band's concert tours could be helpful, but just more extensive reference to their tours following "Silent Alarm" may suffice.
- A short section should be made listing the band members and the instruments they've played for the band.
- Apart from the template and infobox no reference is made to the former band members in the article.
- A couple of web references do not have their access dates.
- A full copyedit should be done. You might find a copyeditor at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV. However there is a backlog so general proofreading etc by any user is more than welcome.
- Although a relatively new band one book, by Zoran Lalvani, has been written and this may contain further information to improve the article.
This is my first peer review so if anything seems unusual and you want to check policy feel free to do so. Once changes are made or if you disagree with any recommendations please comment beneath the specific point: starting a new line with two asterisks (**), then your comment. Strikeout recommendations with <s> and </s> once fixed.
Any additional comments or questions should be directed to my talk page.
If you found this review useful, please consider reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. That is where I found this request. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] indopug
Greetings from WP:ALM
- The references need formatted. Specifically, where is the author's name and publication date? Publications should be in italics. NME → NME. As of now, only ref #3 look complete.
- Try to not use tertiary sources, such online biographies. These source their information from primary and secondary sources so their info is subject to inaccuracies and their own POV. As a tertiary source ourselves try to get info only from interviews, pieces written on the band, album reviews etc from reliable sources.
- Are these reliable sources: blocparty.co.uk, tiscali...
- The article tends to be a dump for every small release the band has ever done. The songs on video games, soundtracks are really uninteresting, trivial and more suited for the discog article.
- Overall, try to make the article not just be a "band released this album, it charted so much, so many singles came out, it was acclaimed, they went on tour with XYZ". That is hideously boring. Try to make it interesting by pointing out the stuff about the band that makes them unique and different. Reduce the information about the touring, its trivial information for the lay reader. Every band tours, we don't have to mention every concert they ever held. See The Smashing Pumpkins for a really interesting and comprehensive band article.
- What is the idea behind the music? What is the band's philosophy? How do critics rate the band and what do they think of them? On the whole, try to make a qualitative analysis of the band rather a quantitative one about they toured here, then played there in front of 20,000 people. Its more interesting that way. indopug (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 21:05 UTC)
[edit] Jessica Alba
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed as a good article and would like to know any further improvements I could make to it for a possible FAC later.
Thanks, Hello32020 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but I think it needs some work to get to FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement. I usually pick a few examples of things to improve, so this is not an exhaustive list.
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several FAs on actresses at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - I note that Reese Witherspoon is an FA and may be a suitable model.
- Please see WP:WIAFA - especially "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. I think that this would be the main obstacle to the article becoming FA, and the article needs a copyedit. I will try to point out some places where the prose could be improved.
- She has received many awards and notations for her acting and physical appearance.[1][2][3][4] What is a notation? The word "notation" is not used again in the article.
- Alba's TV and movie appearances began with her child acting in Camp Nowhere (1994) ... is "child acting" really a common verb? How about Alba's began her TV and movie appearances as a child actor in Camp Nowhere (1994) ...
- Alba's parents married in their teenage years.[13][14][15] How about Alba's parents married as teenagers.[13][14][15]? Also, does this really need three references? Or with all these refs could you say "Alba's parents married when her father was 17 and her mother was 16"? (I made these ages up)
- Alba was raised in an Air Force family with her brother, Joshua[16] and her grandparents until she was seventeen years old. I really am not sure what this means - did her grandparents live with her family? What happened when she was 17? Also note that references usually come at the end of a sentence.
- She was originally hired for two weeks but her role turned into a two-month job when the actress in one of the prominent roles dropped out.[5] It seems she was also hired for a smaller role and got moved to a larger role, but this does not say that.
- Avoid overlinking - Dark Angel is linked twice in the lead alone.
- Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. When did she move back to California (what age was she / what year was it)? Was it when she started acting / getting small roles? When was she in Autralia for Flipper for two years? I find it odd that in Early life she has collapsed lungs twice and pneumonia every year, but in the Career section she is a diver - this seems like an odd combination
- Per WP:MOS#Quotations, block quotes should be used for quotes of four lines or more, so I thought it was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life.[14] should not be a block quote.
- Another big omission - since she is an actress, what sort of critical reception has she had? What have critics said about her acting in TV and films?
- Watch for one and two sentence paragraphs (Obama supporter, for example) and very short sections (Charitable work is one sentence). I would combine these with others or expand them as needed.
- Awards and Nominations seems to be missing somethings mentioned in the lead / article.
- Most refs look fine, but some need publisher or date accessed or authir information. Ref 33 uses IMDb which is not generally seen as a WP:RS
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to implement some of these, and have ended up finding up information that actually wasn't sourced [didn't realize it - I didn't add it]. I implemented many of your suggestions however. Though I cannot find any critical reception on her work as a whole, and I fixed one of the PCR suggestions, again could not find information on the others. Most of the Awards & Nominations are in the notes for filmography [as in the Witherspoon article] and the ones in the remaining section don't fit under a single movie. Hello32020 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be OK to use reviews from individual movies. Roger Ebert is online and so are others. Sometimes Ebert will mention an actor and say "While I liked her in X, in this Y I do not" or "I love her performance in this, so why did I not notice her in that." I do not write Biographies so I am not sure how to integrate reviews - models are useful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be OK to use reviews from individual movies. Roger Ebert is online and so are others. Sometimes Ebert will mention an actor and say "While I liked her in X, in this Y I do not" or "I love her performance in this, so why did I not notice her in that." I do not write Biographies so I am not sure how to integrate reviews - models are useful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 May 2008, 02:57 UTC)
[edit] Iowa (album)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article has the potential to be a GA with the help of a peer review.
Thanks, REZTER TALK ø 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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.[?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfsich comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments and here are some more suggestions for improving the article:
- A model article is often useful for ideas for style, structure, refs, etc. I note that there are many album FA articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music, including God Hates Us All, which may be suitable models. Since you are interested in GA first, see the Music section (under Art) at Wikipedia:Good_articles for some GA models.
- Per WP:MOS#Quotations, quotes come before punctuation in most cases - so Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu-metal,"[1] the album... should be Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu-metal",[1] the album ...
- Last two sentences in "Album information" are uncited and need refs - see WP:CITE and WP:V
- For references that are available online (such as the Rolling Stone album review, ref 17) I would link the review in the reference. {{cite web}} is useful here.
- Watch out for peacock words Iowa, unlike its predecessor, saw producer Ross Robinson capturing the band's technicality as opposed to the raw energy that Slipknot is known for.[10] If someone saws they are known for raw energy, it is probably better to quote them. See WP:PEACOCK
- Last sentence in "Music style and lyrical themes" section seems more like it belongs in critical reception section.
- The album articles I looked at all put "listy" stuff at the end, so I would put critical reception before Track listing
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 13:27 UTC)
[edit] American Graffiti
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the failed Feature Article Nomination. The other editors stated that the prose was fairly bad and that I had an egotistical attitude towards other editors. Any suggestions would be nice.
Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/.
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 17:22 UTC)
[edit] Like a Rolling Stone
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get another set of eyes on it. The song is, after all, the greatest song of all time. (Rolling Stone Magazine).
Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments by R2
Hey, ill add stuff here from now on.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Source 13 isnt formatted correctly.
- DONE
- Article needs bulking up - per Kodsters own assessment
- From this bulk up we can then restructure the lead, possibly removing the quotes
- Cover versions section is still quite stubby, try linking small sentances together
- Doesnt have a cover picture, is this typical of old songs?
I removed the semi-automated peer review here for two reasons: the first is that it breaks the transclusion (so no one could see it at WP:PR); the second is that it is already linked above and as the directions say "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below" I will review this too, but it may take me a few days Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ruhrfisch comments
Agree this could be improved (though what is here is a good start) - here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful and there are many FAs on songs, for example Hey Jude is also a pretty iconic song and may be a useful model. Look at several FAs and see what they have and this does not to get ideas for expansion.
- I am surprised that there is not more on critical reception - that seems like an obvious area of expansion.
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded and needs to summarize the whole article. I would also make it clearer that the Springsteen quote refers to this song.
- done
- Article needs a copyedit to clean up the prose - one example The song was originally written in 3/4 (waltz) time, and with a length of 1:36, was much shorter than the 4/4 version; it was later changed to 4/4.[3] repeats the 4/4 for no reason - why not something like The song was originally 1:36 long and written in 3/4 (waltz) time; it was later changed to 4/4 time and the final recorded length was a much longer 6:09.[3]
- done
- Watch tense - the recording was almost 43 years ago, but On the first day of recording, five takes are completed; the song is never completed fully. is present tense. It is also confusing - first it says five takes are completed, then that the song is never completed fully (isn't fully redundant here - if it is completed, it is completed). Perhaps something like On the first day of recording, five takes were completed; however in none of these was the song actually played to the end.
- done
- Article needs more references - for example the whole Versions section has no footnotes.
- done
- Other examples needing refs Highway 61 Revisited was issued at the end of August, and when Dylan went on tour that fall, "Like a Rolling Stone" took the closing slot on his playlist and held it, with rare exceptions, through the end of his 1966 "world tour," as well as during his return to touring in 1974 with The Band.
- Martin Scorsese's recent movie about Dylan, No Direction Home, appears to show, in footage filmed backstage in 1966, that Dylan was deeply affected by the mixed audience reception at that time. (without a ref this reads like Original Research).
- done removed
- I think the article could say "Dylan was bemused" or "Dylan found the matter amusing" but not Dylan himself seemed to find the matter bemusing
- done
Hope this helps, I learned several things about the song reading this, so keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I'll get right to that by June 12, when I come back from Europe. So, I'm just posting so that this won't be archived. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Again, June 12, I'm going to work on this. So get ready...LOL, just don't want to get this archived. Please don't... :( Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, June 12, I'm going to work on this. So get ready...LOL, just don't want to get this archived. Please don't... :( Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 4 May 2008, 01:26 UTC)
[edit] Dr. Dre
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have significantly contributed to the article since late 2007 and feel that it might fit into good or even featured status. Thus, I'd like further feedback on how to improve it. It is much more well-sourced than ever before and well-developed into the subject's life.
Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, obviously a lot of work has gone into it. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, looking mostly at GA but also with an eye to possible FA status (still a ways to go):
- It is useful to have a model article or two to follow, there are several musician FAs and GAs, 50 Cent is a GA and may be a good model for style, structure, etc.
- I think the lead should be another paragraph - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every section header should be in the lead somehow, and nothing should be just in the lead. For example World Class Wreckin' Cru is not in the lead now.
- I would give his full name and date of birth in the Early life section and give the place of his birth. I would also cite the fact that his parents were unmarried when he was born. Calling him their "first child" seems to imply that they had other children - they should be mentioned if they exist, or perhaps say "first and only child" if that is the case.
- Article could use a copy edit - just from Early life there is a missing word in both of whom [are] now deceased, although this could also be shortened to both now deceased. Another missing word in During Verna's marriage to Curtis Crayon, Andre and brother Tyree were cared [for] mostly by their father Curtis... The first sentence is a bit awkward too, as is the repeated use of "impregnated".
- Refs usually come right after punctuation, often at the end of a sentence.
- Try to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, how about giving years in the World Class Wreckin' Cru section, or when he started high school, for example.
- Final album and Film production are both very short sections - could they be expanded or combined with other sections?
- Artists usually have some sort of critical reception section - what do critics say about Dr. Dre and his music?
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually, in the "early life" section, "are" isn't necessary because the deceased mention is actually a participial phrase, not a sentence. And "impregnated" is only used twice, so it's not repetitive.OK i will put "are" there.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- Also, musical artist articles should have critical reception, but not necessarily in a section. See the featured articles on the bands Godsmack and Pearl Jam - reception is integrated throughout the chronological sections of the article. At least the Dre article has sections on his musical styles/work ethic. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, you'll have to open the source of this peer review to find which issues I resolved. Did i do something wrong here? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now that the Dre article is a good article nominee, I'd like to close this review. Thank you for your feedback, editors. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 28 April 2008, 15:07 UTC)
[edit] Language and literature
[edit] List of Naruto characters
Hello, listing this article for peer review before going to WP:FLC for a run at featured list status. It's modeled after similar articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Particularly, I would like to invite discussion on what to include in the "Other characters" section, which leads off to the List of minor Naruto characters article, and what to put there in terms of summary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
Some initial thoughts:
- Why is the anime listed first in lead when the manga is the primary work?
- I think I'd rather not see the menu limited. While it will be longer, I think ti should be relatively easy to navigate to a specific character section.
- I was curious on the choice of not using {{Anime voices}}, particularly in light of the recent MoS conversations. I like how it was done, though, as it does make it clearer that the anime is not the first work. I did notice a few jumps from using voice actor versus seiyū though. Should probably stick to one or the other.
- With Naruto being the titular character, shouldn't he be the first in the list?
- For the minor characters section, my first inclination is to drop it all together, or do a short prose paragraph and merge in the minor character list.
- Minor nit pick (no pun intended), but with the template below, is there a need for the see also section?
- Sourcing seems clean good, though there is also inconsistency in linking Kishimoto, Masashi. Should all be linked, if I'm not mistaken, along with Viz Media, Shueisha, and other publishers. There does seem to be a fairly limited set of sources, though. Almost all either the primary work and its subworks (art books, et all), ANN, and AoD. I know this is fairly normal for anime/manga articles, especially for lesser know series, but with its popularity in the US, I'm suprised Naruto isn't covered in more places?
And, as it with everything I review, I encourage having it copyedited. :) Hope this helps some. Will be watching with curiosity as the peer review progresses.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 01:32 UTC)
[edit] Creatures of Impulse
This is a fairly new article, but has already reached Good Article status. It is a fairly minor play by W. S. Gilbert, but interesting, and it's fun doing these small plays, as we have an excellent chance of writing the best article on the internet about them. We would like to get an idea of how hard it is to get an article of this type, where the number of scholarly sources is relatively limited, to FA, and the best way is to try, so please give any comments that would help us get it up to FA. =)
Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from Awadewit
This article is already so much better than the last time I read it! I'm impressed! Here are my questions and comments:
- Did the play or short story influence any later works or later artists? Can there be a "Legacy" section, for example?
- Not directly. It might have been briefly referenced by P. G. Wodehouse (who made a habit of dropping references and quotes to even fairly obscure Gilbert plays), at most, but I don't think it had any particularly significant impact. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Before taking the article to FAC, I would spend some time copy editing or ask someone like Scartol to help you out. FAC has become serious about "brilliant prose". Right now, the article has lots of slightly awkward sentences, a few missing words, and inconsistent verb tenses. This can all easily be fixed, though.
- I've spoken to a couple, we'll see if anything comes of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of "Background" should either be rearranged to alert the reader it is going to be about both Gilbert and Randegger or it should be broken up into two paragraphs - one about Gilbert and one about Randegger.
- Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
- As noted below, his music for Creatures of Impulse was not praised by the critics, and much of it was cut from revivals of the piece.[4][8] - I find "as noted below" statements inelegant. Should this information not be included here or simply repeated later?
- I just gave a quick summary here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of "Genesis of story and play" begins abruptly - it needs a good transition.
- Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of "Subsequent productions" seems rather awkward - is there any way to make it flow better?
- I think I have Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The multiple systems of footnotes might bother some people at FAC - I don't know for sure. Something to be aware of. I haven't seen this system before. The new is scary, you know!
- Let's see what happens =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the reviews name Boomblehardt as a Jew in their plot summaries;[2][3][4] however, while Edward Righton played the role as a Jewish caricature, Gilbert's script did not use a Jewish dialect, and historian Jane Stedman suggests that Gilbert did not authorize this interpretation. - This seems out of place in the "Critical reception" section. Would it work better in the "Characters" section?
- Moved Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Full retrieval dates should be linked in "Notes".
- I know. I'm trying to get the template fixed, if that fails, I'll use an alternate template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've switched to an alternate template. If FAC wants to object, they can fix the template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know. I'm trying to get the template fixed, if that fails, I'll use an alternate template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "References" do not all seem to be listed in the same style.
- As per above. I'll do what I can. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- One "external link" is not linked.
- Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Check WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC for how to punctuate quotations. I saw some periods inside quotation marks and the like.
- The periods inside quotation marks are in the original, punctuation outside them is me. =)
I hope this was helpful - most of my comments are about picky things! The article is coming along nicely. Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/wsgsoc.htm this site, what makes it reliable?
- Mainly that it's by Andrew Crowther. He's one of the leading experts on Gilbert, but I don't think he's really grasped the internet age. This is not unusual in the field: For instance, would you suspect that http://www.britnett.net/sirarthursullivansociety/ would be the homepage of a society powerful enough to largely control the recording of Sullivan's lesser works for Hyperion Records?
- That said, we probably don't need that reference - I think similar material appears in his book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 23 is lackign a publisher
- I think the publisher is just the "International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival". But, yeah, that got added after I went in and standardised referencing - I'll fix it in a wee bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.c20th.com/GSarchive.htm a reliable source?
- In itself, it's not. But the source actually being used is the primary source theatre programmes shown on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 18:59 UTC)
[edit] Washington Irving
I've listed this article for peer review because… we are hoping to get this up to Good Article status. I have been collaborating particularly with User:Federalistpapers, who is sorta new to the Wiki world but deserves all the credit for the improvements to this article in the last several months. Let us know what you think. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- I have just partially copyedited this (only up to the end of the Early years subsection). I don't have the time to do the rest, so I advise a complete copyedit by someone new to the text. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of copyeditors who can help you.
- I noticed it is listed at LOCE, but that will take forever - contact individual editors yourselves through their Talk pages by asking nicely, and you'll get plenty of help very quickly.
- I did come across some sentences which could be expanded. For example, "Prior to its publication, Irving started a hoax akin to today's viral marketing campaigns; he placed a series of missing person adverts in New York newspapers seeking information on Diedrich Knickerbocker, a crusty Dutch historian who had allegedly gone missing from his hotel in New York City."- This doesn't seem to add anything to the article unless you explain why Irving decided to do this, and what resulted from it.
- "With residents and city officials buzzing in anticipation" - Seems like a generalization, are you completely sure this is an accurate statement to make?
- Overall, very good job. Submit to WP:FAC after another full copyedit has been completed.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just wanted to say thank you for the feedback! I don't have time right now to take any action but I wanted to acknowledge the time you took to review. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks for the helpful feedback! I'll make a start at expanding on that one section that's mentioned -- it is an important part of Irving's story, and shouldn't disappear in the wash, so I'll expand on it. We'll give the article a scrubbing to see if there are other places that need some work.--Federalistpapers (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 22:54 UTC)
[edit] Clarice Lispector
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just completed a major revamping and would like to get any feedback about places where it might be expanded or reorganized.
Thanks, Eve.b.i (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way - I think the article has too many subsections as it is, so perhaps work on the rest of the article and then on the lead.
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs on authors at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre that may be useful as models.
- There are a lot of peacock words and extraordinary claims in the lead and article - for example Acclaimed internationally... A legendary figure... renowned for ... her great personal beauty, and her eccentric personality ... one of the two most outstanding Brazilian prose writers of the twentieth century. See WP:PEACOCK
- Many paragraphs and sections are unreferenced - for example "The Ukraine" or "Belém do Pará" sections. This would be a big problem at GAN or FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "extraordinary claims" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Many of the sections and paragraphs are very short - a few sentences - and this breaks up the flow of the article. I would combine or expand these short paragraphs and sections. Again looking at a model article for organization ideas might help in reducing the number of sections.
- Any sort of critical reception info that could be added?
- References need more detailed information - ISBNs for books for example.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a full review for you, but I wanted to reiterate Ruhrfisch's comments about the lede. See if you can get it up to three paragraphs, and work on the number of subsections throughout the whole article. Let me know if you need advice on anything specific. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 May 2008, 12:06 UTC)
[edit] Everyday life
[edit] Georgi Kinkladze
This article recently failed a featured nomination, so I am looking for feedback on what else is needed to reach featured standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd move ref 3 to after Gio, since I presume it refers to just Gio, not Gio and Kinky.
- I'm pretty sure there's something somewhere in the MoS which specifies placing refs after punctuation.
- I'd add some wikilinks to "When Georgian football formed leagues independent of Soviet competition in 1989". There a few alternatives at Association football around the world#Europe (UEFA).
- Our articles about Georgian football are sketchy at best, but I've put in a link to Football in Georgia.
- I know you've linked midfielder and playmaker quite high, but I'd be tempted to repeat those wikilinks in the "Style of play" section.
- Done.
- Maybe add new columns for the references in the statistics section.
Everything else from myself has previously been addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To start, I offer you an apology for my bad timing. I went to take another look for problems just after the FAC was archived. Picking up from where I left off...
- Anorthosis: "on the day of second leg of the tie against Rangers" Incorrect grammar.
- Rubin Kazan: Don't need the club name linked here, since it is in the previous section.
- "his corner kick was headed into the net by a team-mate" Which team-mate?
- Don't like "in three more minutes".
- "mistake in is choice of penalty taker" Typo.
- Berdyev doesn't need a link here.
- Current ref 106 not after punctuation.
- 2006 season: Rostov doesn't need another link. Giants2008 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 13:45 UTC)
[edit] Hugh Daily
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article pushed up to GA status, and a couple of reviews would point out mistakes, wording issues, or reference problems.
Thanks, Neonblak (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- It is very short, but I am sure you have exhausted your sources and cannot expand it. Please check http://books.google.com, http://www.nyt.com// and http://www.time.com archives. Your local library services may have access to research databases such as Thomson Gale Infotrac.
- Not much to say - the references are formatted correctly, the prose looks good, the layout is good.
- Can you find a picture to add?
- Sorry I couldn't be more useful.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will check out those links, and the only existing picture that is known, is located in a book, to which I don't have a scanner. It can be used due to the fact it is the public domain as published photo prior to 1923. Thanks for the review, and I will try and expand when I find more information. Neonblak (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 23:31 UTC)
[edit] List of Final Fantasy compilation albums
I'm trying to push List of Final Fantasy compilation albums to FL, and as I've never done that before, I'm looking for some feedback first. I created this article myself, by merging in around 10 stubby articles on individual albums, adding other albums without pages, and cleaning up/expanding/referencing the lot, all by myself. Some outside eyes would be good at this stage. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: After a quick glance, I'd suggest finding some external links to add; like Square Enix's website or maybe Uematsu's since he probably composed most of the music. Maybe add a see also section for List of Final Fantasy media. I'm not sure about this, but you may encounter some problems with the number of images. Other than remove some, I don't know what to do about that. Hope this helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
- Done and done, I'm hoping no one has a problem with the images since there's one per album, and only in the infobox. --PresN (talk)
- I think there will be. There are some guidelines outlined at WP:ALBUM#Discography and mirrored at WP:NFC#Images 2, but good luck with that. An admin removed all the images from a soundtrack list I had been working on just earlier this month.--十八 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it happens, it happens, but I'll try to fight for it. There's not reason why the images aren't fine- if one image is fine in an infobox about one cd, then 3 images should be fine for 3 infoboxes about 3 cds, and 12 should be fine for 12 boxes about 12 cds. If I started doing limited edition covers or other images I could see it, but I'm not for just that reason. Any other concerns? --PresN (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there will be. There are some guidelines outlined at WP:ALBUM#Discography and mirrored at WP:NFC#Images 2, but good luck with that. An admin removed all the images from a soundtrack list I had been working on just earlier this month.--十八 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 14:43 UTC)
[edit] Walter O'Malley
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC mostly for lack of having generated commentary. Thus, feedback is needed. I intend to incorporate information from several books that I have checked out from the Chicago Public Library, but the current article may have some problems that are causing people not to want to take an interest. I think maybe there may be some organizational issues that are keeping readers from getting into the article. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 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 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 08:12 UTC)
[edit] List of Sega 32X games
I've made a lot of progress with this list, and I would like to have it peer reviewed before sending it to become a featured list candidate. I know I'm weak at writing lead sections, so I could use some help there. Also, I'm not sure about a couple of my sources that I used to source the list. I have asked for comment on these sources at WP:RS/N, but I have not received any response. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Make more use of footnotes, ideally every column of each table should have a footnote.
- Separate references and notes apart in their own sections.
- Otherwise looks good.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I've separated the references and notes. Can someone specify a little more about how to set it up so every column of every table has a footnote or show me an example, please? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 02:53 UTC)
[edit] A.F.C. Sudbury
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has now reached a pretty decent standard and would appreciate some other views.
Thanks, Dancarney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
Here's a few things I've picked up, hope it helps.
- In the first sentence it should be "AFC Sudbury is an English....."
- Similarly in the second sentence, the club should be treated as a singular noun
- Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the whole article, currently it doesn't mention anything apart from the club's location and current league(s)
- History section, first sentence - "AFC Sudbury was formed....."
- "Eastern Counties Premier Division" should probably be "Eastern Counties League Premier Division", as that's its actual name
- Is there a source for the specifics of why the club did not take promotion?
- Sentence starting "This new start" is a bit tangled and convoluted and could do with a re-write
- No reason for commas round Mark Morsley's name
- No need for a comma before Canvey Island
- "As well as consistently good league performances" - a bit POV, try and re-word
- Any sources for the first paragraph of the "ground" section?
