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.

Shortcuts: WP:PR WP:REVIEW The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC. For more information on these limits see here. To add a nomination: Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are: X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.

How to remove a request In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may close any listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, as follows: Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} by {{subst:PR/archive}}. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1). The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions. Current archive: March 2009

How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews. The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead. Please list automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/March 2009 and link them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page. Feel free to improve the article yourself. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Biography peer review Chemistry peer review Chess peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Military history peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Video games peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback: March 15 • Lapitch the Little Shoemaker • MacBook • Four color theorem March 14 • Release the Stars • Robert Rossen • The L Word March 13 • List of number-one albums of 2005 March 12 • Ice hockey at the Olympic Games • List of number-one albums of 2000 (U.S.) March 7 • Inauguration of Barack Obama If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

[edit] Arts

[edit] Lapitch the Little Shoemaker

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It's getting one or more steps closer to B-Class (officially). Ever since I created this, a page on one of my favourite cartoons (and a really obscure one at that—much of America, I swear, still hasn't heard of it despite Disney Channel and Sony Wonder's best efforts!), I have neglected to look after it so much that there's been an incorrect plotline lying in it for many, many months...

Sorry for the very long (but grammatically sensible) sentence.

With that in mind, I now know how much Wikipedia lives up to its logo: it's one giant, complex puzzle we're still trying to fill in and solve.

Any comments? If you're reviewing, leave me feedback especially on the rewritten plot and cast/character sections.

(I really needed to do something like this to boost my now-dwindling edits.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Not a review, yet, but...four redlinks in the lead? Including one (the fourth) that seems inexplicable. Redlinks should be used sparingly, where there is a realistic chance they might prompt an article, and you need to rethink your approach on this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2009, 20:35 UTC)

---

[edit] Release the Stars

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put the article through the Featured Articles process. Before doing so, I'd like feedback to improve the article--spelling, punctuation, grammar, content, context, etc. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks so much! Another Believer _(Talk) 23:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.chartstats.com/index.php
    • http://www.newnownext.com/2007/04/index.html
  • Note that a good number of references are to the site of the performer himself, which might be a concern at FAC from some reviewers. You need to make sure that nothing contentious is sourced there.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was under the impression ChartStats was reliable, as it is listed here as a recommended, reliable resource for obtaining UK chart positions. NewNowNext.com is simply the official blog for the TV channel, Logo--for this article, it is simply to cite the airing of a television program on the network, so hopefully that will be acceptable. Should either reference be questioned during the FA process, I am sure replacements can be found. As for the numerous references to rufuswainwright.com, most of them are used throughout the Tour section, as his site offers a list of past concert dates and news entries about various events and contests associated with the musician. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 23:21 UTC)

---

[edit] Robert Rossen

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's at or near Good Article status and would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 17:40 UTC)

---

[edit] List of number-one albums of 2000 (U.S.)

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Second nomination on 13 March: One nomination a day, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Been notified by Rurhfisch. Check on my talk page. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 March 2009, 08:39 UTC)

---

[edit] List of number-one albums of 2005 (U.S.)

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 March 2009, 08:30 UTC)

---

[edit] U2 3D

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have created this article from scratch and been working on it for almost two years and feel as if it is finally complete. I have finished off the to-do list on the talk page and formatted the article countless times to make it among the best articles on Wikipedia, hoping to get it to FA-status soon. Before nominating it for FA-status, I'd like some feedback from the rest of the community on how I can improve the article at this point.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.jambands.com/
    • http://digitalcontentproducer.com/
    • http://www.zoom-in.com/film-tv/on-the-circuit/on-the-circuit-catherine-owens-u2-3d
    • http://www.filmdetail.com/archives/2008/03/04/interview-catherine-owens-on-u2-3d/
    • http://www.joblo.com/interview-u2-3d-director
    • http://www.movies.ie/html/article.aspx?articleid=1895
    • http://www.thecancerblog.com/2006/03/13/u2-cancer-cause-of-vertigo-06-tour/

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 March 2009, 02:09 UTC)

---

[edit] List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the list to try and aim it to Feature list status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments. I think the important qualities sought for such lists are: notable, comprehensive, reliable (sourced). The current colouring is (imo) tasteful and aids comprehension, the layout clear and tidy. My only suggestion for improvement would be inclusion of a short citation, official or critical, regarding the particular aspect of his performances that were considered decisive in wins, or grounds for nomination. I do hope this "pie in the sky" suggestion can be ignored if it is too much work, but it is the sort of thing that would make me "feel" the list was unquestionably featurable as an example of Wiki's highest standards. Even as it stands, I think the list is an example of excellence. Well done and thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Brianboulton:
  • The lists look thorough and comprehensive, but I wonder why you chose this format, which is basically 30 mini-lists, the vast majority of which contain only one or two items? The information is very bittily presented this way, and it is hard to assess Ledger's career overall, with so many stops and starts. Had you considered a single, chronological listing in which the awarding body appeared as a column in the table? By using the sort facility in wikitables you could then examine the information in different ways; in chronological (date} order, or in blocks by awarding authority if you so wished. I believe that this would result in a much more useful list for the reader, but you may of course have reasons for thinking otherwise.
    • Well, I this is how the list looked before I began fully working on it.
  • The prose in the lead section needs a lot of attention. In the short first paragraph alone I found the following:-
    • Tense inconsistency: it should be "received", not "has received"
      • Done.
    • 16, not sixteen, per MOS
      • Done.
    • "several motion pictures": "several" is weasel - give the number. And "motion picture" sound awfully stilted (would you say "I saw a great motion picture last night"? Why not "films"?
      • Done.
    • Missing word: "...in the Australian crime Two Hands..."
      • Its supposed to be like that, but I added it.
    • What does "respectively" refer to to the end of this sentence?
      • The two categories are way different, but have the same "Best Actor" title in them.
    • "Acknowledged", not "acknowledge"
      • Done, but why is the "A" capitalized?
    • Inconsistency: "...another (singular) AFI and Film Critics Circle nominations (plural)
      • I think I got it.