- Stray full stop after reference 10
- Squad list should use the standard template seen on most other club's pages, and could also do with an "As of....." stamp to show how up to date it is
- League history section - "Eastern Counties Premier League" is not the name of the division, the correct name should be used
- "Source" section - couldn't this be turned into a specific inline citation and amalgamated with the references?
Other than that it looks excellent!
Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Very helpful comments, thanks! I think I've addressed everything with the exception of
- re-wording of "As well as consistently good league performances" - I see that it appears POV, but I'm struggling to think a way of changing it. Only once in the club's existence have they finished outside the top 3 in their league, when they finished 5th, which does seem to be "consistently good league performances". Would something like "consisently high league finishes" be better?
- Sourcing the reason for the club not taking promotion - just can't find a source for this, though I believe it is common-ish knowledge. Should I just state the the club chose not to seek promotion, though they were entitled? I think I can find a source for that. Dancarney (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from Bettia (talk · contribs)
I'm new to this reviewing lark, but I've spotted some issues which could be addressed:
- When referring to seasons, use endashes (
–) instead of hyphens (for example, instead of "beginning of the 2005-06 season", write "beginning of the 2005–06 season"). See WP:MOS#En_dashes. - It would also be beneficial to wikilink any references to seasons to the relevant 'season in English football' article, just to add a bit more context (for example, "beginning of the 2005-06 season").
- Could you add some info on club records - biggest wins and losses, best FA Cup runs, etc?
Hope this helps!
Bettia (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 09:48 UTC)
[edit] Barry Bonds
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed at WP:GAC for the third time this year. Although many of the most recent reviewer arguments were for reasons not in keeping with policy (e.g., the reviewer knowledgeable on size policy and thought the article exceeded policy limitation), some arguments were of varying degrees of merit. With respect to size, the article is currently only half the length that is against policy at WP:FAC. Currently, according to this tool, the article is 30.2 KB of readable prose and 5350 words and WP:SIZE says articles much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is a problem. Generally, much longer than 30 of 50 KB is perceived as over 60KB. So this article could be nearly twice as long and be a WP:FA. It certainly is far short of the length of 
Harry S. Truman or either of the Roosevelts for example. In truth, given my experience with WP:GAC, which is about as broad and deep as any on WP, I was quite surprised given the lack of merit of some of the arguments against this article that it was not given a hold at GAC. I am somewhat convince that the common dislike of Bonds may have spilled over into the evaluation of the quality of the article. However, I concede that that as the most active editor of the article, I may be too close to see very deep problems with the article. In short, I need more outside eyes on this article that I think of as very close to WP:WIAGA to help me see points of improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Bonds' article is shorter than his peer group
Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Further details: Jordan - 37.2 KB, 6493 words. Gretzky - 36.4 KB and 6332 words. Bonds which is deeemed too long 30.2 KB and 5350 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I happened to be stopping by PR anyway, I thought I should come here and offer my thoughts.
- The main issue seems to be the size, so I will start there. I don't have a problem with the total size, but I do believe there is a recentism issue. From 2001-2004, Bonds had some of the greatest numbers in baseball history, but combined they don't get as much ink as his 2006 season, which was really nothing special aside from him passing Babe Ruth. We also don't need a play-by-play of every home run he hit in 2007 leading to #756.
- I do understand that the weight on 2007 and 2008 is heavier than the best years of his career. I can probably cut some detail out, but since it seems like his article needs to be about 20-25% longer to provide him the same amount of coverage as his peers, it might be necessary to expand other sections more than chop this one. I do get the point though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't Hank Aaron say before #756 that he didn't want Bonds to break his record? I know he congratulated Bonds afterward, and I shouldn't ask for more on his 2007 season, but this might be worth looking into.
- This would be an interesting point to expand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added a paragraph on Aaron/Bonds. I may need to add one for Selig/Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed an About.com reference, which concerns me since that is typically considered unreliable. Also unsure about Los Altos Hills.com and The Baseball Page.com. Encyclopædia Britannica is weird as well, since we are also an encyclopædia.
- Sometimes I throw in the easiest reference to find rather than the best one. This is a bad habit. I am not sure if each point can be addressed with more reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are several one-sentence paragraphs. Try to merge or expand them.
- I noticed a couple statements that could use citations. Reference Bill James ranking Bonds as the best player of the 1990s and the 2005 Sporting News list.
- Didn't Bonds' agent say that he would play in Japan if nobody signed him? I also remember rumors that Oakland and Tampa Bay were interested in him at various times.
This should be enough to get you started. The article has the potential to be a good article, but still has some rough patches in my opinion. Giants2008 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You want some advice on this piece. I am a petty vandal who stumbled on this page/article, but I am not an idiot and rather knowlegeable when it comes to baseball, you'd do well to listen, and it ain't gonna be easy, here goes. You would do well to stop looking for reasons why others complaints are invalid and just listen to them. You also note the main reason was length, this is disingenious, there were other complaints. However, instead of actually addressing them you fixed the examples and walked away, I would have failed it too.
You say there is little merit in the length based complaint, it is about undue weight, not length, you have as much print about two seasons as you do the previous 10. Also, the 2008 section is out of date, and why does 2008 get its own section? He isn't even playing, doesn't make any sense when you think of it that way.
You throw in the easiest reference? What the hell is that? From the look of your page not only do you like to brag (no one is impressed btw) but this isn't your first attempt at bettering Wikipedia articles, how long does it take someone to learn? It seems to me that the way to improve articles is not to continually nominate the same article over and over again until it shoves it's way through but to actually take some time and try to understand why the article has failed.
Your comments about bias are apt, but it is plainly apparant that your own love for Barry Bonds has colored your ability to approach the process of this article with an objective viewpoint.
I told you that you wouldn't like it, and maybe I was a bit harsh, but I think there are some good pearls amongst the clutter of my thoughts. I just couldn't not comment, considering your astounding, and annoying level of self-importance.208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 07:40 UTC)
[edit] Susianna Kentikian
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This is a short article which was promoted to good article status not too long ago, and I am wondering how it might be improved further. The text can probably not be expanded much further, because sources for the topic are limited.
Thanks, EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and generally well done. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc.
- Unfortunately, there are no FAs on boxers, as far as I know, certainly non on female boxers. I used the good article Mike Tyson as a model for the awards and boxing records section.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, with nothing important in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The current lead is decent, but the second paragraph seems a bit short - could more be added to it? For example, Professional boxing record (undefeated, 21 wins) is not in the lead but is a header.
- It is mentioned that she is undefeated in the first paragraph, and her boxing statistics are right there in the infobox, so I'm not sure whether they really need to be in the text of the lead as well.
- In Early life could her city of birth be mentioned? How about the names of her parents and brother? Is her borther older or younger?
- I added this information.
- Provide context for the reader - could the years of their first move to Germany or their move to Moldova or Russia be given? See WP:PCR
- I included the year of their move to Germany, though the exact year for their move to Russia and Moldova are not known I'm afraid. They likely left Germany in the same year, but I found no sources for that.
- Article could use a copyedit to clean up awkward sentences / grammar - for example Kentikian had to fear expulsion from Germany for a long time.
- I changed that sentence. I guess there are more such sentences in the text, but unfortunately my ability to judge what might be awkward is limited, because I'm not a native speaker of English.
- I don't understand this - if she had an amatuer 24 and 1 record, how was she "discovered"? Surely the professional boxing people were aware of her already? See Kentikian was discovered as a professional boxer at an exhibition fight during qualifications for the World Amateur Boxing Championships
- Female amateur boxing is nothing overly popular, I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't aware of her at all, or maybe had heard of her, but never seen her fight before.
- Give both English and metric units - for example 1.54 m - use of {{convert}} templates may be helpful here
- I included English units.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I tried to work on your suggestions. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 13:56 UTC)
[edit] Harry Trott
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this article to FAC in the not-too-distant future. Any advice on prose, referencing, MoS issues or any other matter would be welcome.
Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 06:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Current ref 11 is just a blad link right now, needs title, publisher and last access date at least.
- Same for ref 38
- Same for ref 42
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Ealdgyth's comments - I found the article to be quite well done and have some fairly picky sugestions (I am also no expert on cricket):
- In Australia is "State" capitalized usually? eventually playing first-class cricket again for his State,
- As noted, I do not know cricket - but this sentence seems odd to me (innings of 54 - 54 what?): His innings of 54 included a memorable hit over the leg side boundary from the bowling of leading Test all-rounder George Giffen, ...
- missing words? His [chances for?] inclusion in the Australian squad for the forthcoming tour of England were enhanced when a number of leading players made themselves unavailable.[10]
- seems like jargon (lbw) change to the lbw law that would aid bowlers ... perhaps spell out lbw? See WP:JARGON
- one too many and? recording a duck in the first innings[,]
andmaking three runs in the second, and he did not bowl.[13]
- extra period "29.20."? Trott scored 146 runs in the series at an average of 29.20. and in all first-class matches he scored 1269 runs.[31][32]
- the tourists?? Playing for Victoria against the tourists, the Trott brothers claimed twelve wickets and ...
- List so I think it should be a colon here (not a semicolon) The team included a number of first-time tourists; Clem Hill, Joe Darling,...
-
- Colon added
- Why the asterisk in scoring 305 runs in the second innings, K. S. Ranjitsinhji making 154*.?
- Seems way overlinked, for example K. S. Ranjitsinhji is linked twice in two paragraphs or Wisdens twice in one paragraph in "Style and personality" section. This would be a problem at FAC
-
- FAC with cricket articles always seems to be a balance between linking jargon where appropriate and not overlinking. The two examples you have found are clear cut examples of overlinking and have been fixed; there are some other items that may be overlinked such as "run", "wicket", "average" etc. This is to save the reader from having to remember where the term was linked first should they wish to find out what the term means. However, your point is noted and I will have another run through the article and see what links can be removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lead says he was in hospital "he was committed to a psychiatric hospital for over 400 days." but Illness and recovery section says "Trott was discharged after spending 400 days at Kew Asylum." Which is it?
- When did he start working for the Post Office? Perhaps add this so we know his employer earlier?
- I doubt most Americans would know stone as a unit of weight - perhaps weighed 11 stone (70 kg / 154 lb)
- Images are supposed to all be set to thumb width per WP:MOS#Images, although wide images like team pictures can have their widths set.
-
- I agree in principle, however the two images where I have set a size are very small. If no preference has been set (the case for most casual readers) the images are very difficult to make out. Setting a fixed size for these two images is my compromise solution. No doubt there will be more discussion at FAC (there was when Hugh Trumble was listed)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, all great stuff. Will start addressing these as soon as possible. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 06:19 UTC)
[edit] List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
Thinking of putting this up for FL, wondered what else I might need to do.........?
Does the word "football" need to be in the article title....?
Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any chance the "Season" column can be extended a bit so it doesn't go onto two lines? On IE browser, at 1152 x 864, it goes over two lines. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've "forced" the column widths, how does it look now.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I think some of the text needs more references, particularly the first and third pars and the last line of the second par. I would have said some of that would be easy to steal from FA Cup, but unfortunately that is one of the worst referenced articles on here. However, I digress...
- If you're going to take this to FLC, I'd suggest creating articles, even if only stubs, for the redlinked FA Cup seasons.
- Is there any reference available to say why and when Scottish clubs could no longer enter - I presume those in the SFA can't?
- I'd suggest adding football to the title, but I'd gauge wider opinion on that one.
- Just a final minor one. Do you think it should be categorised with "History of English football" as well as Scottish? After all, it is an English competition. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article already states when and why Scottish clubs (other than Gretna) stopped entering, complete with a reference to a BBC article, so I think that one's aleady covered. I'll get on to the others ASAP..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- You may want to reconsider the bolded lead sentence in light of recent discussions.
- I'd leave the redlinked seasons as they are. Redlinks attract creators of articles. A stub like FA Cup 1996-97 adds very little to the encyclopedia but makes the potential article-creator think that season's article has already been done. Don't know if you've been following the new criteria debates, but redlinks and stubs get a mention, in WT:Featured list criteria#Revised proposal (4) and throughout that talk page.
- Do you intend to make it sortable? If not, there's massive overlinking (as I'm sure you know).
- I'd make the section heading Performance of ... (singular rather than plural)
- and would include football in the article title.
- Could you find a more obviously reliable source for it being the world's oldest competition beginning in 1871 than an agency piece in an Australian newspaper?
- Why did Queens Park keep entering if they were only going to withdraw? and if money was a problem, why did they continue in the English Cup once there was a Scottish one?
that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for your comments, I'll address them shortly, although I have found no source which indicates why QP apparently entered the draw five times only to then pull out........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Not overly keen on the columns being centrally aligned, except for the season and the ref.
- Not sure about the mix of "Round 3" and "3rd qualifying round".
- Blackburn Rovers is overlinked.
- I would expand the lead image size. I think, if I remember, you can go up to 300px for the lead image per WP:MOS#Images.
- Home Counties doesn't need the C to be capitalised.
Not much else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cheers for the comments, all addressed except the column alignments, which I'll do later. I took the image about to what appeared to be the maximum size at which the quality looked OK..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for the comments, all addressed except the column alignments, which I'll do later. I took the image about to what appeared to be the maximum size at which the quality looked OK..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 15:57 UTC)
[edit] Joel Selwood
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some outside comments on the progress of this article's editting, in the hope that it eventually becomes a featured article.
Thanks, Boomtish (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joel Selwood/archive2.
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 11:35 UTC)
[edit] Andover F.C.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for another peer review because it failed its GA nomination and I'd like to see if there's anything else that needs catching or adding (apart from one or two missing refs) before renominating it.
Thanks, Bettia (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, this is looking quite good. Some comments:
- There is a certain degree of "proseline" — there is a tendency to start paragraphs with "In year, x and y happened", which gets repetitive.
- I've gone through this quickly to weed out the more obvious examples. Will go through it again when time allows.
- The second sentence of the lead is far too long, at over 60 words. There are also some other sentences which need splitting, such as the last sentence in the "early years" subsection.
- Done. Again, I've gone through the whole article quickly to fix any more obvious examples.
- In the 2007–08 season, they finished nineteenth out of 22 teams and attracted an average home attendance of 146, representing a 12.3% decrease over the previous season. A change in average attendance for an individual season is far too specific for inclusion in the lead. I don't like the precision to which the figure is quoted either. In this case a change of 0.1% represents one sixth of a person. Changing it to the absolute decrease ("a decrease of 20") would be more meaningful.
- Done. Removed from lead, and replace percentage with proper figure as suggested.
- they are sometimes known as The Loonies due to Andover's infamous workhouse - "infamous" is an example of a peacock term.
- Done. I'll go through the whole article more thoroughly to see if there are any more.
- When I tried them, all the Andover Football Club Results Archive links were dead.
- My bad, the pagenames were typed incorrectly. All fixed now.
- The list of club officials is overkill. Anyone other than the chairman or manager is too minor to be worthy of inclusion.
- Done, but I've kept the club secretary in as these guys are usually important to any club.
- They also put the memory of the previous season's cup final drubbing by winning the Hampshire Senior Cup for the sixth time, beating Havant & Waterlooville 2–0 at The Dell. something missing here.
- Yes, that'd would be "behind them".
- upon the restart they resumed life in the North Division - beware of informal terms. While suitable for a magazine article, they should not be used in a formal encyclopedic context. Football clubs are not alive, so "life" is inappropriate here. twelve supporters of the club joined ranks and Dubbed the '100 Club are other examples.
- Examples fixed. I'll go through the whole article more thorough to look for any more.
- A couple more images would be beneficial, even if its just the interior of Portway Stadium.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 10:26 UTC)
[edit] Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
Hopefully all aspects of the game has been covered in the article. Looking for any suggestions on improvements to the article. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions to improve it:
- A model article is useful for ideas to follow on structure, style, refs, etc. There are all sorts of FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming that may be useful as models.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should probably be longer and should be a summary of the whole article.
- I am not a video game person, but it seems as if a bit of background might help clarify this - why is it special that Mario and Sonic are together and why is this there first collaboration?
- Is there any reason not to list all 16 characters available in the game?
- Ditto on listing all of the games possible?
- I think the article needs to always be clear whether the Wii or DS version is being discussed, For example There is an unlockable version of four of the Olympic events in the game. These events are called "Dream Events". They differ from their original counterparts by applying more fictional video game attributes from the Mario and Sonic worlds. As a result, these events also have recognizable locations, abilities, objects, and support characters from both gaming worlds.[7][18] The Nintendo DS version has five exclusive Dream Events: canoeing, boxing, basketball, long jump and skeet shooting.[15]
- Article has some short sentences which makes it choppy when it should flow better. See above
- Provide context for the reader - for example who are the people mentioned in In 2005, Yuji Naka held discussions of a Mario and Sonic video game with Shigeru Miyamoto.[21]
- Article seems a bit short, but I do not know what to add. A model article will be useful here too.
- I would try to give specifics in the Reception section - for example in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games on the Wii is known for being an entertaining multiplayer experience, having colorful graphics and physically demanding gameplay,[38][28] but criticized for shallow gameplay and having complex rules and instructions for numerous events.[10][35] I would say who said each of these things. Also refs should be in numerical order - so [28][38].
- In Reception, since this is a world-wide release, why are mostly just the UK sales figures given?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 19:09 UTC)
[edit] Sindy
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I would love some feedback on how to further improve this GA article, especially how to avoid proseline and where to find more sources.
Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement:
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current lead could be split into two paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, perhaps more could be in the lead on the development.
- Provide context for the reader - for example, in "Development and launch" it might help to say Pedigree is in Exeter, or that Ideal was based in New York. See WP:PCR
- At FAC someone might ask what happened between the introduction of the doll in 1963 and the next date given, 1968, when it was the best selling toy in Britain. How did it get there?
- Aha, reading further I see that the "Developing accessories and American release" section is not chronological - it might make more sense to put this information in chronological order, perhaps just by putting these three sentences (Sindy was the best selling toy ... Sindy's success in the 1960s ... Mattel did not focus on Barbie's accessories ...) at the end of the first paragraph in the section, after the designers.
- Could more specifics be given here During the 1970s, the foundation of marketing the Sindy doll was developing more products.[8] - how did this lead to decline (when the next section also focuses on new products, which were successful).
- If two or three sentences in a row all have the same reference and there is not a direct quote in there, I think it is fine to have just one ref at the end of the last sentence that is referenced with this material. As it is, the article seems to have too many superfluous refs.
- The advertising campaign for the fashion company Alexon was not for the doll, right? I think this could be made clearer. Also any idea on how it affected the doll's sales? If it was held up in a major ad campaign as a model of childishness compared to high fashion I doubt it would help sales.
- The article (as opposed to just the lead) needs to mention Sindy's changed appearance to look more like Barbie in the Hasbro redesigned Sindy .. sentence for this to make sense: Hasbro introduced Sindy in France and continental Europe in 1994 after minor facial modifications to reduce her resemblance to Barbie.[16]
- General comment - once Sindy was introduced in the US, I had trouble telling whether statements related to the US or the UK or both or the world or whatever. Try for greater clarity.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks heaps Ruhrfisch, I will incorporate all your suggestions. In regards to the superfluous refs, I agree, but I thought it was best to have a reference for every sentence until the article was somewhat stable to avoid something important ending up unreferenced after a lot of stuff is changed. Thanks! Somno (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 08:10 UTC)
[edit] List of former Scottish Football League clubs
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
Got some more refs to plug in, but what else might I need to do before I take it to FLC...........?
Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know that the Scottish Premier League is technically separate to the Scottish Football League, but it seems daft to count the current SPL clubs as former League members. I'd prefer them to be included, with the wording of lead phrased in such a way as to include them.
- "I'd prefer them to be included" - included in the article? Or not included in the article? The two sentences of this section seem to contradict each other..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conceding eight goals appears to have its after-effects ;) I'd prefer them not to be included, as they are still part of the four division pyramid. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, however they are not members of the SFL, so to keep the title accurate they have to be included. Otherwise it would need to be renamed to List of former Scottish Football League and Scottish Premier League clubs, or something equally horrific, or else reword the lead to say something like "this lists all former member clubs except those in the SPL" and run the risk of something at the FLC saying "Hang on a minute, why the exception for those in the SPL, eh?". Having typed all that I guess I can in fact see both sides of the argument, maybe I'll ask for the rest of the football project's thoughts..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conceding eight goals appears to have its after-effects ;) I'd prefer them not to be included, as they are still part of the four division pyramid. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- "I'd prefer them to be included" - included in the article? Or not included in the article? The two sentences of this section seem to contradict each other..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another one that's similar in a way. Airdrie United may possess the league share that belonged to Clydebank, but make no claim to Clydebank's history and are in effect a separate club, so I think Clydebank (1965–2002) should be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Not keen on centrally aligned notes column, looks awful to me!
- Lead image could be made larger per WP:MOS#Images - 300px?
- "... legalised in 1893.[1] In 1893 a ..." reads awkwardly, flow the two "in 1893"'s better...
- Last para of lead needs some citation.
- "Clydebank (original club)" needs some explanation.
- Considerable overlinking if this table is to remain unsortable.
- Explain SJFA.
- Not convinced about the pedigree of Historical football shirts website - I know it's been used before but can we be convinced it's a truly reliable source?
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cheers for the comments, I'll address them all soon-ish. The HFK website seems OK to me. It has an overall editor who vets contributions sent in by people, so it's not like random people can just edit it themselves. The site's been cited in magazine articles and has been commissioned to provide data/images for books. I'd say it's certainly as reliable as things like FCHD or Pride of Anglia...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatively I've found that on Soccerbase you can view a page for each team where there's a drop down list of their league tables by season, so I could always use that as an alternative....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, well keep it in stock and see what happens when you get to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Or there's scottishfootballarchive.co.uk, which has pages like this for every club. It looks like a reliable source to me, whaddya reckon....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just one thing to say, I noticed they said " Any changes made to the Wikipedia article will not be immediately reflected here." which means this source may (after time) be recursive. I'd avoid.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that affects the FCHD-style listings of finishing positions by clubs, though, only the copy of the WP article which appears in a sidebar..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Go to FLC when you're ready. Contender ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Go to FLC when you're ready. Contender ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that affects the FCHD-style listings of finishing positions by clubs, though, only the copy of the WP article which appears in a sidebar..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just one thing to say, I noticed they said " Any changes made to the Wikipedia article will not be immediately reflected here." which means this source may (after time) be recursive. I'd avoid.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Or there's scottishfootballarchive.co.uk, which has pages like this for every club. It looks like a reliable source to me, whaddya reckon....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, well keep it in stock and see what happens when you get to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatively I've found that on Soccerbase you can view a page for each team where there's a drop down list of their league tables by season, so I could always use that as an alternative....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for the comments, I'll address them all soon-ish. The HFK website seems OK to me. It has an overall editor who vets contributions sent in by people, so it's not like random people can just edit it themselves. The site's been cited in magazine articles and has been commissioned to provide data/images for books. I'd say it's certainly as reliable as things like FCHD or Pride of Anglia...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 10 May 2008, 21:11 UTC)
[edit] Pau Gasol
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to see what else should be done to it, and what more or less should be added
Thanks, Gamloverks (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.
- If this article is about a person, please add
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. - If you were aiming for a good article, I would suggest using {{citeweb}}, {{citenews}}, etc. on the references.
- The whole 2006-07 section is uncited. Add some references and/or citations.
- Add a caption to the image in the infobox.
- On the second image, in the caption, link "Grizzlies" (for example) to help those unfamiliar with the subject.
- On the career statistics, consider adding something like this.
- Other than that looks good. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look! There are some different people along with me who are working on this article, albeit some don't say what they change. I'll try to work on the things above in the article. Gamloverks (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Dates have been fixed. Measurements have been spelled out. Linked both teams in the caption. I will work on the Person data. 2006-07 section is indeed cited. I'll work on the references for using citeweb and citenews. I'll continue to add more information as I see it, but otherwise, I still have some work to do on it. I'm also getting busy with graduation, so I've had little to no time at all. Gamloverks (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Added persondata, I've also merged topics because of too minimal content. Well, it's looking pretty good. Gamloverks (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added persondata, I've also merged topics because of too minimal content. Well, it's looking pretty good. Gamloverks (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 May 2008, 19:31 UTC)
[edit] Don Boven
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it better. My goal would be for it to someday be a FA, but I'm not sure if there is enough information available on this basketball player to make that possible. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Thanks a lot--Eva bd 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. - Can you add a couple more paragraphs to the lead? It doesn't meet WP:LEAD at the moment.
- Is this a reliable source? Find an alternate.
- See if you can add a "See Also" section (just a suggestion)
- That's it from me. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 May 2008, 18:41 UTC)
[edit] Anfield
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I can improve this article with a view to taking it to FAC. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The article is interesting and generally clear but needs more work to have a chance at promotion. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.
The lead should summarize the main text. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main section topics. The lead in this article does not mention "Other uses" or "Transport" and should be expanded to include them. See WP:LEAD.- Included various things but still needs transport update in main article Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A lead should not include material not mentioned in the main text. This lead suggests that a disagreement occurred between the two American owners, but main text doesn't discuss this. The "Future" section should include mention that Hicks and Gillett are Americans and explain why they are disagreeing with one another (or the council). The lead says that a 2011 completion date is "doubtful," but the main text doesn't mention this. This idea seems too important to drop, and the "doubtful" comment needs to be sourced.- Sourced lead comment. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
- Expanded future section Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Acronyms like UEFA, which appears in the lead, should be spelled out on first reference and the acronym or abbreviation included in parentheses. After that, it's fine to use just the acronym. Thus UEFA the first time should be written out as Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). This will make the meaning clear to a general reader, who may not be a football fan. FA (Football Association Challenge Cup) is another example of this that I see in the lead.- Fixed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For the general reader, it's also a good idea to explain or wikilink jargon. Non-fans will probably not know the meaning of "fixtures" in the first paragraph of the lead.A "thousand seats given for segregation" in the "Future" section will puzzle many readers unless it is briefly explained.- I agree, personally i was confused by the latter sentence. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Changed fixtures to matches. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
When wiki-linking, it's a good idea to link the first instance of a term. "All-seater" stadium is not linked, but "all-seater" layout is linked in the next sentence. I'd suggest going through the whole article one time just looking for this sort of thing to make sure the first instance of unusual or special terms is linked.- Fixed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Full dates such as September 1, 1892, that appear in the middle of a sentence need a comma after the year. I fixed a few of these, but I recommend that you go through the article looking for these and fixing them.- Found no more instances. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
To keep numbers and units such as "3,000 spectators" from being separated on computer monitors by line-wrap, a no-break code should be placed between them instead of a regular space. See WP:NBSP.- I think i've got them all now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "111 yards (101 m) x 74 yards (68 m)" should use "by" instead of "x". I changed one of these in the infobox, but I see a couple of others.- Fixed Sillyfolkboy (talk)
- I see several sentences in the article like this one: "Anfield has also hosted five FA Cup semi-finals, with the last being in 1929." The word "with" can't be used as this kind of grammatical connector. I usually deal with this connection problem by re-casting the sentence. In this case I might say, "The last of the five FA Cup semi-finals held at Anfield occurred in 1929."
- I did some light copyediting as I went, but more remains to be done. You might find a copyeditor at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV.
I hope this helps. If you found this review useful, please consider reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. That is where I found your request. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oldelpaso's comments: Factually, the article stands in good stead. The area with room for improvement is the prose. In some places imprecise phrasing leads to ambiguities. This is more prevalent in the lead than elsewhere.
- Was the 1982 addition of seats to the Anfield Road end purely a case of bolting seats to a terrace, or did more sophisticated alterations occur (the former would certainly explain the lack of legroom when I sat there in the 90s)
- Liverpool's first League match is included, perhaps Everton's should be too.
- originally the home of Everton F.C. until 1892 "originally" and "until" conflict here.
- The record attendance of 61,905 was set... The phrasing here implies that the reader already knows about the record attendance. The same sentence could be read to mean that the ground was converted to all-seater in 1952.
- There are plans to replace Anfield with a new stadium in Stanley Park, which would hold 25,000 more spectators - 25,000 more than Anfield currently holds, or just 25,000? Try would exceed Anfield's current capacity by 25,000 or some other rephrasing.
- The Americans have had trouble financing the estimated £300 million needed for the Stanley Park development and the deadline to begin work within 60 days of the Americans' acquisition of the club has been missed and the site remains untouched. Would be better as two or three sentences. This section perhaps also overemphasises the nationality of the club's owners - The sentence could just as easily start "The owners have had trouble" or "Hicks and Gillett have had trouble".
- Something which would inevitably come up at FAC is source reliability - Several fansites are used as sources. Can we be sure of their reliability? What about [1] or [2]? Oldelpaso (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- What makes http://www.liverweb.org.uk/ a reliable source?
- Current ref 5 is lacking a publisher
- What makes http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LIVERhoulding.htm a reliable source? It doesn't list its sources and is definitely aimed at a grammar school/grade school audience
- What makes http://www.lfconline.com/ a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.shankly.com/ a reliable source?
- Likewise http://www.123football.com/?
- And http://www.bobpaisley.com/?
- Likewise http://www.thisisanfield.com/?
- And http://squarefootball.typepad.co.uk/squarefootball/?
- Current ref 26, 27, 28 have their publisher in the title link, can we put them outside the link to be consistent with the rest of the article?
- What makes http://www.footballgroundguide.com/ a reliable source?
- Likewise http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm?
- And http://www.fansfc.com/index.asp?
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
- In the Transport section, you could mention the Soccerbus, which runs from Sandhills and Kirkdale stations (possibly others) and is integrated with Merseyrail for ticketing etc.
- You need to make a greater effort to fill in the citation templates fully, rather than just picking the domain name out of the URL. For example, your "Hillsborough, liv.ac.uk" should be "Fact-sheet two: Hillsborough and the Taylor Report", produced by the Football Industry Group at Liverpool University. "liverpoolfc.tv" could be anything, unless you happen to know what it is; "publisher=Liverpool F.C." is informative and convincing. Etc, etc. It takes a bit longer but for featured content it needs doing accurately.
- Haven't been through the article, those were just a couple of things I noticed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 18:27 UTC)
[edit] Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it as a FAC soon. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Not sure on shacknews as a source. What makes this a reliable source?
- Same for Gaming Target?
- Same for Ultimate Guitar Archive? (note I'm NOT a guitarist at all).
- LIkewise Bit-tech?
- The kotaku refs, what makes the authors well known in their field?
- The joystiq refs, same thing.
- The YouTube ref, what makes IT reliable? It doesn't appear to be from the developers, at least from the bibliography. (Note I don't dare try to view the file over my current connection, it doesn't have the bandwith).
- http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/10/guitar-hero-iii-problems-with.html looks like a blog? What makes this reliable?
- http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=628006 looks like a forum post? What makes this reliable?
- Otherwise look pretty decent. 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Gazimoff (talk · contribs)
- infobox
- Image:Guitar-hero-iii-cover-image.jpg needs a full url to the image source and replacability information
- Release dates need citations
- System requirements for PC version might be an idea.
- Lead
- what do you mean by third full title/fourth overall?
- What do you mean by master tracks?
- You mention that co-op career mode is new, but you don't mention battle mode as new as well. Is there a reason for this?
- Gameplay
- Four note chord - what is a rhythm guitar track? What do you mean by expert difficulty? It might be an idea to rearrange this section so that the standard gameplay elements are introduced and summarised first, before moving on to variations and changes for this version.
- when released (by tilting the guitar controller - what is a player's mutiplier? Mention the use of score multipliers earlier on. Also, suggest starting this as a new sentence instead of a semicolon.
- Co-op career mode - I'd consider merging this into Career merge. Make note of the fact that this is new to GH3 - you've mentioned it in your lead yet not talked about it here. Is this available through online play?
- Battle mode - If you don't merge the two career modes together, I'd suggest merging the two multiplayer modes, as they are small sections on their own. You also mention Rockl Meter here - is this the same as the performance meter mentioned earlier? If so, explain it earlier on. Also, the attack can be caticated by tilting the guiar and pressing a button, which button is not important. Is network play the same as online play - if so, be consistent.
- Image:Guitar-hero-3-gameplay.jpg needs full URL source and updated replacability - there's no free use equivalent. Beef up purpose - what are you trying to show to the reader that can't be done through text?
- Wii exclusive features - I'd consider moving this into development instead of gameplay - it was a series of issues faced when the game was being developed, not things that intrinsically affect gameplay. Also, source needs to be found for the Wii 'miss' sounds and remastered disc
- Characters - explain unlocking characters. Can a source be found with the info on characters, including variants for the different platforms.
- Image:Gh3_bret.jpgneeds a replacability reason in rationale. Also, the rationale states it's to identify the use of a singer's likeness, yet the resolution is so low it's difficult to make him out. Is an alternative image available, or a crop of an existing one?
- Development
- Slash being unlocked, reword to avoid VG jargon.
- Tom Morello is a boss - If possible avoid videogame jargon
- I'd look at getting a copyedit for this, as there's a large number of fragmented paragraphs. The Technical Issues section should probably be merged into Reception, as it's stating that poor implementation negatively impacted how the game was recieved.
- Soundtrack - move above Development
- Reception
- Bulk out with info from Technical Issues, earlier
- Most critics have also praised the soundtrack - sounds weasaly, remove Most and add a source
- Focus on what the feedback was and why it was given - the sources will tell the reader who said it. It also makes the section much easier to follow and more understandable.
- Legacy - addon kits and accessories are availble for the controllers, downloadable content, Include this if possible.
That's all I can identify for now. I hope it's of use to you. I would strongly reccomend a copyedit to ensure that the article is readable and flows well. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 04:35 UTC)
[edit] Survivor Series (2004)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
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 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivor Series (2004)/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 28 April 2008, 19:47 UTC)
[edit] Philosophy and religion
[edit] Thurstan
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 19:08 UTC)
[edit] Social sciences and society
[edit] Jesse Jackson, Jr.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed WP:GA, but it is not ready for WP:FAC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- What makes http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm a reliable source?
- Do you have a ref number?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 58 has a formatting glitch in it.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You use "Jackson-White" as short form for something, do you mean the Jackson & Watson book in the References? If so, that's an autobiography, you should probably be careful with how much you rely on it (I don't have a good grasp of that, as I didn't read the article all the way through.) This is more a heads up, than anything else.
- I fixed with Jackson and White. I have a request in at WP:NORN regarding use of his book.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 90 needs to be formatted to match the rest of the newspaper refs (lacking a publisher right now)
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 142 is lacking a publisher
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 150 is lacking a publisher
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current refs 157 through 162 are lacking last access dates.
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't promise I caught every minor glitch with the format of the refs, but I think I got most of them.
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 24 May 2008, 05:44 UTC)
[edit] Steve Dahl
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the quality enough so that it can become a Featured Article. I'm open to any and all suggestions but some stuff I'd like to ask about/request:
- Personal life section: This was originally two smaller sections, with one of them opening the article and titled "Early life". But both were quite short, so I combined them. Does this seem ok?
- General copyediting/proofreading: It should be too bad, but everything can always be better. Thoughts?
- General structure regarding headings/subheadings: Does it seem ok/readable?
Thanks, Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Current ref 36 is lacking a last access date.
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Good catch, fixed it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)
- Looks like the lead needs rewriting. It is disorganized and a bit too long, really. Try to make the paragraphs equal in length to improve flow/readability.
- Jack FM section is short.
- Doesn't seem to be any information about his earlier life (who was he born to, for example), childhood and education?
- Looks pretty good otherwise.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 07:26 UTC)
[edit] Marriott School of Management
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because the first FAC council (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive1) thought it would be needed. Please focus your efforts on any POV in the article and lend to the History section as much as possible. Any other general copy editing appreciated as well.
Thanks, Eustress (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and detailed article, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful for style, refs, structure, etc. There are 20 FAs at Category:FA-Class Universities articles, many of which would be useful articles
- The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
- Give the full name and follow it with the abbreviation the first time, so Brigham Young University (BYU). Watch overlinking - BYU is linked in the lead and then at least the next two sections, of the LDS Church is linked multiple times.
- History - I was a bit confused by the whole middle paragraph on Accounting and Information Systems - why is this important? Also the history chronology skips around a bit - 1975 to 1988 and then back to 1976. I also note the four hubs have no dates, which seems odd for a history.
- Campus as a section heading makes it seem it has its own campus, but it is just a couple of buildings on the main BYU campus, right? I have also not seen the coordinates in the body of the article - especialy since they are already there on the top right of the article.
- Units need to be in both English and metric - the {{convert}} template may be useful here.
- Where was the school before the Tanner building opened in 1982?
- Avoid "currently" and "now" - use as of May 2008, for example
- For The Wall Street Journal ranked the Marriott School as #2 among the best schools for graduates with strong ethical standards in 2003.[24] I would cite the Wall Street Journal, as well as or instead of the Deseret News.
- These also need better cites: The MBA program is ranked #1 among regional schools (The Wall Street Journal, 2007) as well as for the amount of time to payback (BusinessWeek, 2006), at #2 for its emphasis on ethics (The Wall Street Journal, 2007), and #18 overall (Forbes, 2007).
- Article is fairly well written but needs a copyedit to smooth over a few rough / awkward places.
- As for POV, the article is very gowing about the school - sounds like it is a very good school, but are there any criticisms / complaints / scandals / problems? What do guides to business schools say about it?
- The other thing to watch out for is WP:Recentism
- Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width (can also use vertical for vertical images) to allow user set preferences to take over.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 23:31 UTC)
[edit] University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
This peer review discussion has been closed.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because this a broad article and I'd like feedback about which sections need to be improved, expanded, or even removed, as well as anything that should be included that has been omitted. I think a lot of people who have worked on this are UNC students and alumni, myself included, and it would be good to get outside opinion.
Thanks, Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive1.
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 03:30 UTC)
[edit] List of Brigham Young University alumni
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've never been through the FLC process before and I recently overhauled this list. A peer reviewer would please do standard copy editing throughout the body of the list and in the References section.
Thanks, Eustress (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list, clear that a lot of work has gone into it already, but still needs more work before FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model list article is useful for ideas to follow on style, structure, refs, etc. I suspect you have already seen this, but List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni is a FL and seems an excellent model.
- I also note that they have split out their athletes in a separate List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes using WP:Summary style
- I would make the lists sortable - this is fairly easy to do and makes the lists more useful for interested readers
- I would also make sure that the information in the lists is as complete as possible - for example many of the people do not have a class year listed.
- Similarly be consistent on what is given - if you list the school for some alums (Marriott), why not all (or at least say if no school is listed, then undergraduate or whatever). Similarly why are some degrees listed but not others "Bruce C. Hafen 1964 B.A." but "Dallin H. Oaks 1954" also appears to have a bachelors degree from BYU, but no BA or BS is listed.
- Some of the references are web pages that do not seem to be reliable sorces. For example, the reference for Harvey Fletcher does not say he is credited with inventing the hearing aid (I do not doubt he did, just if you claim this in the list, the ref must back this up). It does mention his role in the famous Oil-drop experiment which led to a Nobel Prize for his PhD advisor (which I would list). The ref cited is just a web page and probably would not meet WP:RS - there are surely other RS for his work. This is just one example picked at random - check all refs.
- I would not break the list into so many sub-lists - do US Senators and Representatives really need to be listed separately? Why not one list for Politicians and one for Judges, or an even one big Public Service list?
- I would also try to avoid inlcuding red links in the list - if they are notable, they should have an article. This will help prevent alumni who are not notable from adding themselves (list cruft)
- References are incomplete - many need more information. For example, internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed. {{cite web}} mayy be useful here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 23:51 UTC)
[edit] John McCain
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already attained "good article" status, and I think it potentially could become a featured article. It receives a great deal of visitors, and will probably receive much more attention from the public in the coming year.
I think the text of the article is in pretty good shape, but a general review of the whole article would be appreciated. One particular issue that I would like to see addressed is the black-on-black image at the top of the article (and to the right). At my request, the Wikipedia Graphics Lab yesterday created an alternative image (at right) by changing the background color to a lighter color.[3] I believe that the Graphics Lab Image is a big improvement, at least until a better image is obtained. If the current black-on-black image is retained, will that affect our chances of getting the article featured?
Thanks, Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/John McCain/archive1.
(Peer review added on Friday 9 May 2008, 04:28 UTC)
[edit] Homicidal ideation
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am hoping to get some feedback from some other people about it.
I've done a moderate amount of work to produce this page. It started as I was adding to the List of medical symptoms and found no page for homicidal ideation (despite there being one for suicidal ideation). So I created it. I've been working on it pretty much single-handedly up to now. I've discovered that it's more a criminology/forensic psych thing than strictly psychiatry and hence have had to do a fair bit of reading. I initially was going to put lists of theories and get into a lot of stuff there that should probably be on a more dedicated criminology/criminal justice page or have pages of their own.
Thanks, Orinoco-w (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and while a lot of work has gone into it, it needs a lot more work to more closely conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, references, etc. I note that Schizophrenia is a featured article and may be a useful model.
- The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and not contain anything that is not also in the body of the article. My rule of thumb is write the article then make sure all of the section headers are mentioned in the lead somehow. See WP:LEAD*Any chance of a free image or two?
- Large sections of the article are currently unreferenced or are oddly referenced. For example, "By-product hypothesis ("slip up" theory)" and "Homicide Adaptation Theory" have no refs. Refs usually come at the end of the sentence or paragraph, and are not in the header. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Do not repeat the name of the article in section headers, so "Theories of Homicidal Ideation" could be "Theories". Also do not repeat a header in a subheader unless needed, so "Homicide Adaptation Theory" would be "Homicide Adaptation" under "Theories". See WP:MOS
- The "Associated Psychopathology" section is very short and should either be expanded or combined with another section.
- Avoid lists in the article - convert them to prose instead.
- Provide complete information for citations - for example ref 1 is a dissertation and should give this data and the University. {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and the other cite templates may be useful.
Decent start, needs a lot of work to improve it and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Ruhrfisch for your constructive comments. I have been giving them thought and will make changes appropriately.
- The schizophrenia article is a good read, however schizophrenia is a disease whereas homicidal ideation is a symptom - and one that seems more commonly present in the ABSENCE of disease, as I have been discovering. I had hoped to make use of the suicidal ideation page as a template, but they seem quite different from my reading.
- I will need to rewrite the lead. I have been thinking hard about what sort of image I could come up with to exemplify Homicidal Ideation and the closest I can come up with is this image of the Murder of Cassandra: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/religion/myths/pictures/cassandra.jpg I would appreciate some pointers as to how to find a free version of this for use in the article.
- I will correctly reference the Homicidal Adaptation Theory to be from the J Duntley dissertation (btw, how do I show that it is a dissertation in the cite web? - I make it a cite book and use one of the special fields?)
- I will rewrite the lists into prose.
- I guess I could pad out the Associated Psychopathology section with blah about how Homicidal Ideation seems to be most commonly not associated with psychopathology at all. I hadn't done this because it seemed to be covered in the Lead, but I guess if the lead should contain the stuff that is covered in the article this is the place to put it.
Orinoco-w (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am not a Psychology expert - sorry I picked a less than apt model. It may still be there is an FA or GA that would be useful. I would use cite book for the dissertation - it has a URL section. Perhaps ask User:Awadewit on properly citing a dissertation. I know she has cited some in some of her FAs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The dissertation cite looks fine to me. I would use a footnote for (see ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders F05). instead of the parenthesis. I also note that WP:MOS says only to capitalize the first word of headers, so "Associated Psychopathology" would be "Associated psychopathology", etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 April 2008, 07:09 UTC)
[edit] History
[edit] Richard of Dover
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The article needs a thorough copyedit. Some of the sentences are clumsily constructed, and punctuation is wayward. I have raised some instances below, but the list isn't exhaustive.
- Lead
- Second sentence has three unrelated facts, with sparse punctuation. Also, employed by Becket in what capacity?
- "Roger, archbishop..." - surely archbishop should be capitalized?
- archbishops missing apostrophe
- link required first mention of papacy
- link required first mention of canon law - you link it later in article
- Early Life
- Again three unrelated facts in one sentence. Information missing - when he became a monk, when he became chaplain (possibly not stated in sources?)
- The first notice of him in history can presumably be dated
- Can you explain or link Christ Church?
- Prior of St Martin's priory" - would "Prior of St Martin's" be sufficient?
- "Right before" Becket's death sounds clumsy. Immediately before would be better.
- Same sentence: repeat of Becket's name should be avoided. In fact, the whole sentence needs reworking
- There is a further awkward repetition of Becket in the final sentence.
- Archbishop
- It is not necessary to spell out in full, or link, King Henry II of England in the first sentence. "King Henry" would do.
- Is there a possible link for Odo? There are dozens of Odos on the dab page - is one of them him?
- It is not immediately clear to the reader who the charges of simony etc were laid against.
- "After hearing the charges, they were dismissed" is unclear, and ungrammatical if you mean that the charges were dismissed. Perhaps: "After the hearing the charges were dismissed".
- What is the election suddenly mentioned? He was chosen by the king - did some election process follow?
- Unnecessary repetition of the year 1174
- Comma missing after "Canterbury" (there are commas missing in other places, too)
- Phrases like "in the end" sound vague and informal. "Finally" sounds better,
- "dependent on the pope direct" is awkward. "..directly dependent on the pope"?
- "his great predecessor" sounds POV. A word like "renowned" might be safer
- The semi-colon before "but" should be a comma. Or, better still, divide the sentence.
- Spelling: "acquiesced"
- This section becomes a bit of a jumble of facts. I wonder if they could be arranged in a more orderly way?
- Final section
- commas required after 1184 and colic.
This has been a bit hurried but I hope gives you something to work on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- He's a bit of a muddle, all in all. I think I'm not quite mined out on information on him, and he's in a time frame I'm not as familiar with, so it's been harder to write about him. I'm not entirely sure he will make it to FA, honestly, he just feels skimpy. Anyway, thankee for the comments, They all help! (You should know by now that commas and punctuation are an issue for me, same for some spelling (grins). Content, not copyediting!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- He's a bit of a muddle, all in all. I think I'm not quite mined out on information on him, and he's in a time frame I'm not as familiar with, so it's been harder to write about him. I'm not entirely sure he will make it to FA, honestly, he just feels skimpy. Anyway, thankee for the comments, They all help! (You should know by now that commas and punctuation are an issue for me, same for some spelling (grins). Content, not copyediting!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 19:10 UTC)
[edit] Thirty Years' War
I've listed this article for peer review because we here a Spotlight usually do this. We want to get it to GA and any suggestions or contributions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I havn't read through the prose yet, but from what I can tell at first glance most of the article is insourced. Almost every statement in an article should be referenced. I know that sounds like a lot, but that's the first step in making a quality article. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi automated peer review as it 1) breaks transclusion of the request to WP:PR (so no one sees it), 2) is against the directions above, and 3) saves space. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 13:33 UTC)
[edit] Baldwin of Exeter
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and detailed article - seems to be fairly close to FA, although it needs some polish. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
- Article needs an image in the upper right corner
- Would it make sense to put these in chronological order: After becoming a Cistercian monk, he was named abbot of his monastery before being elected to the episcopate at Worcester. Before becoming a bishop, he wrote theological works and sermons, some of which survive. to something like After becoming a Cistercian monk, he wrote theological works and sermons, some of which survive, and was named abbot of his monastery. In 1180 he was elected to the episcopate at Worcester.
- I know it already says in the first lead paragraph he was Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the second paragraph would it make it clearer to add Canterbury? ..and the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop [of Canterbury]?
- Add in England for clarity here - His dispute with his clergy [in England] led some chroniclers to characterize him as worse for Christianity than Saladin. I thought when reading the lead it meant disputes in the Kingdom of Jerusalem?
- Awkward - ...and a woman whose name is unknown; his mother, however, later became a nun.
- Would It is possible he studied at Bologna in the 1150s with the future Pope Urban III.[2][3] or even He possibly studied at Bologna in the 1150s with the future Pope Urban III.[2][3] read better?
- His is unclear in He attracted the attention of Bartholomew Iscanus, Bishop of Exeter who made him archdeacon at Totnes about 1161,[5] after his father's death.[1] (assume Bladwin's father is meant)
- Watch out for short choppy sentences - can they be combined with others or expanded? For example He was well known as a canonist.[8] could be combined with the following sentence (perhaps)
- The section on his being Bishop of Worcester is only one paragraph - could it be expanded or combined with Early Life?
- How about Although Walter Map said that Baldwin was determined to continue writing even after his election to the bishopric, only one of his sermons can be dated to his time as bishop.[1]
- Provide context - perhaps The monks had put forth three candidates from within [the cathedral's] Christ Church Priory ... See WP:PCR
- I also think there needs to be more background on the Christ Church Priory - where was it, what did it do, what was its connection to Canterbury Cathedral, etc.
- Don't need both "After that" and "then" in After that, Baldwin then proposed ...
- Whose plan - Roger's or Baldwin's in His plan for financing the church involved soliciting contributions from donors...
- Why King Henry in the header but only Richard?
- Is "the infamous Case of Evesham.[24]" the whole deal with Prince John?
- Under RIchard could be split into two paragrapsh, same for first paragraph of On the Third Crusade.
- I would add the year of his death, as well as the place. Where was he buried? Does his tomb survive?
- My guess is as Archbishop of Canterbury under Richard I, Baldwin has probably been portrayed in novels and films - this should be mentioned if so.
- Needs a general copyedit - I read for comprehension, but saw places that needed commas, a missing space, and general polish
- Since Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a subscriber service, shouldn't the ref indicate this in some way?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 May 2008, 17:09 UTC)
[edit] Kristallnacht
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I, along with the other editors at the Spotlight, have drastically improved this article and hope to put it forward for GA status by Saturday have put it forward for GA status it has been promoted to GA status. We would like to know what we can improve so we can, well, improve it! Thanks...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Hoziron (talk · contribs):
- Devote some space to detailing the central events of Kristallnacht itself. Currently we only summarize them within the article header.
- The term "Reichspogromnacht" is nearly unknown in English. "Kristallnacht" is used. The given sources do not convince me that "Reichspogromnacht" is "the preferred term" even in German. Google estimates that, in German, it's about as common as "Kristallnacht".
- Kristallnacht caused responses and commemorations particularly among Jews and Jewish organizations.
- The caption for the synagogue restoration plaque takes up a lot of space.