The pattern of dodgy prose continues in the second paragraph, but I haven't time to pick up all the glitches there. However, it is most important that your lead is well presented. This is what people read before they get to the list itself, and if the lead is carelessly written it will affect their opinion of the list. Sorry I haven't time for more, at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• Ledger's next feature garnered him an Academy Award, British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA), Golden Globe Award, and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, for his performance as Ennis Del Mar in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain. -- feature what?

...film.

• Ledger, however, received recognition from several North American critics' associations, winning the 2005 Las Vegas Film Critics Society, New York Film Critics Circle, Phoenix Film Critics Society, and San Francisco Film Critics Circle awards, all in the category for Best Actor. -- the however is out of place since this sentence and the last one are about related topics, so it should be something like In addition or Ledger also

• • • Done.

• In 2006 he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, in which Ledger received three Best Actor award nominations, including an AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film. -- (1)Comma after 2006 (2)at the end it should state either award or nomination

• • • Done, but for the second one, its already stated that he received award nominations, not wins.

• Posthumously he shared the 2007 Independent Spirit Robert Altman Award with the rest of the ensemble cast for the 2007 biographical film, I'm Not There. -- (1)Comma after posthumously (2)Remove the comma before the name of the film

Done.

• His wins include an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, a Best Actor International Award at the 2008 AFI Awards ceremony, for which he became the first actor to win an award posthumously, and the 2009 BAFTA, Golden Globe, and Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture -- there is too much inconsistency with the name of the awards, some say "Won Award A at the 55th annual ceremony" others say "won Award B" other say "won Award C" Be consistent, because "and the 2009 BAFTA" is much different than "a BAFTA in 2009" (2)The part of and the 2009 BAFTA should be split with a semi-colon or into a new sentence

I think I got it.

• As of March 2009, Ledger has been nominated for 54 awards, and has won 33 awards. -- this should be at the end of the last paragraph, not by itself

See List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock Never mind.

Tables

• I'm not sure about the formatting, where did you get it from because I've reckon to see an FLC with this format.

Um, due to the fact that the ToC was long, the script suggested to make the content shorter, so I saw List of awards and nominations received by Christopher Walken and went with that format. If the format is wrong, I worked on this one; would that work? The only FL that I saw as an example was Judy Garland's, but that really didn't help.

--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I got your comments. If there's more, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• In 2006, he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, in which Ledger received three Best Actor award nominations, including an AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film. -- I don't think its proper to state these in this context. I don't think its proper like "a grammy" vs. "a Inside Film"
  • Do you have a suggestion?

• Add award somewhere in the sentence to make it clear that they are awards. Like I said a Grammy is different and sounds proper than a Inside Film--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hope I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, I like the one in your sandbox a lot better, as it is the most recent common one that has come to FLC. I would just keep your old format handy just in case.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I placed the table in the list, hope its alright. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with commentors above that Bluey can do better than Christopher Walken with a sortable table something like the following. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Year	Film	Category	Result	Awarding body
2006	Brokeback Mountain	Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role	Nominated	Academy Awards
2009	The Dark Knight	Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role	Won (posthumously)	Academy Awards
1999	Two Hands	Best Lead Actor	Nominated	Australian Film Institute Awards
2003	Ned Kelly	Best Lead Actor	Nominated	Australian Film Institute Awards
2005	Brokeback Mountain	Best International Actor	Won	Australian Film Institute Awards
2005	Brokeback Mountain	Reader's Choice Award for Best Actor	Won	Australian Film Institute Awards
2006	Candy	Best Lead Actor	Nominated	Australian Film Institute Awards
2008	The Dark Knight	Best International Actor	Won (posthumously)	Australian Film Institute Awards
2008	The Dark Knight	Best Supporting Actor	Won (posthumously)	Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
2008	Posthumously honoured for his contribution to the Australian film industry.	Chauvel Award	Won (posthumously)	Brisbane International Film Festival Awards
2006	Brokeback Mountain	Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role	Nominated	British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA)
2009	The Dark Knight	Best Actor in a Supporting Role	Won (posthumously)	British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA)

I also like this format.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can work this out in my sandbox. Though, I'm not so sure if the actual awards should be the last category from the table. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust your judgment in ordering the columns Blue, mate. I think the only two suggested minor improvements over the Christopher Walken model are: 1. only one single table; and 2. sortable columns, so Awards and Years can be grouped by a reader depending on interest. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't create list Christopher Walken list, someone else did, and I have no intentions on working on it. But, that would be suitable for the user who wants to fully expand the list. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have a little comment Blue. "in the categories for Best Actor, respectively" I think respectively has no use here? The sentence mentions only one category. --Efe (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Like I said, in another discussion, I was "experimenting" with the lead, that's why "respectively" was added. But, I've removed it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Monday 9 March 2009, 19:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Billie Jean

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

• 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 March 2009.