Responses and reactions by Dendodge (talk · contribs)
Doing... the first one
Done I couldn't find anything on the preferred term either, I've removed it- Doing... the third, just need a couple of sources and some more info
Not done the last. While it is larger than it should be, it is necessary to indicate the emotional response of Jewish citizens. If you can find a better way of using the caption, I will certainly consider it...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 22:57 UTC)
[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This article has recently achieved good article status after years of failed attempts and I wish to capitalize on this momentum by making a drive toward featured article status. Editors have made excellent progress in the past few months, but I want to know where else we can improve. Please hold your standards high and don't be afraid to raise an issue with the most minute aspect of this article. Remember: we're striving for FA-status.
Thanks, VegitaU (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted FA status, so I looked at the sources as I would have at FAC.
- Current ref 6 McKinnon, Jim "The phone line from ..." needs a last access date.
-
Done
Current ref 9 "National Commission Upoon Terrorist Attacks in the ..." needs a publisher/author
-
- Done
- Current ref 19 "Profiles of 9/11" lacks a publisher
-
- Done
- Current ref 20 "Broadcasting and Cable" lacks a publisher
-
- Done
- You have a LOT of web site references that are lacking in last access dates. It's nice to give them even when they are just an online version of an also published report.
-
- Taken care of.
- Current ref 65 "Gunaratna, Ronan "Inside Al Qaeda"" is lacking a page number
-
- Done
- Current refs 68 and 69 "Al Qaedas' 1998 Fatwa" are lacking a last access date.
-
- Done
- Current ref 75 is just a title "9-11 Commission, Exectutive Summary". Needs publisher at the very least.
-
- Done
- Current ref 76 McDermott, Terry "Perfect Soldiers..." is lacking a page number
-
- Done
- Stick with either using p. as an abbreviation for page or not using any abbreviation. Examples of both in the article's footnotes.
- Current ref 98 "Making of the Death pilots" is this a book? Website? Needs more bibliographic information so it can be verified.
- Current ref 99 "Wright, Lawrence "The Looming Tower..." is lacking a page number
- I don't want to get rid of this reference, but I haven't been able to sufficiently satisfy or replace it. It'll be at least another week before I can get my hands on this book. If anyone has it on hand right now, I'd appreciate the input. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 100 "Al-Qaeda tape finally claims responsiblity for attacks..." is lacking a publisher
- Foreign language refs should specify that. (Example, current ref 106 La Audience Nacional dicta la prmera sentencia..." and current ref 108 "El Supremo rebaja de 27 a 12 anos...")
- What makes http://www.september11news.com/AboutUs.htm a reliable source?
- Current ref 138 "Hamilton Stuart, 11 September, the internet and the effects..." is lacking the web link that would be expected from the retrieved on date given.
- Current ref 146 "Mendez, Juan E. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay..." is lacking a publisher
-
- Done
- Current ref 148 "Lieber, Robert J. "Globalization, Culture and Indentities in Crisis..." is lacking a page number
- I did not check for dead links nor did I read the prose. 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 15:05 UTC)
[edit] Thomas of Bayeux
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would appreciate pointers on how to improve the writing and make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from: JamesMLane: I qualify as a non-medievalist, so here are my thoughts.
- The introductory section should be reworked. An introductory section should help the reader decide whether to read the full article. The current version has some detail that's unimportant for that purpose, such as that Thomas was educated at Liege, and would benefit from a summary of his historical role. I suggest something like this:
-
Thomas of Bayeux (died November 18, 1100) was Archbishop of York for thirty years. He was a leading though unsuccessful opponent of the primacy of Canterbury, the view that the Archbishop of Canterbury should take precedence over the Archbishop of York.
-
Thomas, a native of Bayeux, was a royal chaplain to Duke William of Normandy, later King William I of England. After the Norman Conquest, the king nominated Thomas to replace Aldred as Archbishop of York, and he held that post from 1070 until his death. Even before his consecration, he came into conflict with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, over Thomas's initial refusal to give an oath of obedience to Lanfranc. He continued to oppose the primacy of Canterbury, but church authorities and Kings William I and William II sided with Canterbury. Thomas did succeed in securing the role of York in Scotland.
- Then, of course, all the detail that's no longer in the introductory section would be incorporated into the body of the article.
- Can't we give any information about the year of his birth? Even if it's just "Historian A guesses this and Historian B guesses that", it would be better than nothing.
- Thomas's "profession of obedience was made verbally to Lanfranc personally and not in writing...." The use of "verbally" to mean "spoken and not in writing" is distressingly common but I still consider it substandard. "Verbally" means "by words", and his profession was verbal whether spoken or written. It was nonverbal if made without words, e.g. by kneeling before Lanfranc at a public assembly. If what's meant here is that he spoke it, then "verbally" should be changed to "orally".
- The resolution of the boundary dispute could be clarified. The article says that the sees at issue were Worcester, Dorchester, and Litchfield, and that the outcome was to set the boundary at the Humber River. I'd like to know what that meant without clicking links to see which of those sees were on each side of the river.
- Succession after William I's death: Our articles are inconsistent about William's sons. In Robert Curthose I read this: "In 1087, the Conqueror died of wounds suffered during a riding accident during a siege of Rouen. At his death, he reportedly wanted to disinherit his eldest son, but was persuaded to divide the Norman dominions between his two eldest sons. To Robert, he granted the Duchy of Normandy and to William Rufus he granted the Kingdom of England." That says that William Rufus was the second-oldest. The article about Thomas, however, says that William was the third son.
- The current introduction says that Thomas helped William II put down the rebellion, but the only elaboration is that he accompanied William II on his campaigns. Was that considered significant help, e.g., the troops were much heartened or recruiting was easier because the Archbishop was along? If not, and if the only significance was that he was opposing his former mentor, then maybe just "sided with" would be better.
- Re this passage: "While Anselm was in exile after quarreling with the king in 1097, Thomas consecrated Herbert de Losinga as bishop of Norwich, Ralph de Luffa to the see of Chichester, and Hervey le Breton as bishop of Bangor." Are the consecrations by Thomas significant because these would normally be prerogatives of Canterbury? If so, perhaps that should be spelled out.
- Re: "In 1100 after the sudden death of King William II and the seizure of power by his younger brother Henry...." The phrase "seizure of power" is a little jarring, partly because unexplained and partly because it smacks of POV. This is tangential to the Thomas bio, so a lot of detail wouldn't be appropriate, but maybe something along these lines: "In 1100, when King William II died, his older brother Robert had not yet returned from the First Crusade. His younger brother, Henry, took the opportunity to ascend to the throne, with the support of the nobles. Henry was crowned as King Henry I three days after William's death. Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I...." then pick up the current text.
- In the last paragraph, is "patronized" an acceptable BE spelling?
Overall, I think the article is in very good shape. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 16:38 UTC)
[edit] William de Corbeil
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Peripitus
A good, well referenced article that, from my very sketchy knowledge of the period, appears broad in its coverage. There is some information that I expect is available missing, the article needs copyediting by a new set of eyes, and there are some parts that are unclear:
- Some concepts are not expressed as well as needed by a general audience.
- "he served the bishops of Durham and London" - does this mean he served as bishop in Durham and London or that he (in modern parlance) worked for them ?
- "He was elected as a compromise to the see of Canterbury" - I think that the word "candidate" may be missing here. Either that or it should be "His election to the see of Canterbury was a compromise"
- "Thurstan had already arrived and had presented his side" - either "his argument" or "his case"... his side gives a weird visual.
- "It was at the same time that the Pope decided against Canterbury in the primacy dispute with York, when the forged documents that the Canterbury monks presented as evidence were dismissed as forgeries" - very unclear. Perhaps far better as say "At the visit's conclusion the Pope denied the primacy of Canterbury over York; dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries" or is this not what is meant ?
- "and it was this persuasion that lead to Stephen's crowning" - are you sure ? I have not read the sources but I would have thought the Baron's, the other contenders for the crown etc... had a major influence.
The word "Canon", while currently linked to its explanatory article, should be explained within the article in some way Some information that I think is needed
- In his early life the article skips from him being educated to him educating. If the sources say it would be good to give an idea of the timing from one to the other. Does the source hint at how long he taught for ?
- He joined the service of Ranulf Flambard - something on what this service represented is needed
- for the free election, allowed by Henry I, who were the leading men ?
- "Cardinal John of Crema, who was now in England" - a year is better than now. Even better would be the year that the Cardinal arrived in England
There is copyediting needed to remove redundancy and correct tone problems in some places. Just a couple of examples below:
- King Henry I's son-in-law
managed to persuadepersuaded - the papal legate of the new Pope Honorius II -> Pope Honorius II's papal legate. I do suggest that this section be rewritten so that it flows in time. Honorius appointed (1124)...legate sent (1126)...opposition to de Corbeil starts (112?).
- William did not long outlive Henry,
as he dieddying at Canterbury
- Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 22:46 UTC)
[edit] Operation Brevity
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).
Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)
Awesome job so far, very to GA. Some comments:
- On the image in the plans section, see if you can make the caption a complete sentence instead of an image.
- ""Without using the Tiger cubs you have taken the offensive, advanced 30 miles, captured Halfaya and Sollum, taken 500 German prisoners and inflicted heavy losses in men and tanks. For this twenty I tanks and 1000 or 1500 casualties do not seem to heavy a cost."" - Add a reference.
- "Sources" should be "References" and "Footnotes" should be "Notes" See Stanley Cup for an example.
- The "See also" section should come before the References section (after its been renamed from above)
- The External links should come after the "Footnotes" section (last).
- Can you add more categories. As of now there are only two.
- That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cheers for the input, ive done a few of the things you have suggested and will work on the other few soon. One question though, am unsure what you are on about in your last point. Could you elaborate?
- Cheers for the input, ive done a few of the things you have suggested and will work on the other few soon. One question though, am unsure what you are on about in your last point. Could you elaborate?
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 10:31 UTC)
[edit] Nimrod Expedition
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British expeditions during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. The other three, Discovery Expedition, Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, are already FA, and Discovery Expedition was the main page article on 1 May 2008. I hope in due course to take this article to FAC, and would welcome any suggestions as to its improvement.
Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nimrod Expedition/archive1.
(Peer review added on Friday 9 May 2008, 20:51 UTC)
[edit] Pied-Noir
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I threw it over to FAC and withdrew after 4-5 days. One of the main concerns was the article's length (previously about 3,500 words) and focus (too much detail). These were serious concerns, thus I withdrew and started cutting down the length. My collaborators and I have managed to cut down to about 2,100 words. I was hoping the review could provide some insight on: areas which could be cut further, address any lingering NPOV issues, and add some stylistic input. General notes are welcome as well!
As always, thank you dearly for your time.
Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pied-Noir/archive2.
(Peer review added on Friday 2 May 2008, 15:20 UTC)
[edit] Treaty of Axim (1642)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I have listed this article for peer review because this article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Axim and the Netherlands, dating from 1642. In it a diplomatic, political, and economic relations are defined, some of which would last for 230 years.
The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind.
Thanks, Michel Doortmont (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pretty much the same comments as made here: perhaps alter the content so that the treaty itself occurs in the article after the events leading to it and before the later developments, add more relevant links (Axim isn't even linked to yet), and expand the information in the lead section to more accurately reflect the content of the article. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs some work to get up to GA status. Here are some suggestions to help:
- A model article is often useful for ideas and as something to follow for style, structure, etc. I note that Treaty of Devol is a FA and may be useful as a model.
- The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and should summarize the whole article.
- Please also try to provide constext for the reader - see WP:PCR For example, Axim is not wikilinked in the lead at all and Netherlands is not linked until the second sentence - both should be linked in the first sentence, as should Gold Coast (region).
- Also useful to let people know this is in Africa in the first or second sentence in the lead (for those not familiar with Axim or who think the Gold Coast is part of Queeensland, Australia or Florida or Chicagoin the US).
- Be consistent - the infobox spells it "Axem" but the article spells it "Axim". If Axem is a common alternate spelling, say that in the article.
- Also did the Dutch leave / treaty end in 1872 (infobox and lead) or 1842 (Background)? Is it "Fort St. Anthony" (caption) or "fort St. Anthony" (lead and Background)?
- WP:MOS#Images asks that the image be places in the top right corner of the article.
- Article could use a copyedit - some awkward sentences like The treaty regulated the jurisdiction of the Netherlands and the Dutch West India Company in the town and polity of Axim after the Dutch West India Company had successfully attacked the Portuguese who were the occupants of fort St. Anthony in the town. or phrases like ... fortified with the fort St. Antonio (St. Anthony) since the early sixteenth century.[1][2]
- The bold in Content is discouraged by WP:MOS and the treaty summary is unreferenced.
- I note from your user name that you appear to be the author / editor of two of the three sources listed - you might want to read up on WP:COI and WP:NPOV
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- As John Carter notes above, one thing I look for when I read this article is what effect this treaty had on the local inhabitants, both immediately & in the later 230 years. But a more important point that needs to be addressed in this article before you can consider this for FAC (& also applies to the Treaty of Butre below) is this: what were the motivations & objectives of all parties involved? This far more important than it might appear at first glance. Taking an example from the part of Africa I know best (Ethiopia), when European explorers & adventurers arrived & made attempts to convince the local rulers to sign treaties, the local rulers were either very passive or indifferent to these documents. It was only when Tewodros came to power that they encountered a potentate who took a clear interest in the matter, who not only treated the negotiations as an important matter with serious consequences, but actually read the documents. (I say this not to make them look foolish, but to point out that these documents are also artifacts of the encounter of two civilizations who doubtlessly had little previous experience with each other.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 29 April 2008, 11:01 UTC)
[edit] William Wilberforce
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and there are active and capable editors who wish to take the article to FA.
Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/William Wilberforce/archive1.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 April 2008, 22:02 UTC)
[edit] Geography and places
[edit] Washington, D.C.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the page is almost ready to be renominated for Good Article status. I would like any help tidying up references, adding some where they may be needed, and general comments on the overall structure of the article.
Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 19:19 UTC)
[edit] Rush Street (Chicago)
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC. The main reason for the fail was the use of the new {{multiple image}} template to incorporate about 30 images into the article. The images are arranged so as to take up less than 400px width and since most view at either 1280 or 1024 wide and many view with even wider resolutions when the article is viewed on almost any full screen there will be no squeezing. I used an additional template to box the images to make them seem more organized and less cluttered. I am looking for ways to improve the article other than by removing images because I don't think that would improve the article.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 26 May 2008, 22:23 UTC)
[edit] Restoration of the Everglades
This is the fourth and last article written as a satellite for the main Everglades article. I've written all four pretty quickly, so I'm looking for assistance in pointing out areas that are unclear or poorly written. Though the articles should be independent, they overlap in some content areas, so I'm not sure what should be expanded in this article that is mentioned in more detail in another. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Cryptic C62: I'll read through the article and just list things as they appear. Suggested editions are in bold.
- The first sentence should be about what the project is trying to accomplish, not some factoid about its cost.
- "The degradation of the natural quality of the Everglades became an issue in the United States in the early 1970s after a jetport was proposed to be constructed in the Big Cypress Swamp that studies indicated would have destroyed the ecosystem in South Florida and Everglades National Park." Definitely needs to be broken up somehow.
- "The first project which conservation groups focused on was the C-38 canal that straightened the Kissimmee River, causing catastrophic damage to animal habitats."
- The entire C-38 canal paragraph is unclear. Was the canal built by the conservation groups, or by some other unnamed group? Were the sporting groups demanding the river be restored, or that the quality of the canal be restored? How are the pesticides and fertilizers related to the canal?
- "...the quality of water became a focus." The focus of several organizations? A focal point for discussion? A major issue? Anything but a focus.
- "and set timed goals for pollutant levels to decrease in the water." Timed goals meaning ... with a stopwatch? There has to be a better way to word this.
- "Although initially it was criticized strongly by conservation groups for not being strong enough on polluters, this bill, which eventually became the Everglades Forever Act, was passed in 1994."
- "Since then, agencies have surpassed expectations for water treatment." First off, the paragraph still hasn't mentioned which agencies we're dealing with. Second, "surpassed expectations" could mean they are reducing pollution levels, or that they are polluting more than ever before.
- "South Florida was unable to maintain or sustain its own growth or existence". It can't sustain its own existence? So it's a black hole...?
- English teachers will kill you if you use impact as a verb. As a verb, its primary definition is To pack firmly together, or to strike forcefully.
That's the lead for you. I'll evaluate the entire article in time. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I think. And the governor's report pretty much made the point the Miami is a black hole... Here's hoping it will get better. English teachers aren't the boss of me! (Clearly....) Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Two hurricanes in the 1920s" Which ones?
- "...resulting in the restriction of the source of water from the Everglades." ...What?
- "The remaining 25 percent of the Everglades are protected in Everglades National Park" Does this mean that 75% isn't protected, or that 75% has been destroyed and only 25% is left?
- "...causing the intrusion of exotic plant species." I don't know anything about botany, but intrusion doesn't sound like the right word to me. It very well may be, but it sounds odd.
- "Change in landcover between 1900 to 1992" Did the original image come with some sort of analysis? At first glance, it's just a mess of colors, and a vague caption doesn't help the viewer make sense of it.
- "In the 1960s scrutiny was bearing on the C&SF." Scrutiny from whom?
- "...who coined the iconic descriptor "River of Grass" for the Everglades" Such a pointless factoid should either be removed or cited. Or both.
- "Governor Bob Graham announced the formation of the "Save Our Everglades" campaign in 1983, and in 1985 Graham lifted the first shovel of backfill for a portion of the C-38 canal." Any idea why the campaign took 2 years to lift one shovel?
- "the Everglades would resemble as much as possible" Yuck.
- "The project was estimated to cost $578 million...the cost is to be divided" Inconsistent tense. While the project may not have been completed yet, these mixed tenses are confusing.
--
- "The bloom was discovered to be the cause of fertilizers backpumped from the Everglades Agricultural Area". The bloom was the cause of the backpumping? Or the other way around?
- "Although laws had decreed in 1979" Decree is a bit archaic, no?
- "A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, U.S. government, and agricultural interests" Is the State of Florida part of the US Gov't? Or is it a three-way battle between Florida, the Federal Gov't, and the agricultural interests?
- "Another water quality issue discovered to be potentially damaging to people was mercury in fish in the 1980s." Super unclear. Was mercury discovered in fish in the 1980s? Or was mercury in the fish all along, but it wasn't known to be dangerous until the 1980s?
- "The panther's diet consisted of small animals of raccoons and alligators." Was this the diet of that particular panther? Or of all Florida panthers? Either way, it is an awkward and somewhat irrelevant transition to the bioaccumulation section.
- "approximately a 60 percent decrease in fish and a 70 percent decrease in bird feathers, though some levels still remain a health concern for people" First, those two statistics go very oddly together. Why does one describe the entire fish while the other focuses on a specific part of the birds? It feels as though something is being left out. Second, which levels are still a health concern? That's such an ambiguous statement.
- "but Douglas was so unimpressed with the action it took against polluters that she wrote to Chiles and demanded her named be stricken from it" It seems odd that this statement comes right before the paragraph describing the merits of the bill. It would be more logical to group Douglas's statement with the criticism paragraph.
- "Critics of the bill attested the deadline for meeting the standards was unnecessarily delayed until 2006" The critics bore witness to the deadline being moved?
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 14:26 UTC)
[edit] Walpole, Massachusetts
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA, but am wondering where to improve it.
Thanks, RedThunder 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- What makes http://www.walpole.ma.us/hshgreaves.htm a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.idcide.com/weather/ma/walpole.htm a reliable source?
- There are a LOT of statements that aren't referenced to a source. They probably need citations.
- I did notice something looking at the sources of this article, that every single one was available online. It is perfectly acceptable to use printed sources, and often times it's better to use them, as they will be more reliable than online sources.
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 24 May 2008, 19:16 UTC)
[edit] Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
I'd like to get this article up to FA status. Any information that should be included for this article, and any areas that need improvement?
Thanks, Monobi (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- http://ftp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/franklin/history/local/wbeers006.txt this source, you should probably list it like a book, and give a courtesy link to the online hosting of it.
- Using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica isn't exactly the most current source possible, consider replacing it with a more recent source.
- What makes http://www.stubblebinefamily.com/content/pa_counties.html a reliable source?
- Likewise http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pakhs/? US Gen Web is not a history site, it's designed to help genealogists research their family trees, and the quality of the various subdivisions varies greatly.
- Who is behind http://www.explorepahistory.com/index.php?
- Current ref 11, The PEnnsylvania Road, what makes the publisher anything but a personal page? http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gentutor/Pa_Rd.pdf What makes it a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.familytales.org/results.php?city=chambersburg a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.civilwarhome.com/gettyscampaign.htm a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.epodunk.com/ a reliable source?
- A number of your website references are lacking publishers or last access dates. One, current ref 50, is just a bald url link
- What makes http://allprivateschools.org/private-schools-chambersburg-pa.html a reliable source?
- There are a LOT of statements that aren't referenced to a source. They probably need citations.
- I did notice something looking at the sources of this article, that every single one was available online. It is perfectly acceptable to use printed sources, and often times it's better to use them, as they will be more reliable than online sources.
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 24 May 2008, 17:22 UTC)
[edit] Worlds End State Park
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article. We are looking for some feedback on this article before it is submitted for FA. It has been thoroughly researched and we believe that with some changes suggested in the PR process that it will be shortly ready for FA. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park which is a featured article that we worked on.
Thanks, Dincher (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) and Ruhrfisch
Comments Although this is not really my area of expertise, I'm happy to look over the article and review it.
-
- "its rocks contain fossils older than the dinosaurs." - This may be true, but it is perhaps a little simplistic. Might be better to give the name of the epoch, even if the dinosaurs bit is kept in, i.e. "its rocks contain fossils from the Carboniferous period, substantially older than the dinosaurs."
-
- I tweaked the lead and made it a hopefully better summary of the whole article in the process. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The lead is better, but looking at that specific bit again I have another comment. "which are substantially older than the dinosaurs." really is unnecessary and although I am ambivalent about it you might well be asked to remove it come FAC. Think about it, I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Decimated by" - Always be wary of using the term decimated, I once failed an FAC because of an argument I had with a user who insisted that decimate meant "the death of one in ten of the population". The ensuing row caused the early closure of the FAC and quite a bit of bad feeling. If you want to use it, have a good dictionary to hand.
-
- Changed to Their numbers were greatly reduced by disease and warfare with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, and by 1675 they had died out, moved away, or been assimilated into other tribes. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- "In 1951 the Loyalsock Trail, which passes through the park, was laid out by Explorer Scouts. The trail has been maintained and extended by the Alpine Club of Williamsport since 1953." - I'm using this as an example of something that happens several times in the text, which is where a short sentence comes after a longer one and appears at first glance unnconnected with it, breaking the flow of the prose. The solution to this is to slightly change the beginning of the second sentence to more closely correspond with the end of the previous one. In this instance, this is as simple as: "by Explorer Scouts. This trail has been" in others it ma be slightly more complex. This is a minor thing but it is an issue which can cause trouble at FAC, where the prose quality is required to be very high indeed.
- Some paragraphs are only two or three sentences long, which makes them seem a little stubby. This may not be a problem at FAC, but is a pet peeve of mine. If feasible have a look and see if any can be extended or merged to make them more substantial.
- Any chance of more images? Especially of trees, wildlife or rock formations found in the park?
Otherwise a throughly fascinating read, makes me want to visit, no matter how unlikely it is I will ever set foot in Pennsylvania. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your kind words and helpful comments, we will work on the other two points too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 23 May 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 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
-
- In the intro: "The land the park is on was once home to Native Americans, followed by settlers and sawmills."
-
- Suggest "...followed by settlers who built sawmills" or something similar (I doubt sawmills can pick up and follow settlers).
- In the cabins section: "There are 19 rustic cabins, each with a refrigerator, range, fireplace, table with chairs, and beds."
-
- Suggest changing range to stove (for me, at least, stove is more common than range).
Very well written, shouldn't be too hard to get it promoted. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- the Taber Thomas T. Williamsport Lumber Capital has no ISBN, is this a self published book? If so, does it meet the self-publishing guidelines?
- What makes http://www.lycoming.org/alpine/Lthistory.htm a reliable source?
- It is the official website of the organization that maintains the Loyalsock Trail and is used only to reference two non-controversial dates in the trail's history. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from VerruckteDan (talk · contribs)
- In the trails section 4 of the 7 trail descriptions start off with "___ Trail is a xx-mile (km) trail...", while the others use slightly different language. I think all 7 should use similar language and I prefer the format above.
- Perhaps the references should be listed in a 2-column format, I think that will make it easier to read.
- Otherwise, it looks like another great article. You two definitely produce some of the best researched articles on Wikipedia, and I always enjoy reading them. I look forward to the FAC for Worlds End. VerruckteDan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for pointing out the trail bit. I fixed it. I tried fixing the references as you suggested by adding the reflist|2 template. But I cannot see any change on my computer. I remember seeing this added to Presque Isle State Park and puzzling over it. I puzzed till my puzzler was sore. Thanks for the kind words too! Dincher (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think {{Reflist}} doesn't display 2 multiple columns in IE, only in Forefox. If that's not the issue preventing you from seeing it, then I'm also stumped. I like the way it looks in Presque Isle as 2 columns, however on Worlds End, the inclusion of the Commons box in the references section keeps the reference text bunched to the left instead of wrapping around the box. I don't know what the guidelines are not locating the Commons box, but the reference section doesn't seem like the right place. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the trail bit. I fixed it. I tried fixing the references as you suggested by adding the reflist|2 template. But I cannot see any change on my computer. I remember seeing this added to Presque Isle State Park and puzzling over it. I puzzed till my puzzler was sore. Thanks for the kind words too! Dincher (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I am going to take it off for now. I have IE and have never even seen Firefox and haven't seen Netscape in years. Ruhr asked me about what kind of system I have and all I knew was that I had the blue e. So I am pretty much a dope when it comes to this question. Perhaps he knows more. Dincher (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Dan, as always. The {{Commonscat}} was in the wrong place per the MOS so I moved it to External links (and fixed Black Moshannon State Park too). I also added "|2" back to reflist, but Dinch is right - it does not display as two columns in IE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Dan, as always. The {{Commonscat}} was in the wrong place per the MOS so I moved it to External links (and fixed Black Moshannon State Park too). I also added "|2" back to reflist, but Dinch is right - it does not display as two columns in IE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 20:00 UTC)
[edit] Mecca
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I know that this article has problems, but intend to generate ideas through community participation on how to best improve this article.
Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Majoreditor's comments. Too many of the sections are stubby. They need to be better developed, particularly sections such as "Government". The article also needs copyediting. Majoreditor (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 02:34 UTC)
[edit] Partition of Belgium
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because the time went by since the first review. I think I need some more feedback of the community. Could you please check for NPOV.
Thanks, Vb (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
- The major problem I see is that the article needs many more references (which was mentioned in the previous peer review). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example the last half of "Regional demographics" and the first two paragraphs of "Political borders" have zero refs. Without more refs this would not pass GA, let along FA. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- Article should have an image in the top right corner - the first image Image:Flanders and Wallonia.png might be a good one, although the orange for Brussels is hard to distinguish from the red.
- Image:Language border (Belgium and France)-en.svg is basically illegible in the article.
- Article still needs a copyedit: some examples Before the beginning of the 20th century, this language border was not exactly corresponding to a borderline between users of Belgian French, standard Dutch and High German as it is today but between a Romance and a Germanic dialect continua. OR In Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany and, Luxembourg, the local dialects better survived at least in the private sphere.
- It is better to attribute opinions to whoever made them, so attribute Some have suggested it become a "European [capital] district", similar to Washington D.C. or the Australian Capital Territory, run by the EU rather than Flanders or Wallonia.[16][17] - who said this? The newspaper? A columnist?
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
- Ref 1 reads like pure original research - cite this somehow. WP:NOR
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government that may be useful as models.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 14:58 UTC)
[edit] Cardiff
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently B-class and, given the importance of the city within Wales and the UK in general, we (the regular editors of this page) would like to get it up to Featured Article status (or GA-class at the very least) and so we would like a few pointers on how to do so.
Thanks, Bettia (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cardiff/archive1.
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 10:16 UTC)
[edit] Draining and development of the Everglades
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This is the third satellite article for Everglades, and it addresses human intervention in the Everglades from the 1830s to 1960s. I intend to bring this to FA, and I would appreciate any feedback on content, style, and problems with MoS. I appreciate anything you can do. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Draining and development of the Everglades/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 15:37 UTC)
[edit] Eastwood, Nottinghamshire
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten it. It's about a small town in Nottinghamshire. I would like it to be GA after some tweaking.
Thanks, Chzz ► 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1.
(Peer review added on Sunday 11 May 2008, 06:30 UTC)
[edit] Plymouth
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review, because it's undergone a lot of expansion since Novemberish time and no one has assessed it.
Thanks, The Vandal Warrior (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs)
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark.
- Done Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. - Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- Done Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Add some more citations to the "Transport" section.
- Look at all the Citation need tags in the article. Add references and remove the tags.
- Looks like something is wrong with Ref #19.
- Not done, I don't see what you mean. It looks fine to me. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 10 May 2008, 11:57 UTC)
[edit] Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
A while back I asked for a peer review and got several good suggestions, then yesterday the article got nominated to Good Article status and I want to take it further so I'm requesting another review of the article now. Please note that I don't want the "Newfoundland and Labrador" portion of the title to be removed, I think it's important to include the state/province name. Thanks, NeonFire (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, since you want to take it further, I will look at it from FAC criteria. What is here is good, but it needs more material and more work to become FA. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
- Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - my concern for the article is that it seems a bit short. While length is not a criterion, comprehensiveness is.
- If the article is expanded much more, the lead will also have to expanded to three paragraphs - see WP:LEAD
- A model article is useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. Navenby is a recent FA on a small community in the UK. It has several headers not present in this article - for example Climate.
- References should be in numerical order, so for example ... the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[5][3] should be ...the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[3][5]
- I was surprised when reading the History section that there was not a specific founding date or the names of some of the earliest settlers. The infobox says it was not incorporated until 1965, but the history section does not menton this (nor does politics). There is also nothing of the etymology of the name or the French version of it.
- Middle two paragraphs in Geography are unreferenced, for example. This would be a big problem at FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- A map of the region would be useful for Geography
- There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article and should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
- How are Christians different from Protestants and Catholics (also both Christians last I checked) in Demographics? See WP:PCR
- Great photo of drying squid, but there is no mention of squid in the article.
- Many of the notable people seem to be potential sources to expand the article - look at their stories and expand the history accordingly
- Article needs a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but saw several typos ("it's" for "its" was one) - can ask at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV
- References need to be more detailed in terms of information given - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates are useful.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 09:56 UTC)
[edit] London
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on the references and am aiming to get it to Featured Article status. Therefore, I would like to know what improvements I need to make to the article before I take it to FAC. All comments will be appreciated, no matter how long or how short. I hope you enjoy Peer Reviewing London!
Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4.
(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 April 2008, 20:51 UTC)
[edit] Engineering and technology
[edit] Structural engineering
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a huge amount of work on it, and think it is now pretty comprehensive, and it would be good to get the opinion on others on what further work might be needed.
Thanks, Tkn20 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 17:06 UTC)
[edit] Windows XP
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now is probably not the best time for a peer review as a lot of temporary changes are being made on an almost daily basis due to the recent release of Service Pack 3 and the aticle is somewhat unstable. It should settle down in a few weeks. Right now, improvements are likely to be a wasted effort because they could be changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:22 UTC)
[edit] Microsoft Windows
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Deal with the top tag - citations needed.
- ONE (1)! paragraph (and a short one) for the lead? Check out WP:LEAD. I'd expect at least three, maybe four large paras here.
- Image captions which are fragments shouldn't have periods.
- Fair use rationale needed for ALL fair use images.
- Deal with the [citation needed]'s. There are many.
- "Long File Names"? This is English, not German, so remove those caps!
- "Hybrid 16/32-bit operating systems" section unreferenced completely.
- "64-bit operating systems" also.
- Remove spaces between citations, per WP:CITE.
- Avoid in-line citations as there are in the History section.
- Timeline of releases section is unreferenced.
Basically, cutting a short story shorter, this needs work on prose, citation, WP:MOS and is well short of WP:GA. Work out the basics and then come back to PR (one article at a time) and you never know, GA may be a breeze. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:21 UTC)
[edit] Adobe Systems
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Four short paras in the lead need work - check out WP:LEAD.
- Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images and captions, if fragments, shouldn't have periods.
- "In a classic failure to predict..." - POV.
- "but a poorly produced version for Windows." - POV.
- Company events section should be prose, not list.
- And headings should meet WP:HEAD.
- And four citations for the "events" is wholly inadequate.
- Corporate leadership needs work, seems mostly trivial.
- Products should be prose and adequately summarise all apps made by Adobe, not just a tiny list.
- Financial info section is dull. It needs to be made into prose (in my opinion) and needs discussion rather than just bare tables of raw figures.
- 20 citations in total? And many from Adobe themselves? Not good enough.
That'll do, right now this'll struggle for GA. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:21 UTC)
[edit] Microsoft Office
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked.
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark.
- The {{prose}} tag, well, make the article satisy the manual of style and remove the tag.
- Filled with {{fact}} templates. Add references and remove them.
- I would recommend using (although not required) {{citeweb}}, {{citenews}} etc. for the references.
- The {{expand}} tags - expand the sections.
- That's all for now... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:21 UTC)
[edit] Malware
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and Question. Hello, Kozuch. I see you have nominated about five articles for peer review. I'll only comment here. This article is rated Start class while peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". How about contributing to the article first, rather than asking for precious and sometimes rare peer review resources? Two things come to mind that are easy to begin. A To Do list for the article, and inline citations for every part that is lacking them. Would you be interested in working on the article? Also I suggest that maybe peer review could be withdrawn until the article is ready. —SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:21 UTC)
[edit] Adobe Flash
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Check the use of hyphens per WP:DASH.
- Ensure all citations, where appropriate, use {{cite web}} and contain as much information as possible.
- For an article this size, I would expect considerably more than 28 citations (e.g. second para of History is citation-less)
- Resolve the merge tag.
- Write the Player section as prose, not bullet points.
- Same with authoring tool.
- And both sections need references for their various claims.
- "which wants to drive rich Internet experiences and create a consistent application interface across" reads like an advert to me.
- " Some developers reported the actual licences missing from the project documentation, but Adobe stated to address the issue." - actual is redundant, and should it be "started"?
- Programming language section is reference-less and needs to be worked on for prose - it's currently like bullet points without the bullets.
- "Since The Arrival of the..." - whoa, over caps...
- Deal with the citation needed template.
- Avoid in-line linking.
This is quite some way from GA right now, I'd suggest a thorough set of references are added and that the entire article be copyedited. Try the league of copyeditors... All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:21 UTC)
[edit] Linux
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review and preparation for future featured article status.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Lead should be expanded to have three decent sized paragraphs.
- Citations should be placed per WP:CITE.
- Explain GNU before using it.
- Don't squeeze text between images, per WP:MOS#Images.
- Image captions shouldn't have periods if the captions are fragments.
- Many sections have no citations whatsoever.
- Embedded devices section et seq need references.
- However... seven citations for one claim?! (44 thru 50)
- {{see also}} templates are typically used at the top of sections.
- Are 15 or so "See also" links really necessary?
- Try to use {{cite web}} for the citations.
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:10 UTC)
[edit] Linux kernel
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Firstly, can I request you don't list too many articles at once for PR? You'll get plenty of comments on which you can act, so listing three or four at once is too much really. Anyway, specifics...
- The lead is too short, per WP:LEAD.
- Section headings should follow WP:HEAD.
- References, where applicable, should use the {{Cite web}} template rather than just raw URLs.
- Explain relevance/significance of "comp.os.minix" for non-experts.
- Avoid lists, use prose.
- Very few claims are cited. This article could do with serious citations.
- " Ultimately, it is likely that such questions can only be resolved by a court." reads like pure original research.
- Trademark section entirely unreferenced.
- Place citations per WP:CITE.
- Kernel Panic or Kernel panic? Be consistent.
- Version numbering section is virtually unreferenced and has an in-line citation which should be avoided.
- "maybe others" ?! Citation or original research again.
- Sort out the "cleanup" tagging.
- After 2.6.16, cite the maintainers.
- You have a redlinking "See also". Write the stub, at least.
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:10 UTC)
[edit] Video game
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of all the images to choose from, why was that particular image chosen for the top right corner? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Yeah, why the choice of image?
- Image captions, if fragments, do not have periods.
- Split ref section into Specific and General sections.
- In general, the article suffers from lack of reference.
- "The term "system" is also commonly used." - prove it.
- Second para of Platforms is citation-less.
- As is Genres and Types.
- Development also. Plus resolve the [citation needed] tags.
- "Duke Nukem Forever is the quintessential example of these problems." quite possibly the most original piece of research I've read lately.
- Cheats and Glitches sections need citation.
- "Simply put, ludologists reject traditional theories of art because they claim that the artistic and socially relevant qualities of a video game are primarily determined by the underlying set of rules, demands, and expectations imposed on the player." - original research alarm bells ringing!
- In-line citations in the Demographics section need to go.
- Benefits section needs to be reworked - prose is bad, it reads like a list.
- 12 "See also"s? Really?
That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:09 UTC)
[edit] Laptop
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.
Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
- The two tags as soon as you see the article tell alot. It needs citations.
- This section needs a cleanup.
- This section needs an update.
- This section has no citation whatsoever.
- Expand the "Advantages" section. I'm sure there is more to it then that.
- That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 12:05 UTC)
[edit] Debian
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what needs to be done to improve it to FA status.
Thanks, ffm 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and fairly detailed article, but still needs a lot of work to get to FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- For each abbreviation, introduce it right after the first use of the longer word - so Debian (pronounced [ˈdɛbiən]) is a computer operating system (OS) composed entirely of software...
- The article needs more refs - for example the 3rd, 4th and 6th paragraphs in History or much of Project organization need refs. Every paragraph, every statistic, every direct quote, and every extraordinary claim needs a reference - see WP:CITE and WP:V This is probably the biggest obstacle to FA.
- There are several one sentence paragraphs - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Do not have direct external links in the article - make them inline refs instead. For example A list of many important positions in the Debian project is available at the Debian organization web page. A deeper analysis of Debian leadership can be found in this paper by Siobhan O'Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro.
- Article has too many bullet points and is too list-y - comvert to prose for FA. See WP:WIAFA - article needs to have prose approaching brilliant
- Images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to set their size. See WP:MOS#Images
- A model article is often very helpful / useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. OpenBSD and Windows 2000 are FAs and possible useful models.
- Refs need more information in some cases - for example internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}.. and the other cite templates should help.
- Try to make sure all refs meet WP:RS, especially for FAC. Many of the sources are from Debian itself - try to get more independent third party sources and add some critical reception too.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- References need some formatting work to make them consistent. Web sites need at the least, publisher and last access date. More information is better.
- Some of the references seem to be to mailing lists, etc. Others are to the denebian site itself. Consider finding third-party sources for some of these.
- When the references fixed up, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll try to look over the sources from a reliablility standpoint.
- You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 17:01 UTC)
[edit] PowerBook 100
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I have just completely re-written this from scratch. It is now fully referenced. I would like some feedback to make it even better (Aims: GA and then FA status) Thanks — Wackymacs (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/PowerBook 100/archive1.
(Peer review added on Sunday 11 May 2008, 11:15 UTC)
[edit] Solar energy
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I'd like to get some perspective on the merits and demerits of the Solar energy page. Is the page too long? Is the material balanced and interesting? Anything missing? I'd also like opinions on the quality of the pictures and their captions. This has been a long term problem so please be blunt. Which ones are good and which ones are bad? I'm currently working through minor revisions in the Distillation, Process heat, PV and HVAC sections. I'd like to bring this group up to the level of the Solar lighting, Architecture, Agriculture and Water heating sections which I think are well written.
Thanks, Mrshaba (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar energy/archive1.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 22:11 UTC)
[edit] Ubuntu (operating system)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how I can best improve it to FA status.
Thanks, ffm 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I will look at this from an FA standpoint - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, more needs to be done to approach FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas, style, structure, etc. I note that OpenBSD, Mozilla Firefox, and Windows 2000 are all FAs and may be useful models.
- I must also say that I am not a computer person, and that after having read this article, I still have only a vague notion of what Ubuntu does and how it is different from a Mac or Windows OS.
- The lead needs to be rewritten as a summary of the rest of the article - my rule of thumb is every header should be mentioned in some way. It should also not contain anything not repeated in the main article text - so the meanings of the word Ubuntu should go into the body, for example. See WP:LEAD
- As written the article has many short sections (one or two sentences only) and is also fairly list-y in places. Both of these make it choppy to read and interrupt the flow. Short paragraphs and sections should be combined with others, or possibly expanded.
- Avoid needless repetition - for example the ShipIt section already says Currently, only Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are offered for free via ShipIt. Other variants, including the popular Xubuntu are not available through this service.[91] (I would argue the second sentence here is not needed - the first sentence says it all). Then in the very next section (Variants) we find Of the official variants, Kubuntu[93] and Edubuntu[94] are also available free of charge via mail order through Ubuntu's ShipIt service, but Xubuntu is not available.[95] this is totally not needed.
- Avoid jargon and provide context for the reader. I do not know what Debian is or does, for example. Wikilinks are useful and nice, but a sentence or two explaining important concepts is even better.
- References need more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The cite templates such as {{cite web}} may be useful here. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Another worry for FAC is that the article seems to rely an awful lot on Ubuntu as a source - wherever possible use independent third-party sources that meet WP:RS.
- In the same vein, expand this It has been favorably reviewed in online and print publications.[108][109][110] and quote what the reviewers said.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing is particullary different from those other OSs mentioned, this one is just another OS. ffm 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ruhrfisch replies: as noted I am not a computer person.
- Since it is in the article title, I do nto think it would be horribly wrong to make the first sentence something like Ubuntu (IPA: [uːˈbuːntuː] in English,[3] [ùbúntú] in Zulu) is a Linux distribution (operating system) for desktops, laptops, and servers. I know what an operating system is. I had to click on the link to see what a Linux distribtuion is. This provides context for the reader - see WP:PCR - and follows WP:LEAD in making the lead as accessible as possible.
- As for sources being mostly from Ubuntu, please see Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It is always better to get an independent third-party take on something if it is available. Imagine writing an article on the Soviet Union using only Pravda. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 April 2008, 00:29 UTC)
[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics
[edit] Marcellus Formation
I've listed this article for peer review to help move it from GA to FA status. I'd appreciate any help of feedback.
Thanks, Dhaluza (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 12:20 UTC)
[edit] Puerto Rican Amazon
I have listed this article for peer review as a logical step in the march towards Featured Article status. The current content is product of a collaboration between several users from multiple WikiProjects (WP:PUR and WP:BIRDS in particular) our goal is to move towards FAC soon, but for that we will need help from the general community. Any issues noted here will be attended as presented, those dealing with prose, content or format are particulary welcomed. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 26 May 2008, 20:37 UTC)
[edit] Rings of Uranus
I've listed this article for peer review because it was expanded significantly and needs input from editors not familiar with text. Also, please, rate it. I think it now deserves B-class.
Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 26 May 2008, 07:55 UTC)
[edit] Tornado
I've listed this article for peer review because, since its promotion to FA (Old Edit, Diff), it has expanded by 30%, several sections were added, and the "definitions" section has been completely redone. I personally see no problems with the article (thus I have not listed it at Featured Article Review, but was hoping for a few fresh sets of eyes.
Thank you kindly, RunningOnBrains 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
In light of the reason for peer reviewing, I'm going to look at this as I would an article up at FAR. The first thing I noticed is that there are a lot of images. I mean, they are great (and I have a love of looking at tornado pictures), but in the case of this article, I think a gallery might something to consider for some of the many example pictures. As it is now, there are so many pictures the scientific ones feel lost and it seems more like a page of "oh, cool tornado pictures" than providing some key illustrations. The Types section includes several examples, however many have their own articles so perhaps those images could go in the gallery? Minor note: the first image in that section has a red link to CSDed article.
Looking at one of the core criteria for FA, referencing, the article is failing as there is quite a bit of unsourced material. Here is a specific list of the ones I've found:
- Definitions - under "Condensation funnel", the last sentence of the first paragraph
- Types
- "Multiple vortex tornado" , entire paragraph
- "Waterspout"'s paragraph and second bulleted item
- "Gustnado", last two sentences
- "Winter Waterspout", entire paragraph
- "Steam devil", entire paragraph
- "Cold air vortex", second sentence
- Characteristics
- "Shapes", first paragraph and last sentence of the second paragraph
- "Appearance", last sentence of paragraph three
- "Sound and seismology", entire first paragraph
- "Electromagnetic, lightning, and other effects", last sentence of the second paragraph, entire third paragraph
- Life Cycle
- "Supercell relationship", all but one sentence
- "Formation", entire paragraph
- "Maturity", entire paragraph
- "Demise", second paragraph
- Intensity and damage, entire first paragraph
- Climatology, last sentence of the first paragraph, most of fourth paragraph (also, seems a bit long to be a summary of a main article?)
- Prediction, first paragraph
- "United Kingdom", entire section
- "United States", entire section
- "Other areas", entire section
- Detection, first paragraph
- "Storm spotting", first and last paragraphs, last sentence of paragraph 3
- "Radar", first paragraph
- Safety, second paragraph
- Continuing research, vast majority of the section, with only two sentences in the first paragraph cited, and the short third paragraph sourced
As a note, I did not review the quality of the references that are used, only their existance. Some other quick things I noticed:
- There are several referenced statements in the lead, when generally such statements should be referenced and expanded on in the article while the lead summaries the article. For such a lengthy article, the lead seems to be very short and I believe it fails WP:LEAD.
- I spotted a few other MoS issues, like refs inside punctuation, or stepping "out of article" in "Myths and misconceptions" with the parenthetical see also. It is also nice when multiple refs are in numerical order.
- The See also needs cleaning out to remove those items wikified within the article
- ELs really need cutting down; there seems to be quite a few unnecessary links there
If this article were brought to FAR, I would sadly have to support delisting due to the referencing issues. As a whole, it seems to still be in decent shape, especially for such a popular topic, so I'm hopeful that these issues can be fixed fairly quickly. I'd also recommend having it re-copyedited, particularly the new additions, which would also catch some of those MoS issues mentioned above. I hope this helps some and feel free to reply here if there are any questions or anything needs clarifying. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 09:52 UTC)
[edit] Appaloosa
I've listed this article for peer review because Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine would like to take this article to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how best to do this. Probably needs some checking for jargon also.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Nicely illustrated article with a lot of information - here are my suggestions for improvement (mostly polish, a few more serious):
- Expand the lead to three paragraphs - could probably just split up the current lead and perhaps add a bit. See WP:LEAD
- Any way to avoid "breed" three times in this sentence: However, a small number of dedicated breeders kept the breed alive for several decades until a breed registry was formed in 1938. ?
- Needs a copyedit - "the the" in the lead, for example
- Per WP:HEAD do not repeat the title in the headers, and do not use "The" so "The Appaloosa and the Nez Perce people" could just be "Nez Perce people" perhaps
- Why "in general" in Horses in general had reached the Pacific Northwest by 1700. ?
- Images should be all set to thumb width to allow reader width preferences to take over. See WP:MOS#IMages
- Image:AppyPlate.jpg has a bad license - it is the work of a state government, not the US govt and is almost certainly not free.
- Also do not sandwich text between images please
- Avoid Today for stats likely to become outdated, use the year instead - Today, the Appaloosa breed is one of America's most popular breeds and there are over 670,000 Appaloosas registered by the ApHC.[23]
- Awkward - I know what is meant but there has to be a better way to say it: Appaloosas can have brown, blue or hazel eyes, and may have eyes of [two?] different colors.[26]
- Jargon - explain or wikilink if possible The physical conformation
- Please provide other units for furlongs - middle distance horse races up to 8 furlongs.[29] {{convert}} works well here.
- Try for concise captions - for example This photograph shows the difference between a Pinto horse and a Leopard Appaloosa. The Pinto is on the left, the Appaloosa on the right. could be A Pinto horse (left) has different markings than a Leopard Appaloosa (right).
- A few places need refs - the five recognized spotting patterns (assume it is [32] again, but should have a ref at the end of all that, at least. Also Appaloosas are also crossbred with a number of gaited horse breeds in an attempt to create a leopard-spotted ambling horse. Because the ensuing offspring are not eligible for ApHC registration, their owners are forming a number of new breed registries to promote gaited horses with spotted coats.
- There are a few very brief sections - do Nez Perce horse breeding today and Influence on other breeds really need their own sections or could they be combined with others - better flow of the article.
- Current Ref 67 needs a source - The PHBA does not allow Lasix within 24 hours of show. Only allows Acetazolamide for HYPP horses and seems incomplete as is.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 15:45 UTC)
[edit] Edward Wright (mathematician)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article up to Good Article status, and particularly welcome comments on its general readability. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from FrankTobia (talk · contribs)
This is my first peer review, so here goes...
- Lead section doesn't have any citations; some may prefer this, but it makes me wary
- Comment: I don't think citations in the lead section are necessary as they would simply repeat citations that occur in the main text. — JackLee, 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "probably September or October 1561" in his birth date should be cited or clarified later on
- Notes section looks cluttered; consider separating references from citations in the style of Charles Darwin
- In the same way, the "Works" section looks cluttered
- "It is possible that he followed in the footsteps of his elder brother Thomas" in the first section sounds like speculation or WP:OR
- Comment: It is a speculation, but one made by Wright's biographers and properly referenced. — JackLee, 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Response: Perhaps make it more explicit, something like: "Parsons and Morris conjecture he followed in his brother's footsteps by attending school in Hardingham"? -FrankTobia (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a speculation, but one made by Wright's biographers and properly referenced. — JackLee, 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- First sentence in "Navigation and cartography" section sounds like a run-on
- On the whole the text reads well, but I suggest getting a review from a better copyeditor than I
Hope that's at least a little helpful. Good luck. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article. My comments are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 01:05 UTC)
[edit] Mount Baker
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is near Featured Article quality and I would like to learn what it still needs in order to be passed.
Thanks, Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
- We have a floating picture issue, the panorama is floating over the references on my screen. I changed the size of my browser window, and it stayed stubbornly over the references.