I'm hoping to take this article to Featured Status and feel that a peer review is needed first. I welcome a thorough review to iron out any problems this article may have.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 11:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, cheers. Pyrrhus16 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Wow, great work on this! You clearly did a lot of research and a lot of great information is presented here. Below I list some individual issues and a couple problem areas that should be addressed before considering FAC. I would strongly recommend getting a fresh copyeditor to go through it as well and smooth out any remaining prose issues once you make these fixes.

• I think the fair use rationales for the video still and the moonwalk photo are somewhat weak; these may give you trouble at FAC. Remember, the image has to be the subject of critical commentary in the article and the fair use rationale should make a strong statement to that effect. You might need more than the short text you have there now.
• "Originally disliked by Jones, the track was almost removed from the album after he and Jackson fell out." This doesn't provide any context. The reader will not have the background information to understand this. It might be better to say, "after he and Jackson had a falling out"
• "The dance-pop R&B song was mixed 91 times by Bruce Swedien before the final product was decided upon, and showcased Jackson's vocal range." These are a little too unrelated to share a sentence.. consider splitting them up.
• "... the song and music video propelled the sales of Thriller, becoming the best-selling album of all time." As written, the song became the best-selling album of all time. Requires revision for clarity.
• The third paragraph is a bit sensational in its language. We need to find ways to underscore the importance of this song without sounding like Michael Jackson fans, if that makes sense.
• "Covered and sampled by modern artists, including a 2008 remix by Kanye West ..." Needs revision.. as written, "remix" is an example of a "modern artist". Could be corrected and simplified by writing just "including Kanye West"
• "Due to the stress, the singer suffered from nightmares." The stress of receiving all the letters? Can we explain a bit more about how he went from ignoring the letters to being stressed about it? Didn't he have people filtering his mail for him?
• "To his mother's dismay, Jackson had the photograph framed and hung above the dining room table." At Jackson's own house? Or did he live with his family?
• I think "metal asylum" may not be the correct term. I think you want "psychiatric hospital" since the link redirects there.
• "With his female fan in mind, Jackson wrote "Billie Jean", and Jackson later stated ..." You can probably drop the latter "Jackson".
• Attention is needed to punctuation in quotations; please see Wikipedia:Mos#Quotation_marks. The ending punctuation should be inside the quote if it is part of the sentence. Otherwise, it should be outside.
• "... and didn't care for the song's bass." Need more clarity here. The song's "bass" won't mean the same thing to all people. Bass line? Amount of bass in the mix? Etc.
• "Jones granted neither and the two fell out for a period of time." We can be more precise than "a period of time".
• "The mixer was also told ..." The "mixer" usually refers to the piece of equipment. I'd prefer that you use his name or refer to him as an "audio engineer".
• "It opens with a drum beat; kick, snare and hi-hat, containing hardly any reverberation." This is an incorrect use of semicolon. You've done it more than once in the article. A semicolon indicates the start of a related sentence, so the content after the semicolon should be a complete sentence. You probably want a colon here. Please check for this throughout.
• "This is followed by a repetitive three-note synth, played staccato with a deep reverb." Avoid beginning sentences with "This", referring to a previous concept. Restate the concept (i.e. "This <noun> is ...")
• "The defining 1m-2m-flat-3-2m" What does this mean? 1m?
• "In the verses of "Billie Jean", the singer's vocals range from a tenor to a low falsetto." You've just explained that Jackson writes songs to showcase his range and then said "Billie Jean" does not cover his range; however, you give no reason for this disparity.
• "The chorus is tied to a four note falsetto and only in the last line does Jackson peak at a full octave." This doesn't make a lot of sense.. how is the chorus "tied to" a falsetto? Peak at a full octave relative to what?
• "Following the two sharp repeats of 'do think twice', at the end of the third verse, a cello-like synth cuts the chords of the fourth verse. Upon hearing that the baby's eyes resembles Jackson's, a voice laments, 'oh no'. This is met with Jackson's signature falsetto 'hee hee'." Perhaps too much detail. Attention needed to capitalization and punctuation of quotations.
• "The bridge debuts the strings, holding a pedal tone with the exception of two lines and a chord leading into the chorus." Strings can't produce pedal tones, so I'm not sure what this means; the rest of the sentence doesn't make sense at all.
• The whole Composition section doesn't seem to have been written with a keen understanding of the musical concepts. As such, most of the meaning has been lost through paraphrasing and incorrect terminology. Someone who understands the musical concepts being discussed needs to audit the text against the sources used.
• "December 1, 1982, saw the commercially successful release of Thriller, in time for Christmas shoppers." Please revise to remove the anthropomorphism. The ending clause is quite culture-exclusive.
• "The short film for Jackson's 'Billie Jean' is considered the video that brought MTV, a relatively unknown music channel, to mainstream attention." What is the source for this? I've read many opposing opinions of this statement and you'll need a reliable source other than a Jackson biography.
• "It was the first video by a black artist to be aired by the channel, as they felt black music wasn't "rock" enough." Ditto above. Need a better source.
• "Wearing a black leather suit with pink shirt and bow tie, Jackson's look was copied by children around the country." Badly written. Perhaps, "Jackson's look, a black leather suit with a pink shirt and bow tie, was copied by children around the country." Also, what country? I never saw a kid dressed like that.
• "The imitation was so severe that Bound Brook High School banned pupils from wearing single white gloves; this was met with pupil protests." You didn't mention a white glove previously. And why is this example relevant to the article? Also, another "this" problem similar to above.
• "MTV initially refused to play "Billie Jean" as they felt black music wasn't "rock" enough." You've already used almost this exact sentence above.
• "March 25, 1983, saw Jackson ..." More anthropomorphism.