Done ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.navsource.org/index.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first paragraph in the lead consists of three long sentences. It would be preferable if you would split those in half so that the reader gets a break between facts.
Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are elements in the lead that are not present in the main body. Likewise the article is not consisely summarized by the lead. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section and try to bring it in line.
- If the Spanish were not the first non-indigenous people to see Baker, who did? The text should also confirm whether the mountain was named after third lieutenant Joseph Baker.
- This confuses me. It is already stated that the local Native Americans were the first. Would you like me to find out what nation they were? Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the sentence: "The Spanish were the first to record Mount Baker's existence although they were not the first people other than indigenous natives to see the mountain." As a condition it has excluded indigenous natives and the Spanish. What is left? Did you mean to say, "The Spanish were the first to record Mount Baker's existence, although the indigenous natives were the first to see the mountain"?—RJH (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I'll fix it. ~Meldshal42 Hit meWhat I've Done 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Done ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please replace "--" with an — character.
That character is not in the article. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You could mention how the mountain height ranks among Washington state mountains and among Cascade range mountains.
Done Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you give some information on modern climbing activity? Also some information about the environmental status of the surrounding land would be beneficial.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- By this you are referring to the Snoqualmie National Forest, and the wilderness area, plus the ski area? ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 19:55 UTC)
[edit] Pamela C. Rasmussen
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's passed GA,and I'd like to get to FA. I'm no expert on biography so any help welcome
Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not clear that this article is comprehensive. The profile at the MSU Museum appeared to include research interests that I did not see covered here. (Patagonian seabirds, &c.) Did I miss it in the article?—RJH (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
SGGH
I suggest:
- Address any issues related to what RJHall
- Need a full DoB
- "She later specialised in Asian birds describing several new species" needs a comma after birds
- Ideally references section needs to be "notes" with a "references" section acting as a bibliography below it, but this is more my personal advice.
- General expansion of all areas.
- Good references
- A caption for the infobox image?
- Good image captions
Overall a good article. Very good referencing, not much I can pick up on. Hope my ideas help! SGGH speak! 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- thanks. I've addressed the comprehensiveness bit, although there's precious little I can find on the fossils or seabirds. I've emailed for some basic bio details, but she's in Madagascar for a month, with limited internet access. I'll look at the other suggestions later. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
- Okay, this one may be a killer. Using an archive source from the Smithsonian is verging on WP:OR. It's definitely a primary source and its definitely NOT published. I strongly suggest replacing the current ref 17 "Ripley, S. D. and Ali, S. Correspondence, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7008" with something published. Especially as its correspondence
- Current ref 19 Hussain, S. A. ... as it's just an unpublished report may be slightly better, but published sources are the best for satisfying WP:V. Strongly suggest replacing this reference also.
- What makes http://www.sciencecodex.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 9 May 2008, 05:56 UTC)
[edit] Cylindrospermopsin
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a fresh set of eyes on a topic that I've worked on from within. Any comments welcome.
Thanks, Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and fairly well done article. Here are some suggestions for improvement - please note I tend to give examples of problems and that these are not usually an exhaustive list (if I give one typo, there may be many more):
- A model article is often helpful as a guide and for examples to follow. I note that WikiProject Chemicals has 7 FAs including Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide and Paracetamol, which may be good models.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header should mentioned somehow in the lead, even if only as a word or phrase.
- Since CYN and CYL are listed in the first sentence as alternate names, I would also list them in the infobox.
- Article seems to overuse bold (sorry, couldn't help myself) - see WP:MOS#Italics
- Organizationally, I think the "Related toxic blooms and their impact" section could come later in the article - the article is about a chemical compound, but we learn very little about it until the fourth section (So I would make it lead, background, chemistry - you may disagree of course)
- The figures 1-6 do not do a lot for me, but could be made more useful. While I know the chemical literature numbers figures, I have not seen this a lot at Wikipedia. Also, if I am not mistaken, Figure 1 is repeated twice more - it is the right tautomer in Figure 2 and it is epiCYN in Fig 5 (Fig 4 is also repeated in Fig 5 as CYN). So in the name of avoiding needless repetition, could you get rid of both Fig 1 and Fig 4? The caption for Fig 2 just be something like: Proposed tautomerism between the keto and enol forms, showing the hydrogen bond between the uracil nitrogen and the guanidino hydrogen. The right tautomer is the initial incorrect proposed structure of cylindrospermopsin (CYN), with its four rings labelled (A-D). The incorrect feature was the orientation of the hydroxyl group. Perhaps label the parts 2a and 2b for reference in the article? I also note the rings are not labelled A-D. Similarly Fig 4 caption could be added to Fig 5.
- Could color or circles or some means of highlighting be used to make clearer the parts of structures being discussed in the Figures 1-6? For example could the hydroxyl (OH) in Fig. 1 be red or circled to make it clearer that this is where the stereochemistry was wrong in the initial proposal?
- Per WP:HEAD please do not repeat the article title in Headers - so for example "Toxicology of CYN" could be "Toxicology" as we already know the article is about CYN. Also could have subheads Analogues, Synthesis, Stability
- There are several short sections (two sentences in "Current methods of analysis in water samples") that could be combined with another section or perhaps expanded. Short paragraphs and sections break up the flow of the article.
- Refs look OK except for the last item - what is this? A See also perhaps? National Center for Environmental Assessment. Toxicological Reviews of Cyanobacterial Toxins: Cylindrospermopsin (NCEA-C-1763)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, all your comments are valid and I think that all of your suggestions should be effected. I'll wait for some more comments if they arrive, and edit in due course. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - there is a lot of passive, past tense in long sentences in this article. For example, instead of saying "Isolation of the toxin using algae cultured from the original Palm Island strain was achieved by gel filtration of an aqueous extract, followed by reverse-phase HPLC." it is clearer to say "The toxin was first isolated from an aqueous extract of algae cultured from the original Palm Island strain. It was purified using gel filtration and then reverse-phase HPLC." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 07:50 UTC)
[edit] Polyclonal response
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I wanted to know if it could be upgraded in its quality assessment, and if it explains the intricate principles involved sufficiently well to persons not connected to the field of biology.
Thanks, Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Polyclonal response/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 14:59 UTC)
[edit] Evolutionary history of plants
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've recently re-written the article from a combination of my own reading and a Paleobotany course I recently attended. I know it could benefit from a good copyedit, and suspect there are areas which are a big jargon-padded, but am sure these things will be gradually addressed with time. My main concern at this stage is to ensure that the article hasn't omitted anything important, and doesn't portray an inaccurate "point of view". Any comments on its completeness or accuracy would be warmly welcome.
Thanks, Smith609 Talk 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and quite detailed article - here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The article is written at a very technical level. This is OK, but you might want to consider writing a separate, simpler version and linking that at the top of the article with the {{seeintro}} template. For a nice example of this two-tiered approach see Virus and Introduction to virus. If there is a good intro article, I think the jargon concerns are lessened.
- A model article is also useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. Virus is a Good Article and may be a model for a technical vs introductory approach as noted. I also note that Evolutionary history of life is a good article and may be another suitable model.
- By the WP:MOS there should be an image in the upper right corner of the article. Image:Crossotheca nodule.JPG is interesting and a possible candidate.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article (which I think it is, for the most part), it should be three to four paragraphs long (the second paragraph could be split at Evolutionary innovation continued after the Devonian period.), and most importatly The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible This is where the lead needs work - there is a lot of jargon in it.
- I am not a plant person, so I have to click on the links to see what a gymnosperm and angiosperm are. I think it would be helpful to expalin these briefly as well as provide links. The explanations could be functional (gymnosperms have "naked seeds") or they could be descriptive (gymnosperms include conifers and ginkos). In any case try to both provide context for the reader WP:PCR and to avoid or explain jargon WP:JARGON. I will also note that you only have to explain what gymnosperms are once - this does not have to be repeated over and over.
- The article also needs more wikilinks to help clarify and provide context for interested readers - just in the lead the following could be linked (and are not now): cladistic analysis, Ordovician period, Silurian period, Triassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and perhaps links to some of the concepts - so new mechanisms of metabolism could be linked to the Calvin cycle perhaps.
- Article needs a copyedit - Further, most cladistic analyses (although these are often at odds!) suggest that each "more complex" group arose from the most complex group at the time. - the exclamtion point is not encylcopedic in tone, the sentence seems overly complex, and it illustrates a tendency to overuse words in quotations - here "more complex". Or here a word seems to be missing This may have set the scene for the evolution of flowering plants in the Triassic (~200 million years ago), which exploded [in?] the Cretaceous and Tertiary.
- Also avoid contractions like Plants weren't the first photosynthesisers on land, though:...
- Last three paragraphs of colonisation of land are not referenced - every paragraph, direct quote, statistic, and extraordinary claim should be referenced - see WP:CITE and WP:V
- Images are generally good and well placed. Try to make the captions more detailed - is the trilete mark the horizontal brown line? Is this a modern spore or a fossil? Or in the banded tube photo - it all looks fairly opaque to me.
I hope this helps - if you found my comments useful, please consider peer reviewing another article, especially one with no or minimal responses at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first thing I noticed is that although the "Changing life cycles" section is about alternation of generations, it does not link to that article. Perhaps you could use Template:Main to do so? Enoktalk 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nice expansion to the article. Could do with more on the insect-plant coevolution and radiation, origins of secondary metabolites etc. with summary sections of the main articles. Shyamal (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. My impression is that these areas are quite speculative - could you suggest links to Wikipedia articles, or better still primary sources, that I could use as a starting point to expand these aspects? Thank you, Smith609 Talk 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: I've just come across Plant evolutionary developmental biology which strays more onto this topic than its title suggests.
- I guess that will prove a useful starting point - although there is quite a bit of overlap! Smith609 Talk 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 12:35 UTC)
[edit] Pulmonary contusion
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I'd like feedback from someone with medical knowledge, since I'm not a medical expert, there's a chance I've introduced errors. The pathophysiology section is probably especially in need of help. Of course any other feedback is appreciated as well. Thanks much, delldot talk 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just a medical student but have already reviewed some articles, so here are my concerns, suggestions:
- How do you mean this line? "Pulmonary contusion is one of the most important factors in determining whether an individual will die or suffer ill effects as the result of an injury" I would write ...is a crucial or essential factor... instead of "one of the most important".
-
- The actual wording in the article is, "It is one of the principal factors determining morbidity and post-traumatic mortality." What do you think of this wording? delldot on a public computer talk 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe these two sentences should be merged into one with one ref at the end: "The amount of energy that is transferred to the lung is determined in a large part by the compliance of the chest wall.[3] The younger a person is, the more compliant the chest wall.[3]"
-
- How about this? The next sentence said the same thing, so I just got rid of the second part. delldot on a public computer talk 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What about creating an infobox just like in case of Traumatic aortic rupture? There you could mention other valuable external links such as eMedicine.
-
- I wanted to, but none of the DiseasesDB or ICD things had a link for pulmonary contusion. Do you think I should link to something more general, like the emedicine link for chest trauma? delldot on a public computer talk 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- ICD-9s 861.21 and 861.31 are for Lung contusion, with(.21) and without(.31) mention of open wound into thorax. Not sure on the ICD-10s, but something in the S20.1 to S30.1 range looks good for it. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Great, thank you so much! I chose S27.3 Other injuries of lung for ICD10, I think that was the closest there was. Yay, now there's an infobox! delldot on a public computer talk 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Otherwise, it's a well-referenced, well-written article. Nice job! NCurse work 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks a ton for the review! Always good to hear from a medical student; they haven't forgotten everything yet! delldot on a public computer talk 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
PMID 17019186 might be helpful for the pathophysiology section. --WS (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 16:42 UTC)
[edit] General relativity
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
Through the help of a number of contributors, this article has evolved to the point where I feel we are up to FA standard. It provides a good overview of the theory, touches upon all important subjects, and all its statements are referenced. In preparation for FA candidacy, I'm putting the article up for peer review. Any corrections and/or suggestions for improvement would be most welcome.
Thanks, Markus Poessel (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/General relativity/archive1.
(Peer review added on Sunday 6 April 2008, 17:53 UTC)
[edit] General
[edit] 2007 WWE Draft
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article from it's previous FLC, and make sure the next time it goes to FLC, it will pass, any concerns or problems, please list them here. Thank You!
Thanks, SRX 16:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 16:08 UTC)
[edit] 2005 WWE Draft
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has FL potential, and I would like it to be reviewed for any concerns or problems, so it can have a better chance at WP:FLC.
Thanks, SRX 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Nikki
- For the Draft Lottery, it might be a good idea to subdivide the Notes into Date, Show, Location, and Notes.
- I like the idea of an infobox. Maybe with information like total number of trades, date it started, date finished, and links to the previous and following year's trades (like the PPVs in the PPV infobox). Those are just random examples, but you get the idea. What do you think?
- In the lead: announcers and commentators shouldn't be cap; June shouldn't be linked; the "-" in June 6-30 should be changed to a "–"
- Background: don't start a sentence with however, don't link June; the draft is written as Draft Lottery and draft lottery (should it be cap or not? be consistent)
- All the dates in the table with day/month/year should be linked, even if they are already. That way if someone changes the order with the sort function, the top date is still linked.
Hope that helps! Nikki311 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 16:01 UTC)
[edit] Pierce Brosnan
Faied FA only due to prose. Ultra! 14:34, 25 May 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 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 14:34 UTC)
[edit] Detroit Automobile Company
I intend to submit this to WP:GA. The lack of information available about this company is probably going to prevent it from ever becoming an FA, I guess. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Since you asked for them, here are some ideas for expansion:
- Give some examples of those "many early car ventures" that floundered.
- If possible, explain what Ford specifically disliked about the Detroit Automobile Company vehicles. That is, what specifically did he view as "imperfect"? It would be OK to talk about car mechanics here, malformed pistons, bad lights, screechy brakes, or whatever the case might be, if known.
- Include more details about the people in the article, something about the investors' love or lack of love for cars, something about their connections to and faith in Ford.
- Include more about Ford's "racing". Readers won't typically know anything about his racing and might wonder whether he was a race driver at one time or whether other people won races driving his cars. For that matter, it might surprise them that he was ever a mechanic and not always a manager.
- It would be delicious to see the exact cost analysis published by the DAC of the difference in maintenance costs in 1900 between one of their automobiles and a horse-drawn vehicle.
Here are some other observations:
- Full dates need a closing comma after the year.
- Please use one link for cities rather than two. An example is Detroit, Michigan.
- It's OK to put US in front of $ on the first instance but not necessary since this is an article about a subject in the US.
- The following sentence is ambiguous: "Henry Ford managed the manufacturing plant at 1343 Cass Avenue, Amsterdam in Detroit, initially with no pay until he left his job at the Detroit Edison Company (DAC), when he was given a salary of $150 a month." It's not clear what his connection was to Detroit Edison or how much he was making there or how he could hold two jobs at once. Perhaps this is a place where the article could be expanded.
- If the article expands to make room for more images, it would be better to move the delivery truck to the left side of the page so that it seems to be running into the page rather than out. This would pull the reader's eye into the text, which is where you want it.
- It's not clear from the article who Samuel was.
- You might translate the $86,000 lost dollars into 2008 dollar-equivalents to give the reader a better sense of the value. Ditto for Ford's salary and other turn-of-the-century dollar amounts.
- The lead mentions "20 automobiles", but the history talks about trucks. Did the company produce trucks as well as the 20 cars?
I hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 18:54 UTC)
[edit] Zab Judah
I've listed this article for peer review because, I completely rewrote the entire article and added sources where needed.
Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Several citations need formatting properly using a {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} template (please use either one, not a combination of both types of template throughout the article).
- Specifically, current refs 1, 2, 31 are missing full information and need access dates.
- Also, what makes current ref 33 reliable? It is a GeoCities website. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- There doesn't seem to be any information on his early life, childhood and education.
- There are lots of short stubby sub-sections under the professional career section, is it possible to merge any of these to improve overall flow?
- Add citations to the infobox.
- I have noticed an inline URL in the Personal life section, which is not formatted using the <ref> tags.
- Looks good overall, except for those things. I do recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of people who can help.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 14:30 UTC)
[edit] Baseball uniform
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:GA's aren't written or corrected by themselves. This article needs some references, and more content.
Thanks, Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Some comments:
- You might want to take a good look at Kit (association football), a similar article which is featured.
- The Baseball cap has comparatively little coverage, most of the section dscribes previous types of cap.
- A section about the growth of commercial sales of caps and jerseys would be useful.
- Several statements need referencing. Some examples are
- As official nicknames gained prominence in the early 1900s (in contrast to media-generated and unofficial nicknames of prior generations), pictorial logos began emerging as part of the team's marketing.
- the Boston Americans (an unofficial designation that merely distinguished them from their across-the-tracks rivals) adopted the Nationals' abandoned red stockings in 1908, and have been the Boston Red Sox officially ever since then.
- the stocking colors of teams in the 1860s onward were a principal device in distinguishing one team from another
- detachable spikes were designed and were seen multiple times until 1976 when they were prohibited.
- Further experimenting led to innovations such as the Houston Astros of the 1970s and 1980s putting numbers on a front pants pocket as well as on the back of the shirt.
- The team most often identified with pinstripes would be the New York Yankees. Legend has it that the stripes were adopted to make Babe Ruth look slimmer. That story is a myth, as the Yankees had already adopted pinstripes several years before acquiring Ruth.
- It became standard practice to wear white at home and gray or another somewhat dark color on the road.'
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 01:18 UTC)
[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants
Please look at this article and give any feedback that you may have in order to bring it to featured article status. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- The article is almost completely unreferenced, needs many many many more references before it'll be close to FA status.
- The formatting on the references that are there is inconsistent, and website references are lacking publisher and/or last access dates, which are needed for WP:V
- You tube videos aren't reliable sources
- Several other of the sources given are of uncertain reliablity:
- Some sites deadlinked
- "SpongeBob Exposed" is a book, but is lacking all other bibliographic information
- You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 00:02 UTC)
[edit] Odex's actions against file-sharing
This article is suffering from the The Man, His Son, And the Donkey syndrome. There are a lot of criticisms thrust at it, but nobody is willing to fix it. The single biggest problem is that there are no editors other than myself being able to copyedit it (in which an objection of FAC requires someone with a fresh perspective to review it), and not all objections on the article seem fixable. Which is a waste because content-wise it is comprehensive enough to be an addition to Featured Articles. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to copyedit for a future FAC, and will try and add some comments in the meantime. Give me a day or two and ping me if you haven't gotten anything from me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- What makes http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/ a reliable source?
- Anime News Network is the only english industry newsletter sufficiently "mainstream" to be recognized on Google News. As recent as May 21 their editors are on high-end mainstream media giving analysis [4] and by precedent, there is no objection to its usage on being cited as a source in anime FAs. Let me know if you require any further justification. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- http://aseancord.idasia.org/viewtopic.php?t=151&highlight= dead linked for me.
- I don't read Japanese so I can't judge the reliablity of the Japanese source
- You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- dihydrogen monoxide comments
- Anime is wlinked twice in the first sentece, which incidentally is very long.
- Ref 2...pipe the link to the newspaper
- Also, newspapers as publishers in references need italics (see MOS:ITALICS)
- Done - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- "to reveal 1,000 of its subscribers' information" - not clear what the 1000 refers to (1000 subscribers?)
- "Both companies hired the American company BayTSP, to source out IP addresses, singling out those originating from Singapore and tracking them for several months." - the commas aren't needed
- I've no idea what AnimeSuki is, and did this offline. The article should give at least some idea without my having to click a wlink.
- "all anime AnimeSuki host" - this sentence (especially this bit) needs rewording.
- "including its third suit that was against Pacific Internet." --> "including its third suit against Pacific Internet."
- Done - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The methodology section should all be in the past tense, I believe.
- "most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs" - huh??
- "was the result of illegal downloading" - change was to as
- "Firstly, the main committee of the AVPAS is dominated by the Odex directors Peter Go and Stephen Sing...." - from here to end of paragraph is unsourced, OR-ish, and very non-neutral (and there's a date that needs wlinking)
- "and was taunted openly in his office." - not sure what this is saying...
- "There was an allegation that Odex was passing off fansubs as its own work" - what's a fansub?
- ""paying for this mistake ever since"" - this quote needs a citation
- [4] Done - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- [4]
- "By September 2007, 105 out of the 300 SingNet subscribers who received the letters have negotiated and paid to Odex" - paste tense
- "SingNet's two week appeal deadline passed,[35][69][70] and it was revealed that SingNet" - repetition of the name makes readability poor
- First paragraph of Legal opinions section (the Today newspaper stuff) again seems OR-ish and POV-ish...rewrite and trim it; you use that a lot more than discussion in any other newspaper
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Would require some assistance in fixing up some of the outstanding ones that I probably have a problem trying to address (I don't mind other editors butchering up the prose it would be address them) - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 May 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 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Review by Hildanknight
Dihydrogen Monoxide keeps harassing persuading me to do GA reviews, so I figured that proofreading this article would be good practice. Hopefully you will find my thorough review useful. I will address obvious and easy-to-fix issues myself, leaving the rest to you or someone whose command of English is better than mine (you will need such people if you wish to take this article to FAC).
- As Dihydrogen Monoxide said, the first sentence is too long. Perhaps "began tracking IP addresses that were believed to be downloading anime, identifying the Internet users associated with the IP address and threatening legal action against them" could be shortened to "began threatening legal action against users believed to be downloading anime". Details can go into the "Methodology" section.
- "Between May and August 2007 two out of three subpoenas on Internet Service Providers" does not flow well. Perhaps a comma between "2007" and "two" would do the trick.
- Change "personal identity" to a better phrase, such as "personal information".
- "Several" means "three to seven"; I am pretty sure that the number of downloaders who received letters is much higher than that. Do any reliable sources state a more exact figure?
- "the youngest defendant being only nine years old" does not connect well with the previous clause; perhaps change the comma to a semi-colon and "being" to "was"? Alternatively, you could remove the clause from the lead section (that detail is not that important).
- It is obvious from the name "Recording Industry Association of America" that the association is located "in the United States"; there is no need to state the obvious.
- Wiktionary defines "controversial" as "arousing debate". Odex's actions aroused debate among the local anime community, so they were controversial in the local anime community and not just "considered" controversial.
- Is "unrightful" a word?
- "that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore, which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide": I think the first paragraph of the lead section should focus on Odex's actions while the second should focus on reactions.
- Be careful about excessive information in the lead, such as " District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Odex failed to meet a number of requirements for the release of such information, as the company was exclusive licensee for only one anime title and its evidence was found to be unsatisfactory."
- "Odex would then send a letter to the downloaders": I thought this happens after Odex subpoenas the ISPs to identify the downloaders?
- "claiming compensation for a sum of money" suggests that the sum of money is the reason why Odex is seeking compensation. Try "claiming a sum of money as compensation".
- Actually, scratch that. I suggest you remove the third sentence of the first paragraph of the Methodology section as it duplicates a sentence in the second paragraph.
- "BayTSP has also singled out AnimeSuki as the main source of illegal downloads, thus tracking downloaders who used the torrents from AnimeSuki as the main culprits. This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company." This is quite confusing.
- Shorten "from the ISP SingNet" to "from SingNet"; the context makes it clear that SingNet is an ISP.
- "lawsuit against StarHub, thus forcing Starhub": should the "h" be capitalised or not? Please be consistent.
- A word is missing between "identities" and "about".
- Change "explicit consent in writing" to "explicit written consent".
- "The recipient of such a letter" could be shortened to "The recipient" or "The downloader".
- "settle the compensation fee settlement": Huh? How about "has to contact Odex and pay the compensation fee, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000, within the week".
Is "allerged" a word?- Typo fixed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Change "if the need be" to "if need be"; is it used correctly?
- Clarify "unlike other countries".
- "had been speculated" just sounds incorrect.
- Is "refutes" the right word? It implies that the so-called refutation is correct. "Responded" (note the past tense) might be a better word.
- "there are more than 3,000 IP addresses that are the subject of court orders already issued" could be shortened by removing "there are" and "that". Is "subject" used correctly?
- "most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs" is a mess. The phrase "cover up" means "conceal", so it should be "covering". Furthermore, "went" is used twice. Try "most of the compensation fees were used to cover the costs of paying ISPs" or simply "were used to pay the ISPs".
- Remove the comma after "paying ISPs".
- "Two weeks later on 17 September 2007" is redundant. I prefer "Two weeks later" since the previous sentence started with a date.
- "though Odex claimed that notices were posted on several blogs and forums to warn illegal downloaders" is unreferenced.
- "by the fact that" is redundant. Just "that" would do.
Is "differenciate" a word? I think you meant "differentiate"; if so, add a "between" after it.- Typo fixed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The word "cites" should not be followed by "was". Consider changing "cites" to "claims" or change "was the result of illegal downloading" to "which they claim was due to illegal downloading".
"responded Odex's products" should be "responded that Odex's products".- I made the change myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- "sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's business model for using a litigious strategy and poor public relations" sounds wrong. Perhaps "sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's poor public relations and use of a litigious strategy"?
- The description of AVPAS is too long. Wikilink AVPAS and either remove the description or shorten it.
- "The company and its partners from AVPAS...hold the licensing rights to over 400 titles...and does not make releases for several anime it has licensed lest the more popular ones." Since "The company and its partners from AVPAS" is plural, "does not" should take the plural form. I also do not see the link between this sentence and the first sentence.