--Laser brain (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 11:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Para Siempre

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want a second opinion about it. It is already listed as a Good Article, but I want to take it to FA status.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I did some minor copyediting, but the article could use a complete run-through by a skilled copyeditor. Here are a few other suggestions.

Lead

• "Written and produced by Joan Sebastian, the album is one of the most successful mariachi records in recent times; it has sold over a million copies worldwide, receiving a gold certification in United States by the Recording Industry Association of America and a diamond accreditation in México by the Association of Producers of Phonograms and Videograms, becoming the biggest selling album by Fernández on this decade and also the responsible of bringing Mariachi music to a younger audience." - Too complex. Suggestion: Make two shorter sentences out of this one.

Album history

• "according to Fernández's record label" - Wikilink record label on first use? - FIXED
• "According to Fernández, the album was originally conceived as a banda album, and would be the first time that he records original music by Sebastian" - "was the first time that he recorded" instead of "would be the first time he records" since it already happened? - FIXED
• "before this, in 1993, he included a cover of a song written by Sebastian titled "Verdad Que Duele" ("It Hurts") on his album Lástima Que Seas Ajena." - "Cover" is jargon that not all readers will understand. Maybe a brief in-text explanation would help. Or maybe linking to cover version would do it. - FIXED
• "Vicente was not pleased" - Fernández rather than Vicente. - FIXED
• "Vicente was not pleased with the idea of trading his classic mariachi style for banda, but accepted to record with Sebastian" - "he agreed" rather than "he accepted"? - FIXED

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Efe comments

• "in recent times" in the next decade, this will be outdated or confusing. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• "It has sold over a million copies worldwide, receiving a gold certification in" for those who are not aware how the certification goes or how much sales for the album to earn gold certification. The sentence implies that because of the one million sales, it has received gold certification in the US. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Inconsistent use of capitalization: "mariachi records" and "Mariachi music". --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Three of the album's singles reached the Top Ten on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota", and the title track" Dangling modifier? Seems like that the three tracks are charts. Perhaps a little reword or arrangement. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• For the release dates, only the earliest should be included in the infobox per WP:ALBUMS. The rest goes to the prose. --Efe (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Para Siempre is the 79th album by Vicente Fernández; it was released in September 2007 in several countries." I think could be removed off the first section. --Efe (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• "to record songs with banda" perhaps change with to in or "to record banda songs". --Efe (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• "About the recording, Fernández told" told whom? Perhaps change told to said or any synonyms of that word. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop here. I have exams. If this don't get archived in the next week, perhaps I'll continue reading the article. Generally, its good, and as I have said, very neat. I hope these comments help you in improving the article. Good luck on FAC. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 04:33 UTC)

---

[edit] Papa Don't Preach

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because, it had recently passed its GA nomination, and the reviewer thinks that it could become a featured article. I believe it have the potential since all the major aspects are covered and most of the references are reliable if not all of them. My biggest concern is the prose and grammar, since one of the requirements is that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". English is not my first language so is a little difficult for me to see the mistakes. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
• What makes Berger, Arthur Asa (2002). The Art of the Seductress: Techniques of the Great Seductresses from Biblical Times to the Postmodern Era. iUniverse. ISBN 0595230776 a reliable source? iUniverse is a self-pubishing company.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Smallman12q (talk · contribs)

• Its very well sourced, has pictures in a number of sections, and doesn't appear to have an edit wars going on. Seems ready for FA review.
• My only comment is that it seems that more projects could be applicable...but I'm not quite sure which. Good luck with the FA review!Smallman12q (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article and an enjoyable read. It still needs a bit of polish. I did some light copyediting as I went, and I have further suggestions for improvement, as follows:

Lead

• Wikilink remixed for readers unfamiliar with the jargon?
• "The song was released as the album's second single in mid-1986, and was a commercial success, becoming Madonna's fourth number-one on the Billboard Hot 100, also performing well internationally, reaching the top position in Australia and the United Kingdom." - Probably too complex. It might be better to subdivide. Suggestion: "Released as the album's second single in mid-1986, the song was a commercial success. It became Madonna's fourth number-one on the Billboard Hot 100 and performed well internationally, reaching the top position in Australia and the United Kingdom."

Music and lyrics

• "a moderate tempo of 116 beats per minute. The song is written in the key of F minor, an unusual choice for a pop song, as it is commonly used in classical music, like Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. This inclusion produce a combination between pop and classical rhythms, which is clearly underlined by the instrumentation during the song's introduction." - I found this a bit confusing. The tempo, it seems to me, might contribute to something between pop and classical rhythms, but the key would have nothing to do with the rhythms. Or am I wrong? Maybe something like this would be better: "a moderate tempo of 116 beats per minute. The tempo helped produce a combination of rhythms somewhere between pop and classical, which is clearly expressed by the instrumentation during the song's introduction. In addition, the song was written in the key of F minor, an unusual choice for a pop song, but common in classical music such as Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata." Or something like that.
• "Lyrically the song shows Madonna's interest at the time in her Roman Catholic upbringing" - Delete "at the time"?
• "as the song theme is about a teenage girl who admits to her father that she is pregnant, and that she refuses to have an abortion or give up the baby" - Not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "... who admits to her father that she is pregnant and refuses to have an abortion or give up the baby"
• "despite of what her friends are telling her to do" - Delete "of"?

Reception

• ""if there is a problem with the album, is the lack of outstanding songs" - Is the word "it" missing from the quote?

Music video

• "Alternating it with shots of a sexier Madonna with a more toned and muscular body, cropped platinum blonde hair, and a figure-revealing clothing, consisting of a 1960s-style black bustier top and capri pants." - This sentence lacks a verb. Suggestion: "The video alternated between tomboy shots and those of a sexier Madonna with a more toned and muscular body, cropped platinum blonde hair, and figure-revealing clothing, consisting of a 1960s-style black bustier top and capri pants."
• "and the photography was in charge of Michael Ballhaus" - Doubtful. How about "and Michael Ballhaus was in charge of the photography"?

Cover versions

• "The song has been sampled at the beginning of Mario Winans' 2004 single 'Never Really Was', and a slowed down version samples Keshia Chante's 2006 single 'Fallen'." - The last part of this doesn't seem to make sense. Doesn't the Chante single sample the Madonna song? Pehaps "... a slowed-down version by Keshia Chante samples the song in the 2006 single, 'Fallen'... "?

Formats and track listing

• The Manual of Style advises against using bold letters except in the first line of the lead for the article title and in the section heads. I think that the bolding of "7" Single" and the other items in this section should be in regular type.

Images

• The second and third image, especially the second, would be better if positioned on the right so that Madonna looks into the page rather than out. The reader's eyes will follow Madonna's.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 March 2009, 21:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Nancy Cartwright

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

The article is now a GA and I would like to take it to FAC eventually, so all comments and input are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article. I think it's ready for FAC after only slight buffing. Here are a few suggestions, all fairly minor.

Infobox and lead

• I wondered where she got her middle name, Campbell.
  • Good question, I don't know, I haven't found any sources that mention it.

Lead

• Cartwright continued to audition for voice-over and live-action roles" - Wikilink voice-over on first use?
  • I don't know if it's needed because Voice acting is already linked. I can add it though.
• "For her work as Bart, Cartwright would receive a Primetime Emmy Award" - "Received" rather than "would receive"?
  • Fixed. That tends to be one of my more persistent writing problems: I use would a lot.

Early life

• "the daughter of Frank and Miriam" - I believe I'd include the last name, Cartwright, here as well as the first names.
  • It wasn't included before because of redundancy (the name Cartwright is already in the sentence) but I added it.

Early career

• "For several months she unsuccessfully tried to secure the rights the film" - Missing word? "to the film"?
  • Done.

The Simpsons

• "The show featured shorts as bumpers, and aired between sketches." - I find this sentence puzzling. I know what shorts are but not bumpers. Perhaps a wikilink or a brief in-text explanation would help make this more clear.
  • Wow, that sentence is confusing. What was I thinking when I wrote it? Is it better?

Yep. Finetooth (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Matt Groening let her try out for the part instead" - Delete "instead"?
  • Done.

Personal life

• "She recalls that she joined because she was depressed that she did not have a 'committed relationship,' and wanted to get married and have children." - Something seems wrong with the chronology here. The article says she joined in 1989 but met Warren in 1988 on her birthday (October) and married him two months later (December). Am I misreading these numbers?
  • That's the chronology as given in the sources. I think what it means is that she discovered scientology, met her husband, THEN joined the church. I've tried rewording it and switched it to "She recalls that before joining"

Images

• These seem fine, especially her mug shots, and the licenses look OK to me unless the star is considered a separate work of art protected by its own copyright (as distinct from the photographer's copyright). I doubt that it is, but copyright law is full of surprises.
  • The star is used in several FAs and has been looked over by several experts, so I think it's okay.

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

They definitely were helpful. Thanks a lot! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

I agree with the above: Very nice work on this article. I apologize for the extreme delay in getting to this. I have done some copyediting, and while the following is not a completely thorough peer review (I feel that the structures and the research are generally quite solid), I do have some questions and comments:

• Nancy Cartwright was born in Dayton, Ohio, on October 25, 1957, the daughter of Frank and Miriam Cartwright and the fourth of six children. I'd like to reword this: "Nancy Cartwright was born in Dayton, Ohio, on October 25, 1957, the fourth of six children. Her parents, Frank and Miriam Cartwright, were..." but I'll need some info about her parents. I assume there is some in her autobiography?
  • Actually, her parents are barely even mentioned in the book. Their names aren't even mentioned in it (but were in an interview she did).
    • Okay, I changed it to: "the fourth of six children born to Frank and Miriam Cartwright". Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• What was her scholarship for?
  • Public speaking I'd assume. This is the exact passage that she mentions it in: "I ended up placing first in the National District Tournament for two years in a row. This had never been done before and I was awarded with a scholarship from the host of the competition, Ohio University."
    • Okay, I guess we'll have to leave it. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• For future reference: If the quote isn't a complete sentence, then the final punctuation goes outside the quote mark. (Cartwright described Butler as "absolutely amazing, always encouraging, [and] always polite".)
  • Okay, it's confusing because different reviewers tell you different things (one of my English teachers once told me periods always goes before quotation marks).
    • Well, for Wikipedia consult this section of the MOS. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The bit about her leaving the building during her audition for Cheers is confusing. What did that have to do with her getting the part?
  • Nothing really, it's just an anecdote in her book where she says she decided to try something different (leaving during an audition) and it worked. This is the passage: "I got a call to audition for Cheers. At the end of the audition piece, my character turns and says one more line before exiting the bar, and I couldn't resist. With a roomful of producers, assistants, casting directors and writers, I turned, said my line and walked right out the door. That in itself wasn't so surprising, but the fact that I kept on going totally threw everyone for a loop. By the time I got home, my phone was ringing and I was cast."
    • Okay, I changed it to: "Cartwright decided to take a chance on being different, and continued walking out of the building. The production crew was confused, but she received the part." Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cartwright describes Bart's voice as easy to perform compared to other characters. This sentence had an errant quotation mark at the end, with no clear corresponding mark at the start. You should check and see if some part of it is a direct quote — and if so, enclose it in quote marks.
  • I think there used to be a quotation there (something along the lines of "he's the easiest voice I do") but it was removed.

• Could we get some more commentary about her autobiography? Were there any exciting revelations? Surely there were some positive reviews? What did fans of the show think?
  • It's actually a pretty boring book with nothing really exciting or controversial. There were some positive reviews, which I added to its page (My Life as a Ten-Year-Old Boy)
    • I think some of the info from that article could be expanded, with 1-2 tidbits thrown into her bio article. How about a quote from the section on finding out about Phil Hartman? Or something from the final chapter? Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • What I meant was that there were some reviews in that article, and if there were any comments you thought were useful, you could just copy them here. I did add a positive review and I could probably throw in a quote from the final chapter. Is there anything else from the book that could be added? -- ScorpionO'422 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Further career" is an odd title for a section heading. What about "Other activities" or "Later career"?
  • I don't know, because "later" insinuates that it happened after The Simpsons, and "other activities" suggests things not relating to her career.
    • I still prefer "other activities" (I don't see it as removed from her career), but it's not a big deal for me. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• One of the source titles is "Bart Simpson is spruiking Scientology". Is this word "spruiking" correct?
  • Yep (don't ask me what it means though, I have no idea).

Again: Nice work on this article, and good luck with the plans to move it ahead on the path to FA. Scartol • Tok 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully things will go smoothly. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2009, 15:55 UTC)

---

[edit] Gary Cooper filmography

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it gives a thorough analysis of Gary Cooper's cinematic credits. Cooper is generally regarded as a superstar of the "golden age" of movies so he is therefore a subject worthy of a featured list.

I would like to know what can be done to bring this up to featured list status. Should the introductory section be changed in any way? Is the article too cluttered with infomation? (i.e. directors, co-stars, etc.)

Please advise.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems nicely done overall, although I am concerned about the reliability and use of references. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• As noted, my main concern is with refs. My understanding is that IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source (if this has changed, my apologies). My guess is that the Dickens book The Films of Gary Cooper would have all of the films in it.
• 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. Is the Silent Era website a reliable source?
• It is also not clear from the tables themselves what is the primary source for each. For example, what is the source of the TV appearances table? I think it is fine to have one ref for a whole table.
• The lead is well done, would it be possible to list the total number of films by decade there or in brief intros to each section (sort of like is done for his extras)?
• I once had a FL where it was requested that the tables be made the smae width to look better - not sure if this would still be an issue
• I think the directors, co-stars, etc. info seems OK.

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 _><>°^° 05:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2009, 22:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Anime

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core topic of WikiProject Anime and manga and it has been over two years since its last nomination for a Good Article. Would like to know what issues the article still has, what the article lacks, and how it can be improved so that it can obtain Featured Article status.

Featured articles

• it:Anime
• ka:Anime
• ru:Anime

Thanks, Farix (Talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

From someone that did not has English a native language and doesn't live in an English speaking country.

• Chara design section: Indeed, through Ribbon no Kishi, Tezuka set a stylistic template that later shōjo artists tended to follow.

  Not sourced, indeed and tended fell like loose screws, and by shōjo artists does it refers to manga artists or anime artists ? Blow this sentence if it cant be clarified and sourced.

• Distribution section: Need some update to take account of the legal streaming and Download To Own (DoT) service. Most notably the Crunchyroll deals with Gonzo, TV Tokyo, Viz Media, etc... ANN doing anime streaming too. Funimation (DoT) service on itune.

That all from a first succinct reading. --KrebMarkt 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well those neutrality and expert tags seem like the first things to fix..... Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be my slowness, but I was confused by the statement: Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries as early commercially successful western adaptations of anime, such as Astro Boy, have revealed. Maybe it can be slightly changed to Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries, as revealed by early commercially successful western adaptations of anime, such as Astro Boy. Or is that a bit clumsy? That's the only problem I've spotted so far. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no copyeditor, but the second 'commercially' just seems redundant. Although the entire sentence just seems completely wrong. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Another rewrite: Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries, as seen in the success of early western adaptations of anime like Astro Boy. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better, although searching the reference used to back up the original text doesn't reveal a direct link between the two. Was Astro Boy a key product? Highly likely. Was it commercially successfull? This needs proving. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The available literature on anime needs to be re-surveyed, all references need to be checked for their reliability, and all the references from books need page numbers. The summary style of History of anime and the relevant section in this article need to be checked. It's difficult to be sure that the coverage is broad enough when you're dealing with a topic that by its nature is very broad. --Malkinann (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the expert tag is still requesting anymore even after reading the talk page...Just better selection of images?じんない 22:26, 3 March 2009 (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. 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• That is a tiny lead. Needs to be expanded to cover the scope of the article and I can't shake the feeling that this isn't close to comprehensive. This article really would benefit from an expert with an exhaustive store of literature on anime. Also, the "art example" images need to go. Although they're only in two images, they combine for sixteen pieces of fair use images, which is way, way too much for any article. Pick one, maybe two tops as your art choice and go with it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2009, 19:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Brad Pitt

Previous peer review

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 February 2009, 21:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Don't Ask, Don't Tell (Roseanne)

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to if not at GA status and would like it reviewed with an eye to a GA listing.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Hornoir

1. Change the infobox image description from "Sharon plants a kiss on Roseanne." to something more professional sounding. Try: "Sharon (Mariel Hemingway) kisses a surprised Roseanne Conner (Roseanne Barr)."
2. Your lead needs tightening. The same information could be divulged as:
   "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the 18th episode in the sixth season of the American situation comedy series Roseanne, premiered on ABC on March 1, 1994. The episode was written by James Berg and Stan Zimmerman, and directed by Philip Charles MacKenzie. It portrays the titular character's visit to a gay bar."
3. Avoid biased or ambiguous words like "enormous" (first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead).
4. The second sentence of the lead derails from the subject and goes into general lesbian-kiss episode information which has no bearing on this article.
5. The plot section needs expansion, it is far too uninformative.
6. Split up the Reception and controversy section into Production, Broadcast, and Reception sections. These section will require some information that does not simply concern the kiss. Also, roughly half the information currently in this section has no bearing on this episode; it concerns other shows that have had homosexual aspects and has no real reason for being presented herein.

Overall, too much time is spent detailing the controversial kiss as opposed to informing the reader about the episode. While I concur that the kiss is an important aspect to detail, it should not the focal point of the article (which should be the episode itself). hornoir (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Yobmod

• I don't think the notes & references system is needed. " of the refs are only used once, and the other only twice. Simply listing the whole ref after the citation is more compact and efficient.
• Somewhat agree with above comments that the controversy seems large in proportion to the rest. Contorvery may eb the reason it is notable, but once notability is established, complete coverage is iseal. However, the only things i can think to write about are production, and broadcasting (some is already there, is there enough to expand this to a section?: about who showed it or didn't show it, timeslots, repeats, any cuts made for earlier repeats? eg. Rosanne was shown in evenings and afternoon in the UK, no idea if the content differed though etc). Maybe a small increase in the plot - what was going on in the episode overall, and with the pother characters in the familly? YobMod 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 February 2009, 16:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

Previous peer review

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed six FA nominations in spite of overwhelming support and only minimal changes required.

Thanks, Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Bakshi

[edit] Comments by Carcharoth

A few brief comments (will take a closer look later):

• Peer review archiving is messed up: see my comment here.
  • Resolved - this was a misunderstanding on may part.
• Please link to the six failed FAC nominations.
  • I found the links at the most recent FAC nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive6.
• Is Ralph_Bakshi#Filmography the normal approach? Is it not normal to at least have a summary?
  • I see MSJapan removed the previously existing summary in this edit. Will ask them about this.

Will add more as I read the article and copyedit it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It has its own article (which is tagged in that section), and Bakshi's major films are mentioned within the article already, so a summary is a bit redundant at that point in the article. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I'd personally look at how other "film director" articles handle this issue. It currently looks a bit silly as a section with a main article link and nothing else. I'd put it as a "see also" or remove altogether (it is linked from the template, isn't it?). Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

• Additional review found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Bakshi. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay. I've found time to look in more detail at the section dealing with the Lord of the Rings film that Bakshi did, and one thought I had was that something of the later comments made by Bakshi about other films (he did some interviews around the time of the Jackson films) could maybe be incorporated somehow? That might help balance things out a bit and give some insight into Bakshi's views over time. Not much else to add, as the article looks pretty good. My advice would be to go through all the reviews and make a detailed summary of the objections and either work out a way to address the objections, or explain clearly why you think the objections are not valid. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 February 2009, 05:28 UTC)

---

[edit] Dexter (episode)

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

• 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 February 2009.

Cornucopia and I (and 97198) have worked on this article over the last few weeks, and it was just promoted to GA status. I think that it has a really good chance of becoming a FA, but it needs some more polishing before it is taken to FAC, and any comments on how to further approve this article would be great.

Thanks, --Music26/11 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 20 February 2009, 21:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] Katsura Hoshino

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to GA, but I can't find a good model. It probably needs a copy-edit and an expansion on the influences and biography section. By the way, the character design image is under works because its longer than the influences section right now.

Thanks, ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 05:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've added a Style section. I don't really know if it's focused enough. It felt like writing a reception section for a series. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• A published biography, if one can be found as a source, would be most helpful here. As it is, the article relies heavily on the manga itself, and it's hard for me to tell fact from fiction. I gather that much of the autobiography and other information is coming from the manga series. It would be really good to add more information from magazines and newspaper articles and reviews if you can find any. Here are just a few other suggestions.
  • I'll see what more I can dig up. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Choppy prose, passive voice

• The prose is choppy in several places because the sentence pattern is unvaried. The sentences are short, and many use passive voice rather than active. Here's an example: "An anime adaptation, directed by Nabeshima Osamu and produced by Dentsu, was aired from October 2006 to September 2008. An English language release is licensed by Funimation. The first thirteen episodes of the anime are set for a DVD release in March 2009. Two novels, commonly named D.Gray-man Reverse, have been written by Kaya Kizaki. Two video games and a trading card game, all developed by Konami, have also been released." A few small adjustments would improve the flow and keep readers interested. Something like this: "An anime adaptation, directed by Nabeshima Osamu and produced by Dentsu, was aired from October 2006 to September 2008. Funimation licensed an English language version, the first thirteen episodes of which are set for DVD release in March 2009. Based on Hoshino's work, Kaya Kizaki has written two novels, commonly named D.Gray-man Reverse, and Konami has developed two video games and a trading card game."
  • I've attempted to fix it. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "She made her debut in July 2003 with the publication of her manga Continue and is known for her current work, D.Gray-man (ディーグレイマン ,Dī Gureiman?), which began serialization in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump in May 2004." - Delete "current"?
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• "including an anime series and two novel adaptations" - Wikilink anime?
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The series has picked up attention in North America" - "gained" rather than "picked up"?
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography

• "Growing up, she liked to draw and drew manga every day to please her sister. She drew her first manga at twenty-one." - These two sentences contradict each other.
  • To be honest, the first sentence isn't cited by the citation at the end. The second is. I'm removing the first since I can't verify. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Initially, they only fought with each other." - Even though this is sourced, I would not use it in the biography of a living person. On the face of it, it is not true. They could not possibly "only" fight with each other.
  • Removed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tintor2 comments, not much that I can say but here are my few suggestions:

• Per WP: Lead the lead does not need references since it is all cited in the sections from the article.
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Living people, some of which include unnamed famous scientists, her editor, Aleister Crowley, and Yūsuke Santamaria, as well as the Tim Campi Design silver accessory brand, serve as models for various characters." has too many references, it would be better to reduce them.Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Broke it up into two sentences. Instead of one sentence and five refs, it's now two sentences, three and two refs. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 March 2009, 05:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Truce terms

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because It is a relatively discreet and minor topic and I have utilised all the sources I can find. I would hope to pursue GA and possibly even FA later. If anybody is aware of any other sources, particularly relating to other countries I'd be deleriously happy. Thanks, Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic!

Glad you like it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would imagine that there is a little bit more research on this area, but I am only familiar with the English language tradition. I did manage to find the following article on Google Scholar.

• Herbert and Mary Knapp, Tradition and Change in American Playground Language, Journal of American Folklore 86.340 (Apr - June 1973): 131-141.

Thanks! I missed this one. What I would really like to find is a) more up-to-date research (the only really recent stuff I've found is antipodean) and b) anything from non-British derived cultures, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia etc. I did contact an author of a recent book on Playground Lore but she hadn't included anything on truce terms. She was going to look back through her research material for me though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to find that material. If you know other languages, perhaps you could leave messages on other language wikis? Awadewit (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• In general, I think that the article could use some copyediting to clarify and condense. Here are some examples:

• Examples of use are if a child has a stitch or wants to raise a point on the rules of the game. - I think this sentence is a bit unclear. The reader expects the second sentence of the article to have examples of the phrases, whereas this sentence gives examples of when such phrases are used. Rewording this sentence would make it clearer.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Traditionally these terms are specific to certain geographical areas although some are group words. - I'm not sure the contrast "although some are group words