- The last sentence of the second paragraph of the Reactions section should be in another paragraph.
- Most of the third paragraph of the Reactions section is unreferenced and might be original research.
- I think that in "threats of arson, assault and even death", "death" should be changed to "murder".
- "regretted the remarks he made as a "PR disaster"" sounds wrong. How about "After receiving threats of arson, assault and murder, Sing filed a police report. He said that he regretted the remarks he made, describing them as a "PR disaster"…"?
- "Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling in 2004, who "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded."": what goes directly before the comma is usually linked to the next clause. Try "in 2004, Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling, but the fans "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded"". (Note that the full stop should go after the quotation mark.)
- Consider shortening "with the explanation that" to simply "explaining that".
- "Members of an online forum have expressed" should be in past tense, so remove "have".
- How is "in which the latter revealed these figures in a news conference" linked to the first clause?
- The flow of "it does not earn any profit from what it calls an 'enforcement process', intending to donating any excess amount to charity, and release a financial audit of all the money collected after all the proceedings" could be improved. I suggest you change "intending" to "as it intends" or change the comma to a semi-colon and "intending" to "it intends".
- I suggest "in an attempt to address" be shortened to simply "to address"; I see no need to say it was an attempt.
- I think that "cease and desist emails" are "sent", not "initiated".
- Phrases like "found to be" are unnecessary. The simpler "was hacked" will do.
- Another redundancy: "ruled in the ISP's favor that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information". Remove either "in the ISP's favor" or "that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information".
- Change "the ISP StarHub" to simply "StarHub" as the context makes it clear that StarHub is an ISP (and it is already stated earlier).
- Instead of placing a colon before the quote, try to integrate it into the sentence.
The citation after "release of subscriber information" should go after the comma.- Done by myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The subject and verb in "copyright holders themselves, or its exclusive licensee" are not in agreement. Either "the copyright holder itself, or its exclusive licensee" or "copyright holders themselves, or their exclusive licensees" will work.
- The comma after "Lau noted that" seems unnecessary.
- Add a "to" between "allow Odex" and "add more affidavits".
- I added the word myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why mention three of the Japanese studios but not the fourth?
- "ordered the company to pay Pacific Internet legal fees of S$20,000": should "Pacific Internet" take the possessive form?
- The clause "in which currently no such laws exist" does not flow well from the first clause of the sentence.
- "some of the downloaders who have settled": Consider removing "of the". Either remove "have" or change it to past tense.
- "Odex, however, is a commercial entity as is the AVPAS which it is issuing the letters on behalf of and hence cannot enact legal action on the said law.": This sentence does not flow well. Try "However, Odex and AVPAS, which Odex is issuing the letters on behalf of, are commercial entities and hence cannot enact legal action based on the said law."
- Awkward phrase: "never having been used".
- Remove the hyphens from "man-on-the-street". The hyphens are only used when the word is used as an adjective.
- Change "but rather prosecute" to something like "but to prosecute".
- Another example of redundancy: "also sought help in the form of legal advice". Shorten it to "also sought legal advice".
- I understand what you mean by "downloaders who decide to settle out-of-court with Odex affords no protection from lawsuits if initiated by another company within the anime industry", but it could be made clearer. How about something like "settling out-of-court with Odex does not afford downloaders protection from lawsuits initiated by other anime companies"?
- General advice: avoid overusing brackets.
- More general advice: avoid overusing the word "even".
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the feedback so far. I appreciate more inputs in the meantime. I'll get around with this again shortly once I sort out some items IRL. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] delldot
Hi, I just got the barest start on this before going to bed, I'll pick back up when I can (I too am busy with RL). Apologies if there's repetition with other reviews, I didn't read them.
- More than a third subsequently settled out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) per person, the youngest defendant being only nine years old. does this mean that the nine-year-old was one of the third? I'd use of these in place of defendant in that case. If not, it's a non sequitur and I'd make it a separate sentence. Also, I'm not great at NPOV, but I'm not sure about the use of the word only there.
- the Singaporean anime community -- is there a Singaporean anime community, or is this something the article is coining?
- Is unrightful a word?
- I believe heavy-handed doesn't need the hyphen in this sentence (only when the two words come before the word they modify, or at least that's my reading of hyphen). Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Subsequently Odex revised some of its legal actions that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore, which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide. I'm told you should avoid use of some, a vague and redundant word. Also, Subsequently to what, the criticism? For some reason I think unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide is awkward. Usually when the word unintentionally is used, there's an active subject, so you'd expect something more like "the company unintentionally leaked the info". Also, several? Really? I think of several as being less than ten or so.
- I don't know why Pacnet doesn't redirect to Pacific Internet if it's an alternate name, but either way, you only need to link one of the alternate names.
- its suit against Internet Service Provider Pacific Internet (now known as Pacnet) to reveal the information of 1,000 of its subscribers. I think you need something more, like to make the company reveal... to clarify that that's the purpose of the suit.
Going to bed, gimme a poke if I'm not back to finish in a few days. delldot talk 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just have time for a couple more:
- This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company. —NPOV problem? Also, this and the sentence before it go off on a tangent from the rest of the paragraph.
- The paragraph with the above sentence switches tense a lot.
- demanding a "compensation fee". The scare quotes makes it look like an NPOV problem. maybe demanding what it calls a "compensation fee", though I'm not sure that fixes it.
- The recipient of such a letter has to contact Odex and settle the compensation fee settlement within the week, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000. Failure to pay would result in Odex taking legal action against the alleged downloader. Once again, tense switching--three tenses here. Also, these sentences are kind of awkward.
- The company had been speculated to collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals in out-of-court settlements, but Odex refutes that it did not require all downloaders to pay S$5,000. --This is confusing. it "refutes that it did not"? Or it refutes that it did? Or is there some punctuation missing? Also, this and the three previous sentences don't really fit together; they're non sequiturs.
- Later, the company's director Peter Go revealed that most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs,[26] and BayTSP --unclear.
Sorry, bedtime again. More to follow! delldot talk 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I've actually been repeating a lot of what's been said above. How about this: why don't you deal with the issues brought up so far and I'll read the article afterwards? Even better would be if you could get someone who owes you a favor to give it a copyedit. That way the newer version can get a review too. Gimme a poke on my talk page when you're ready. delldot talk 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 14:32 UTC)
[edit] Middlesbrough F.C.
I've listed this article (Middlesbrough FC) for peer review because I'd like to see how it could get to FA status - if it could at all. I feel we've built on the improvements made by the last review, and was wondering whether we've done enought to get it sorted, or if its still needs tidying up.
Thanks, Mofs (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 01:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Eek, I was the only person to respond to the previous peer review. I hope I'm not the only one to respond this time.
- Middlesbrough Football Club (commonly known as The Boro) - I have only ever heard fans of the club itself use "The Boro", so it is misleading to say "commonly known as". You wouldn't expect "The Boro" to be used on Match of the Day, for example. On a similar note, I think using "Boro" in the body of the text is too informal for an encyclopedia. (e.g. Over the next two seasons, Boro gained successive promotions).
- The club came close to folding in 1986 after experiencing severe financial difficulties before the club was saved by a consortium led by then board member and current chairman Steve Gibson. - This either needs more punctuation or splitting into two sentences.
- The number of external links seems excessive, take a look at Wikipedia:External links and remove some accordingly.
- If you take the article to featured article candidates the reliability of sources will inevitably be scrutinised. Several fansites are used as references. What makes them reliable?
- The list of club staff seems excessively exhaustive. A yardstick I use for inclusion in these sections is "Would this person be notable enough to have an article if they were only known for their current role" (i.e. not for a being a former player).
- Are the colours used by the club when they first formed known?
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Get rid of italics from the nickname in the infobox. If it was meant to be in italics, it would be in the infobox code.
- I'd use commas instead of brackets, for "also known as The Boro"
- I'd change "currently playing", as per WP:DATE, to "who play" or "who are members of".
- There is no subject for the verb in "and have only spent two seasons outside of the Football League's top two divisions". Perhaps change to and they have.
- "with a varying amount of white." Seems very informal. I'd change to red and white, or red with a white band.
- Use non-breaking spaces between a number and its noun. E.g. 22 years.
- £1000 ought to have a comma, e.g. £1,000.
- World War I and II should be First World War and Second World War.
- "In 1903" etc are introductory phrases and so should be followed by a comma. There's quite a lot of these reading further down.
- I'd suggest using sixth and third instead of 6th and 3rd.
- You've flipped between First Division and Division Two. Stick to one style.
- wl Third Division North.
- You flip between singular and plural verbs for the club or team. Again stick to one style. I think Engish clubs are typically plural.
- "20 year spell". Probably better hyphenated as 20-year-spell or 20-year spell.
- "The FA Cup saw the club never get past the quarter-finals, a feat they were still yet to accomplish in their history." This is very clumsy and I don't know what it means.
- I wouldn't start a season with 1975-76. Perhaps The 1975-76 season
- Either wl or explain "Provisional Liquidator"
- wl The Football League
- emdashes should be unspaced.
- Perhaps hypenate locally-born.
- The supporters section is predominantly made up of shorter paragraphs. I'd look at rectifying that if you want to push it to FAC.
- Perhaps left align the picture of Boro supporters.
- Why the bold in the "community" section?
- I'm not sure you need all those "club staff" listed.
- References should become before external links.
- I think the lead could do with expanding a little per WP:LEAD.
- Why are some publishers in the reflist list in italics, some not?
- I think the reliability of some of the references may be questioned at FAC.
- There seems to be a high use of the official website in the references. Again it may be questioned at FAC.
Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 10:32 UTC)
[edit] New York State Route 32
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC and need some listed errors and grammar fixes. I need it majorly reviewed here so I am not bugged with problems at FAC.
Thanks, Mitch32contribs 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Please spell out abbreviations in the references, at least the first time they are used.
- You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Sources look fine though. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I've completed a copyedit that concentrated on issues related to WP:NBSP, metric conversions, punctuation, and prose flow, and I left a note on the main contributor's talk page about WP:NOR questions that crossed my mind when I read about nice views from the roadway. Finetooth (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Ealdgyth and Finetooth's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. I note that there are several FAs that are highway articles, including Chickasaw Turnpike and M-35 (Michigan highway).
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - compared to the models mentioned, this seems to be too detailed in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- I would also include general information about directions in the lead - identify the northern and southern termini and say it is a north-sout highway.
- There are numerous short (two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with other paragraphs or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
- One or two pictures of signs would be OK, but I really don't see what five of them add to the article.
- Also make sure image widths are set to thumb per WP:MOS#Images to allow user preferences to set image sizes.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 May 2008, 22:57 UTC)
[edit] Donald Bradman
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… after a lot of work by a lot of editors, the article's getting close to readiness for another run at FAC. And just in time for his hundredth birthday.
As I write, I'm aware that there's still 5 outstanding citations needed (flagged). There's been a mammoth amount of citing of late, which means the article has >200 refs.
I'm particularly concerned about hagiography and comprehensiveness. A number of 'daughter articles' have been created to deal with WP:SIZE issues; the article is still over 100Kb long, but I'd argue it needs to be to reflect such a very long and outstanding career.
Thanks, Dweller (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 May 2008, 11:24 UTC)
[edit] Dominican amber
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I believe it is an important article worthy of being investigated and reviewed by people who know more than I do and can help improve it if need be.
Thanks, The Singularity (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfsich comments: This is interesting and what is there seems fairly detailed, plus the images are very nice. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas and to follow for style, refs, etc. One possibility is Oil shale, which is an FA.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (Baltic amber, for example). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead needs to be expanded. Please see WP:LEAD
- Avoid one sentence paragraphs - they are too choppy and break the flow of the article. Expand or combine with others
- Provide context to the reader - for example, give the years for the Miocene and Oligocene. Or say the amber comes from a tree in the lead, or give the full name of Santiago. See WP:PCR
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, no space between punctuation and ref either - so fix According to Poinar,[1] Dominican amber dates from Oligocene to Miocene. (ref at end)
- Article needs a copyedit and more refs - for example The La Cumbre, La Toca, Palo Quemado, La Bucara, and Los Cacaos mining sites in the Cordillera Septentrional not far from Santiago. [3]There is also amber in the south-eastern Bayaguana/Sabana de la Mar area. There is also copal found with only an age of 15-17 million years. First "sentence" is a fragment (no verb), ref should follow the period with a space after "...Santiago.[3] There..." and the copal sentence needs a ref.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Avoid needless repetition - sites of mines are in article twice.
- Avoid overlinking - amber does not need to be linked twice in one paragraph
- Images should not sandwich text between them - see WP:MOS#Images
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 14:13 UTC)
[edit] Supergrass discography
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it can be improved.I think it's a pretty good discography list.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- dihydrogen monoxide
- Some of the references need formatting. Publishers, access dates, and the like.
- "an English alternative rock band from Oxford" - do you really need to say what city they're from?
- "The album reached number 1 in the UK where it stayed three weeks.[1] The album lead the band to numerous awards in the following years" - repetition of "the album" is bad for readability, and it'd be good to be more specific on these awards
- Rest of the lead needs some copyediting
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 03:32 UTC)
[edit] A Bayou Legend
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it offers a fascinating study of the strange yet intriguing history of a distinctive American opera.
Thanks, Ecoleetage (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting, if very short, article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful for ideas on expansion, structure, refs, etc. I note that Porgy and Bess is an A class article and may be a suitable model. There are also the things to look for in an Opera article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment
- The article really needs to be longer to even get to WP:GA. If it gets longer it will need a Lead.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article needs more references - for example production also received an Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Achievement in Lighting Direction. needs a ref, as does the whole first paragraph.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For internet refs, {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Any chance of a free or fair use image or two?
- For future notice, Peer Review is typically for more developed articles - I do not have much more to say as this article is so short.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 21:50 UTC)
[edit] Troubled Island
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it provides an insightful background to a forgotten masterwork by a great American composer.
Thanks, Ecoleetage (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Another interesting, if fairly short, article. I just reviewed A Bayou Legend and many of the same points apply here. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is useful for ideas on expansion, structure, refs, etc. I note that Porgy and Bess is an A class article and may be a suitable model. There are also the things to look for in an Opera article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment
- The article really needs to be longer to even get to WP:GA. If it gets longer it will need a Lead.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- Per WP:CITE references come directly after punctuation (no space)
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- Time Magazine ref needs date, page number, author if known. {{cite journal}} may help
- Is Classics for Kids a reliable source? See WP:RS
- Any chance of a free or fair use image or two?
- For future notice, Peer Review is typically for more developed articles - I do not have much more to say as this article is rather short - this is better referenced than the other article, but the refs themselves need more info.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 21:47 UTC)
[edit] Meridian, Mississippi
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the article is on its way to GA or even FA status. I would like comments on the general layout of the article (aesthetically and informationally) and suggestions on what to do with the Historic Districts in Meridian section. As of now, the section seems lacking to me, but I have no idea what to do with it. Suggestions on other sections of the page are welcome as well. Also, the statement about Hurricane Katrina evacuees is unsourced, and I can't find anywhere to source it to. I've heard city officials and citizens of the city (I live here) talking about how much the population has risen, but I can't find anywhere on the internet. I'd love to find a source haha :)
Thanks, Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments It's a nice article. As i mentioned in the Talk page of the article, not noticing this peer review was open, i very much liked the section on Historic Districts in the 13 May version of the article. That version had some discussion and description of each district, and I got the sense that the history and these districts are important to the city, which i liked.
- Please do take seriously the suggestions of the automated peer review. Some of its suggestions, like using NBSP; character between numbers and units of measurement, and placing the footnotes right after punctuation commas or periods, are pretty easy to do. Perhaps an administrator will re-run that script to check again, once you believe that you have addressed all of those comments. Good luck! Hopefully others will have more substantial comments. doncram (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I fixed all the refs, but I don't get what it's saying about the units of measurement. All the measurements on the page (that I can find) are in {{convert}} tags or in the infobox, so I have no control over nbsp. I fixed the long image captions too; I believe only the one in the Civil Rights section would have triggered it. The main reason I shrunk the Historic Districts section to a list of the names and locations was to keep the TOC from being too long. Nine very similar headings looked tacky to me. If you can think of a way to include all the information without the headings, be my guest. I still would like a map of the districts, and I'm working on making one. I haven't done anything with summary style. The only section I think that would qualify for that is the History section, but I've done nothing to it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comment: Doncram asked me to stop by and comment on map making. I have a brief intro to how I make maps from free US Census sources here. Well, I just looked at the article and see you made a map - never mind. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC) PS I may have a solution to the TOC problem - you can limit the level of headers shown, see Joseph Priestley for an example, by using {{TOClimit|limit=2}} to show only the first two levels. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I made the map using OpenStreetMap.org, which releases all its maps under creative commons. I added the district boundaries in MS Paint. I think I fixed the TOC problem anyways, but thanks for that bit of information; I might use it in some other article(s).. The Historic Districts section is shaping up to be great, though. Now with a map and fewer subheadings, the section has definitely improved. Thanks for all the input! Keep it coming haha..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The map showing historic districts, indexed and color coded, is very nice. I believe, though, that it is currently presented as being authoritative on what are the historic district boundaries, while in fact it shows rectangles that are the approximate locations of historic districts that are irregular. Note, a couple of the descriptions state "roughly bounded" by four streets... which suggests to me that some lots inside the rectangle are not included in the district, and perhaps some lots outside the rectangle are included. This would be consistent with irregularly shaped districts elsewhere. So, to the extent that you do not know for sure what are the exact boundaries, there needs to be some disclaimer, some indication that these are approximate boundaries, in my view. doncram (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Done
- Image:Meridian, MS Historic Districts.PNG now includes a small note to indicate that boundaries are approximate. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
I've now shortened a few sections of the article according to WP:Summary Style; I have one question, though. I like the {{seealso}} tag instead of the {{main}} one. Can I use it instead, or is it imperative that I use {{main}}? It seems OK to me to use {{seealso}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, is there any way I can get someone to re-run that bot? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I reran the script and pasted it in the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: As promised, here are some suggestions for improvement. While it is obvious a lot of work has gone into this, it needs some more to get to GA status.
- A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. There are a fair number of FA articles on cities: Cleveland, Ohio is one possible FA model.
- The lead does a decent job, but may need to be a bit more inclusive. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - so famous Meridianites is not in the lead (one example). See WP:LEAD
- Avoid needless repetition in sentences and within the article - for example, the word "Meridian" is repeated three times in the sentence In 2003 Mainstreet Meridian, an organization in Meridian, launched its "Vision 2003" program to restore downtown Meridian to its original prosperity by means of a new, modern economy.[6]
- Done
- Similarly, while I like the Historic DIstricts section, it repeats much of the basic information. Why not combine the two, for example [Blue rectangle] The East End Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places on August 21, 1987 and is roughly bounded by 18th St, 11th Ave, 14th St, 14th Ave, 5th St, and 17th Ave. The district's significance lies in its large collection of late 19th and early 20th century Queen Anne and Colonial Revival style cottages built during Meridian's "Golden Age."[25][26]
- Done
- I like the map, but the colors are difficult to distinguish - could numbers or letters be added to the map and the descriptions? i.e. numbers 1-9 or letters A-I?
- Done
- The article is generally well referenced, but a few more refs are needed. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref - so Ball laid his streets parallel to the railroad, and Ragsdale chose to use true compass headings. This competition is evident today in the angles at which some streets meet in the city. needs a ref
- As for the ref for Katrina victims moving there, have there been any articles on this in the local newspaper(s)?
- Something of a gap in History between Civil Rights (1964 or so) and 1997.
- Refs need more complete information - for example Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- If the article gets too long, per WP:Summary Style, you might want to make articles of the notable residents list and the Sites of Interest and leave brief summaries behind.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:17 UTC)
[edit] Hilary of Chichester
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and would greatly appreciate any comments about its prose and its comprehensibilty by non-medievalists.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Another interesting and generally well done article on a medieval bishop I am not sure I ever heard of before. Here are my suggestions for improvement, mostly fairly nit-picky:
- Please expand the lead so it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself and my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- Any chance of an image for the lead (upper right corner?) I see there are several images at Chichester Cathedral, but suspect all of them are too recent to be associated with Hilary.
- First sentence is very short - if you had to say the three most important things about him, what would they be? Can they all fit into a new first sentence?
- Try to provide context for the reader who is not a medieval expert. Here are a bunch of examples:
- would it make sense to add bishop to ...promoting Hilary to [bishop of] the see of Chichester in 1146? Not everyone knows what a see in this sense is.
- Provide years (if known) for Hilary served as a clerk for Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester as well as Dean of Christchurch ...
- Why was his nomination for Archbishop unsuccessful? Also should the pope be indentified here Unsuccessfully nominated as a candidate for the archbishopric of York against Henry Murdac in 1146, the pope chose to compensate Hilary by appointing him to Chichester.[5] instead of the next sentence?
- What was the council or Rheims? Why did the king not want the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend?
- Probably need to explain that in those days there was a struggle over who decided who was a bishop - the pope, the chapter of the cathedral, the king or some combination.
- Link Pope Hadrian IV in Battle Abbey section (I think this is the first he shows up)
- say where this was and was present at the announcement of the canonization in 1161.[1]
- I don't understand this All the bishops but Hilary swore, with the reservation that the customs were not in conflict with canon law. Hilary, however, added no qualifiers. Did he swear or not - first sentence sounds like he did not, second sounds like he did. I also do not understand how swearing the king's oath is thus refused to support the archbishop's party.[1][12]
- Article needs a copyedit. Here are some rough spots:
- After unsuccessfully being nominated to become archbishop of York, ... makes it sound like he was not even nominated (when it was the nomination that was unsuccessful, right?)
- Awkward - isn't Hilary the bishop in Hilary spent many years engaged in a struggle with Battle Abbey over the bishop's attempts to inspect the abbey.
- parallel construction - perhaps Known for providing for his clergy and [for his skill] as a canon lawyer...
- two uses of probably in one sentence: Hilary was probably born around 1110, and was probably of low birth, ...
- Probably best to break this into two sentences He was educated as a canon lawyer, and was an advocate in Rome in 1144,[2] where he served in the papal chancery in 1146,[3] and some of his coworkers were Robert Pullen, John of Salisbury, and Nicholas Breakspear (who later became Pope Adrian IV).[4]
- Avoid needless repetition: ...the pope chose to compensate Hilary by appointing him to Chichester.[5] His candidacy to York had been supported by ... King Stephen of England.[1] He was nominated to the see of Chichester by Pope Eugenius III in 1146, pope names him to Chichester twice in three sentences as written now
- Should there be commas here: Robert de Bethune[,] bishop of Hereford[,] and William de Turbeville[,] bishop of Norwich.?
- Struggle with Battle Abbey is one long paragraph - can it be split into two?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 04:08 UTC)
[edit] History of the Washington Redskins
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I do not know what else to do. I think I have mentioned most of the major players and events, so really i just need ideas on how I could expand or reformat the article. Any comments, criticisms, ideas helpful.
Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and very detailed article, clear that a lot of work has gone into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are a large number of FAs on sport at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation, including History of American football
- Article seems too large by WP:SIZE - I used this tool and it has Readable prose: 60.7 KB, which is much larger than the 30 to 50 KB recommended limit.
- Per WP:Summary Style parts of the article could be made into smaller articles with a summary left in this article. I think I would definitely make "70 Greatest Redskins" a list article.
- Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT there seems to be way too much emphasis on the last five years. I would trim this back too.
- Per WP:HEAD the section headers should not repeat the name of the article or a major part of the name unless absolutely necessary. So "Redskins' first years in D.C. (1937–1945)" should just be "First years in D.C. (1937–1945)" since we already know this is about the Redskins. I am not sure about "Redskins Decade" but note the phrase is not used in that section itsef.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - 2007 and 2008 are not in the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD
- Genreally well referenced but a few places that need refs do not have them - for example The team's early success endeared them to the fans of Washington, D.C. However, after 1945, the Redskins began a slow decline that they did not end until a playoff appearance in the 1971 season. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Several of the External links are already cited as refs, not sure they need to be in twice. See WP:EL
- Per WP:MOS#Images, article should start with an image top right (not the TOC) and images should be set to thumb width (can also use vertical for vertical images) to allow user set preferences to take over.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 22:43 UTC)
[edit] Here Come the Warm Jets
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
Hi! I've had several slow days in my computer lab and I've written up a lot of information for the album Here Come the Warm Jets. I'm not the best at writing even though I think the ideas are there, but I'd like to get this to be a GA possibly! How much more steps is there to take to clean it up or information to add?
Cheers, Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Seems like a pretty good article, so here are some fairly nit-picky suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:
- A model article is often very useful for ideas to follow on style, structure, refs, etc. I note that there is a detailed model guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Article_body and that there are 105 album GAs to choose from at Category:GA-Class Album articles and 40 more at Category:FA-Class Album articles
- In the infobox some of the reviews seem to be missing stars or numbers or ratings (Rolling Stone for example)
- Lead seems OK, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- Provide context for the reader - for example in Here Come the Warm Jets was recorded in twelve days at Majestic Studios in London during September 1973 by Derek Chandler.[7][8] adding "recording engineer" before Derek Chandler makes it much clearer who he is.
- I am also not really clear on what a "treated guitar" is - obviously it sounds different, but what is the treatment?
- I think it needs to be made clearer that Eno did not sing with the musicians when they recorded their parts.
- The middle paragraph of Style seems more like it belongs in production
- Release and aftermath might be better named Release and reception or at least include a subsection on Reception
- Might want to say what journal Lester Bangs and other critics were writing for.
- I learned a word - accessments in Modern accessments of the album have been positive,... thanks!
- Refs look OK except for Ref 9, which is a just a bare link to music.hyperreal.org Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- I am not sure that linking to a lyrics site, which is probably copyvio, is allowed or a good idea. May want to ask at WikiProject Albums.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking to time to review the article! I cleaned up most of what you said. Many of the infobox reviews don't have star ratings officially so I can't really give them any. But otherwise, I cleaned up most of what I could. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi guys. Just a bit on Release and Reception vs. Release and Aftermath... Declaring my interest, from memory I chose that heading when dividing the-then article into new sections. For me, 'reception' is a term best reserved for reaction upon the initial release of an album, not the 'longer view' of current Rolling Stone Top 500 or Allmusic ratings. 'Aftermath' seemed to cover both the contemporary and the modern views for what was then a short paragraph. Now we have more on the initial critical reception I'd tend to agree with Release and Reception but suggest the modern views should then be broken out into a subsequent paragraph, possibly titled Legacy (Aftermath on its own I would only use if we talked about what Eno did next, but before the following album, if relevant). However Legacy would be even more appropriate if we could source some words on the album's influence on other artists, as well as including the modern assessments. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- those are good points but I think to reach GA status the parapgraphs and size level of each section should be roughly balenced and by splitting those we ruin the balence. It's hard to find specific influence on bands/artists on these things that are citable (other then I found that Of Montreal do covers of The Paw Paw negro blowtorch). And that after recording the album, some songs appeared on live albums, he toured a bit with his band the Winkies then had collapsed a lung on stage and went to his next album. That kind of stuff minus the of montreal trivia sounds best for a background on an article on his next solo album I think... Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- those are good points but I think to reach GA status the parapgraphs and size level of each section should be roughly balenced and by splitting those we ruin the balence. It's hard to find specific influence on bands/artists on these things that are citable (other then I found that Of Montreal do covers of The Paw Paw negro blowtorch). And that after recording the album, some songs appeared on live albums, he toured a bit with his band the Winkies then had collapsed a lung on stage and went to his next album. That kind of stuff minus the of montreal trivia sounds best for a background on an article on his next solo album I think... Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi guys. Just a bit on Release and Reception vs. Release and Aftermath... Declaring my interest, from memory I chose that heading when dividing the-then article into new sections. For me, 'reception' is a term best reserved for reaction upon the initial release of an album, not the 'longer view' of current Rolling Stone Top 500 or Allmusic ratings. 'Aftermath' seemed to cover both the contemporary and the modern views for what was then a short paragraph. Now we have more on the initial critical reception I'd tend to agree with Release and Reception but suggest the modern views should then be broken out into a subsequent paragraph, possibly titled Legacy (Aftermath on its own I would only use if we talked about what Eno did next, but before the following album, if relevant). However Legacy would be even more appropriate if we could source some words on the album's influence on other artists, as well as including the modern assessments. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 20:28 UTC)
[edit] List of F-Zero characters
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've made significant efforts to clean this list up and look forward to get it up to a higher quality. Before I go on to fix up a lot references which aren't formatted perfectly and write up any more character descriptions I would like any suggestions on improvements to the list. More specifically, comments on the structure of the list and what do, if anything, with those one-time appearance (Maximum Velocity / F-Zero AX) characters. Relisted peer review to generate a more thorough discussion. « ₣M₣ » 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's certainly an interesting format. I have two concerns: first, it needs information on reception/merchandise to really be complete. Secondly, I'm unsure about half the references being from Allgame... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this game, but will try to give some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to what might be a problem at FLC:
- The lead is completely unreferenced - in a list there needs to be refs in the lead, since much of this material is not repeated in the article.
- Problem sentence ...which makes the series akin to something out of an American comic book. reads like original research without a cite, see WP:CITE and WP:NOR
- Article needs a copyedit - one example is the caption The most characters to debut in a single game is F-Zero X which brought twenty-seven new characters into the franchise. should read something like The most characters to debut in a single game is twenty-seven, in F-Zero X.
- Provide context - identify Takaya Imamura (as is done later in The producer, Shigeru Miyamoto, wanted more ...) See WP:PCR
- Explain abbreviations the first time, so SNES would be Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)
- Who is Captain Falcon? IGN called Captain Falcon "one of the most important and recognizable characters from the franchise".[3]
- First paragraph in Characters is uncited.
- Since this is a list, why all the info on Captain Falcon?
- A model article is often useful List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow is a FL, although a very different kind of list. List of cast members of The Simpsons or List of Harry Potter cast members might also give ideas.
- Intro says four characters in the first game, but only three are in the list.
- Are the Original descriptions just direct quotes? If so this seems to be CopyVio and a violation of "Fair Use" - see WP:FAIR USE
- Small print is hard to read
- Any reason why tables are not sortable?
- Do the sources used meet WP:RS?
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 17:11 UTC)
[edit] Super Smash Bros. Brawl
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I am still pushing for FA status, and that failed FAC only made the article so much better. I am working on finding suitable replacements for the last two images on the article, but in the meantime, any kind of comments, questions, or issues are welcome. Please, tell me everything you've got! haha169 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide
Here I am, as promised! :)
- "video fighting games" - "fighting video games" is better IMO
- "collaborated within a rented Tokyo office and worked on creating Brawl, which was formally released in Japan on 31 January 2008" --> "collaborated on Brawl at a rented Tokyo office. The game was released in Japan on..." (and then change "the game" to "it" (or something) in next sentence)
- "This installment" --> "Brawl"
- "It also supports multiplayer battles" - Brawl, or single player? Obvious but clarify.
- "noticed Brawl's "spectacular" soundtrack, "spanning a generous swath of gaming history"." - how do you notice a soundtrack? Commented on?
- In particular" - there is no context for the in particular here, so it sounds awkward...
- "for a total of four possible control styles." - this can be counted, you don't need to say it...
- "In addition to the standard multiplayer mode, Super Smash Bros. Brawl" - prior to this it's always referred to as Brawl...be consistent (also check Melee vs. Super Smash Bros. Melee throughout)
- "allowing players to relive defining moments of the characters' pasts." - example?
- "At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the president of Nintendo, Satoru Iwata," - needs less commas..."...Nintendo president Saturo Iwata..." would be better
- "As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned" - sounds awkward when the rest is in past tense
- "Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." - italics for Smash Bros. please
- "Subspace Emissary adventure mode. He also described the graphics as "an enhanced version of Melee" - SE italics not needed, nor is Melee wlink
- "and 1.61 million units total as of 31 March 2008" - by this stage I've forgotten the release date, so this lacks context...not sure how to solve it, any ideas?
Hope this helps. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed all those problems. Thank you for your time in reviewing this! So many minor problems...that was the issue on the FAC. --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 03:04 UTC)
[edit] Central Intelligence Agency
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone some tremendous work since about last December, thanks primarily to HC Berkowitz, whose commitment to it has been nothing short of incredible, and I'd like to see if people think it is ready for FA nomination, or how it could be improved. As I hope you will all see, this article has already been greatly reduced in size and a huge amount of information has been created in supporting and related articles. I realize it is still a large page, but it is a large topic, and given size and scope of the topic, I think this article, as it stands, as very nearly as small as we could get it.
Having said that, I think we all look forward to any constructive criticisms or opinions you may have.
Thanks, Morethan3words (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ealdgyth
- You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.
- Give ISBNs where possible.
- When citing a book, give a page number
- A large number of your web site citations lack publisher information. Author isn't enough, publisher is also needed.
- Some website citations lack last access dates.
- These are pretty basic needs for GA or FAC. Drop me a note when the above issues are taken care of and I'll be happy to double check the reliablity of the sources in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ruhrfisch
Interesting article, but needs a lot of work before FA in my opinion. I agree with Ealdgyth's reference comments. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Article is way too long - take more out and make separate articles per WP:Summary style. For example, Could the whole "Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases" section be a sub-article?
- At the same time, summary style says there should be a summary of the article removed left behind. "Linkages with former Nazi and Japanese War Criminals" with just a See U.S. Intelligence involvement with German and Japanese War Criminals after World War II. or several other examples - this would be a big problem at FAC
- There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow and need to be combined or expanded. Also several very short sections.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I think that the article may need fewer sections / headers too. Please see WP:LEAD
- Article needs more references, for example the last paragraph of Organization and the first two paragraphs of Executive offices are unreferenced, as are four of six paragraphs in National Clandestine Service, including a direct quote. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Several bullet point lists should be converted into prose
- I think I might put History first, before Organization. Telll how they got there
- Per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in headers - so change "Early CIA, 1947-1952", "Abuses of CIA authority, 1970s-1990s" and "2004, DCI takes over CIA top-level functions".
- Article either has no images or too many in a given section.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I ran this tool on the article here. It says it has Readable prose: 75.5 KB which is a bit much Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 10:06 UTC)
[edit] Siege of Lal Masjid
This peer review discussion has been closed.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've worked on this article for almost a week now once I saw the potential this article had. I would particularly like to say thanks to Mercenary2k who worked on the article before me.
I already have addressed all the concerns previously mentioned in other reviews. Since I already have background knowledge on this article, I am not sure if I am leaving anything out. Therefore might I ask that particular attention be payed to the Background section. I also have some concerns about about images. Since I am not a "image-person", it has been difficult for me to find images that fit Wikipedia's policy. I would like some comments on whether the article needs more images for its appeal.
Thanks, → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and great lead picture. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, for example the reactions section is not mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on events leading up to the siege compared to the amount of text in the article itself, see WP:WEIGHT
The death toll in the infobox is 96, but the article lead says "95 casualties". I also note that casualty in military operations usually refers to all dead and wounded (plus missing and prisoners).
- Fixed There was a reason I had put it at 95 but that doesn't matter since I changed the article name. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also 11 SSG killed in the infobox, and the article says Of the 164 SSG army commandos that had laid siege to the mosque on July 3 and stormed it later, 10 were killed and 33 were wounded.[4] but the photo caption of 8 dead SSG The troops of Pakistan Army’s Special Services Group, who were killed by militants during assault on the mosque makes it seem as if only these 8 were killed.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked for feedback on photos, what is there seems OK. I would move the photo of the mosque earlier - as it is, there are two photos very close together (mosque and street, attack). The dead soldiers needs a better Fair Use template and source information.
- Fixed I moved the pictures but I am not sure what to do with the picture of the dead soliders since I do not have knowledge of Wikipeida's image policies. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Biggest complaint for the Background is to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
For example, The Lal Masjid was founded by Maulana Qari Abdullah in 1965 and is named for its red walls and interiors. should mention this is a mosque and that the name translates as Red Mosque. Also who is/was Maulana Qari Abdullah?
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Problem sentence General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was very close to Maulana Qari Abdullah who often gave speeches on jihad during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[14] Zia should be identified as President of Pakistan, and who (who gave speeches) is unclear - assume MQA
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Another problem After the Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, the mosque continued to function as a center for radical Islamic learning and housed several thousand male and female students in adjacent seminaries.[14] the center for radical Islam is not mentioned earlier - speeches, yes, but learning, no. Same for the seminaries. When were they founded / built?
-
Identify Musharaf better in Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mushrraf's government...
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
I prefer "the leadership of Lal Masjid" to just "Lal Masjid" in Lal Masjid and the Jamia Hafsa denied having any links with organizations now banned for supporting terrorism, but ...Also Jamia Hafsa needs to be identified before this (mentioned in the lead, but this is the Background).
- Fixed and will do--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Grammar "was became" and clarify his (Musharaf) in The mosque was became a center for speeches calling for his assassination.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If the same reference is used for three sentences in a row, I would just have one ref at the end of the three sentences (unless one of those is a direct quote or statement likely to be challenged)
- Ok--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
tense in All of them are released after the women supposedly admitted to running the brothel...
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Who alleged a soft approach? Who made accusations of leniency? Specifics are helpful - An allegedly soft approach taken by the Pakistani government in dealings with the mosque led to accusations of leniency on the part of President Musharraf.[14]
- There is a citation needed tag at the end of Background and a few other places need more references, such as
However, the statements from government authorities were controversial, and according to surrendering students, about 2,000 students were still inside.My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Fixed Will work on it.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Article needs a copyedit for grammar, typos, etc.
- Will do. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Bullet list in Pakistani media should be converted to text
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why does China get its own section in reactions? Why not other nations?
- There is already a section for the US and Al-Qaeda since those are the only other "international" reactants. I could remove the section headings and leave "International Reactions". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 13 here has a date and author that need to be included, as does the date accessed. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and oter cite templates may be helpful.
- Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Feel free to comment on a suggestion for the international section.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 03:06 UTC)
[edit] Supergrass
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if there are ways in which I can improve this article and whether it it meets the good article criteria.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to format the references, remove copyvio links (magazine articles reprinted on that fan-site) and not link to unreliable sources (such as the strange ones FAQ) as I've done here. Try to ref as much as possible to the magazine articles reprinted on the fansite (double-check them if you can with the actual articles), and also search sites like Guardian.co.uk or nme.com. Refer to The Smashing Pumpkins for a model band article on what content to include, writing style, appropriate sections etc. indopug (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 10:02 UTC)
[edit] Robert F. Kennedy assassination
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past few weeks, this article has been extensively edited to restore balance and to adhere to WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. The article is now well-referenced and substantial, and I think it might be worth looking to GA review with a view to improving this significantly afterwards. What we will need to know in advance is of issues that people can still spot with the article; as anyone looking at the edit history can see, I'm far too involved to make an objective assessment, and I would greatly appreciate all advice that can be offered.
Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 May 2008, 21:58 UTC)
[edit] Justin Tuck
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've improved the article since the last PR. Please note that Tuck is a back-up DE (at the moment) and has been injured for a great deal of his pro career, so expansion of some areas is very difficult because there are no reliable sources found. Tuck is now a player on the rise and I have put a lot of hard work into this article.
Thanks, Endless Dan 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs)
Overall the article looks close to GA. Some comments:
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. - This article is about a person, so add
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. - This article is well referenced. I would consider adding a "See Also" section as well.
- Is this a reliable source? Seems like a blog too me. Find an alternative.
- That's it fro me. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments, Here are a few more suggestions for improvement for the article:
- The lead should be a summary of the whole article and nothing should be only in the lead - per WP:LEAD. I would add the first paragraph in the lead to the Personal life section or before the high school football section. Since the lead is the most important stuff, I would not include the fact about his father building the house in the lead in any case.
- I would also add the details about the philanthropy in the lead to Personal life.
- Do not use & in the text unless it is a direct quote, so change Growing up, Tuck's favorite football teams were the San Francisco 49ers[9] & Dallas Cowboys[10] but his favorite sport was...
- Awkward language (heavily waged) Due to the game's low score, opinions were heavily waged that Tuck better deserved the MVP award over Eli Manning.[17][20][21][22][23] I also think it is always better to give specifics - i.e. say who felt that Tuck deserved the MVP.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 14:44 UTC)
[edit] The Secret Agent
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I'm hoping to gain some insight into what needs expanding, or whether this is already on the right lines. My aim is to get this to FA status, but my current object is for it to become a Good Article. With this in mind, does anyone have any comments?
Thanks, Adasta 
18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a book I have not read. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:
In the lead there is a missing word in deals largely with the life of Mr. Verloc and his role as a spy in [place? war?].[1][2][3]
-
- Fixed.--Adasta
21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Adasta
Refs should be in order, so ... with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[4][2] should be ...with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[2][4]
-
- Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Adasta
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre lists many novels that are FA that may be useful models.
- The Plot section seems a bit long / overly detailed. This may be my impression because the Characters section which follows it basically repeats much of it on a character basis - for example is there anything about Mrs. Verloc in Characters that is not in the Plot? Or any of the characters?
- Article is under-referenced - For example these direct quotes In The Secret Agent, she is "the only character who performs a serious act of violence against another", despite the ... and The Times Literary Supplement, that the novel "increase[d] Mr. Conrad's reputation, already of the highest." are uncited. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
-
- Fixed those mentioned, but will look out for any more.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed those mentioned, but will look out for any more.--Adasta
- Adaptations section should not be a bullet list - make it prose instead.
-
- Working on this in the near future!--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Working on this in the near future!--Adasta
- Article could use a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but noticed several typos.
-
- This is due to me trying to type as much as possbile as rapidly as possible. There are certainly typos; a copy edit is required.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is due to me trying to type as much as possbile as rapidly as possible. There are certainly typos; a copy edit is required.--Adasta
- Perhaps there should be a "Post September 11" section, just as there is a Unabomber section?
-
- Might have to get rid of this comment, simply because I don't think enough information will be forthcoming.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Might have to get rid of this comment, simply because I don't think enough information will be forthcoming.--Adasta
- Why do some books have ISBNs and others do not in the Refs?
-
- That was laziness on my part. Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- That was laziness on my part. Fixed.--Adasta
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) You said you wished to go to FA with this, so I reviewed the sources with FAC in mind.
- Per the MOS, you don't want bald links in the footnotes or bibliography. I suggest using {{cite web}} to format your web site references, so that they look uniform and all the needed information is included. Web sites need to give publisher, title and last access date at the very least, and any other information is very helpful.
- The two newspaper article references, I'd use {{cite news}} to format them correctly.
- I did not read the prose, just checked the sourcing as I would have for FAC. 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 18:23 UTC)
[edit] Geography and ecology of the Everglades
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the second satellite article for Everglades. There will be two more, and I would like to bring all satellite articles and the one for Everglades to FA quality… Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Geography and ecology of the Everglades/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 18:15 UTC)
[edit] Aerial refueling
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It is currently rated as a start-class article as I found it, It appears to me to be much much more than this and would like to know if anything should be done before nominating it for a featured article.
Thanks, SyBerWoLff 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, very good pictures. I think it is not ready for FAC as it needs many more referencews and has some other issues - here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC:
- Language tweak - The procedure allows the receiving aircraft to remain airborne longer and, more important[ly], to extend its range ...
- Is it "receiving aircraft" (seems better) or "receiver aircraft" - I would pick one and stick with it
- "carriage" is an uncommon word - the lead should be as accessible as possible
- Avoid jargon by eliminating or expalining it - what is a "take-off roll" in Alternatively, a shorter take-off roll can be achieved ...?
- I would not say "see later" - this is the lead, so the whole article is later - the "probe and drogue" system is to be used (see later).
- The lead should summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that any header should be metioned somehow in the lead, but the history is not, as an example
- Do not use generalities if specifics are given later - for example, why start the history section with Some of the earliest experiments in aerial refueling took place in the 1920s... when two sentences later we read The first mid-air refueling between two planes occurred June 27, 1923, ... and there is a photo of this too. I would start with the "The first..." sentence and use the second phrase on when it was as simple as two slow-flying aircraft flying in formation, with a hose run down from a hand-held fuel tank on one aircraft and placed into the usual fuel filler of the other. on how it was done following that.
- Article is under-referenced - this would be a big problem at FAC. For example the first paragraph of History is uncited, as is the whole Operational air refueling section. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Provide context for the reader - what is the significance of Cobham plc in FRL still exists as part of Cobham plc. See WP:PCR
- There are several one or two sentence paragraphs - these very short paragraphs stop the flow and make the article choppy and should be combined or expanded if possible.
- "Tanker aircraft by refueling system" is very list-y. Would it be possible to make it a separate list article - see WP:Summary style. I think as is, the list would also be a potential problem at FAC.
- Article could use a copyedit
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- As above, the article is sorely lacking in references. I echo Ruhrfisch's comments about what needs referencing, it's good advice.
- What references you have are lacking bibliographical information that is needed per WP:V. The "History of Aviation Part 19 1938" needs a publisher, author, and page number at the very least. I suggest using {{cite book}} and the other {{cite}} templates, which can be found Wikipedia:Citation templates.
- When citing a website, you need to not just put in a bald link to the site, you should format it with a title, and give a publisher and a last access date.
- I didn't read the prose, just looked at the sourcing as I would have at FAC. Nor did I look at pictures, but I did note that one is up for deletion. 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 16:44 UTC)
[edit] Jack Kemp
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed its second WP:FAC. The article is very thorough and well-cited. However, this guy is a Reaganite and Ronald Reagan took 6 WP:FACs and 2 WP:PRs (not to mention 2 WP:GACs to achieve WP:FA. I am not a political scholar, but I imagine some people bring thier own persuasion into the promotion process for political figures. I have felt that at the conclusion of each WP:FAC process, I have substantially addressed the concerns raised, but the reviewers failed to reconsider their opinions in time for the FA promotion. I am not entirely convinced that much needs to be done to the article when I compare its quality to my other 5 successful WP:FAs, but I bring it here on the advice of User:SandyGeorgia.
Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.
(Peer review added on Sunday 4 May 2008, 19:54 UTC)
[edit] Cacua language
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because…i think it should be a featured article.
Thanks, Latinlover-sa (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Since you want it to be a FA, I will make comments based on helping improve it towards a WP:FAC.
- A model article is always useful for ideas on structure, style, etc. I note that there are several language FAs, one of which is Mayan languages and may be a useful model.
- The article as written is quite short and will need to be expanded for FA to be as comprehensive as possible. See WP:WIAFA for all the FA criteria
- The lead of the article needs to a be a concise summary of the whole article, so this will need to be expanded from two sentences to two or three paragraphs (perhaps after the article is expanded). My rule of thumb is that every header should somehow be mentioned in the lead - see WP:LEAD
- For ideas on what to add when expanding, look at the other language FAs. For example there is nothing on Phonology, and Grammar and Literature are combined in one short section.
- This needs a copyedit for spelling (The speakares are located in Wacara...) and to polish the language (Another promising aspect is that even though literacy is low by international standards but still unlike most Indigenous Languages of the Americas literacy is higher in the aboriginal language around 10% as to Spanish, under 5%, the dominant national language of Colombia where all the speakers reported by Ethnologue reside within.[1] - I have almost no idea what this means) - again I would try to clean up some, but expand and then polish
- Any free images possible - pictures of the people who speak it or their villages or houses? An image is required for FA - not sure if the map would count
- Provide context for the reader - what does the Sample text in Cacua (Ded pah jwiít jwĩ jwíih cãac cha pahatji naáwát[5]) mean? Is it a grocery list or a history or a Bible verse? See WP:PCR
- Add more wikilinks - things like Hunter-gatherer etc.
- References need more complete data - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help here.
- SIL is a disambiguation link - please fix it
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It had been very helpful, i continue to work on it, thank you for your suggestions. is there a way to put a check list on the article's talk page? why was it removed from the peer review page? how do i submit this to the league of copyeditors? would you mind if i
strikedyour comments regarding improvements that i have implemented? what if i can't find more information on the article? for instance this language has very few speakers and there is not a lot of info out there about it? is there anywhere i can ask for others to collaborate and help?Latinlover-sa (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- It is OK with me to strike things in this peer review as you address them. It would also be OK to copy my items to the article's talk page. There was a problem with peer review several days ago that has been fixed. I would ask for help at WikiProject Languages or the Colombian Wikiproject (both have boxes on the article's talk page). If you can't find more information, you can't find it, but I think it needs to be expanded and cleaned up to become a FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is OK with me to strike things in this peer review as you address them. It would also be OK to copy my items to the article's talk page. There was a problem with peer review several days ago that has been fixed. I would ask for help at WikiProject Languages or the Colombian Wikiproject (both have boxes on the article's talk page). If you can't find more information, you can't find it, but I think it needs to be expanded and cleaned up to become a FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 4 May 2008, 08:11 UTC)
[edit] Backlash (2003)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA and hopefully FA.
Thanks, ~SRS~ 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Backlash (2003)/archive1.
(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 23:19 UTC)
[edit] Indigenous people of the Everglades region
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.
This article is the first of perhaps four or five satellite articles for the Everglades article that I'm revising. I intend to bring all of them, including Everglades to FA. Please let me know what I need to concentrate on. I appreciate your taking the time to read the article and comment on it. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Indigenous people of the Everglades region/archive1.
(Peer review added on Wednesday 30 April 2008, 22:15 UTC)
[edit] WikiProject peer-reviews
- WikiProject Biography: Charlemagne Tower • John Zorn • James C. Duff • Insane Clown Posse • Jack Kemp • Skip Holtz • Dredg • G. Edward Griffin • Tenacious D • Emmy Noether • Jordanus de Nemore • Johan Arnold Smellekamp • Eros Ramazzotti
- WikiProject Films: Pather Panchali • American Graffiti • Portal:Star Wars • U2 3D • Boarding Gate
- WikiProject Military history: Roman-Persian Wars • Operation Brevity • USS Lenape (ID-2700) • USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) • USS Finland (ID-4543) • USS Mercy (AH-4) • Central Intelligence Agency • 13th Airborne Division (United States) • 17th Airborne Division (US) • Late Roman army • United States Special Operations Command • USS Missouri (BB-63) • Underground nuclear testing • John Emilius Fauquier • 36th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States)
[edit] Archives
- 2008:
- 2007:
- 2006:
- 2005:
- 2004 and older:
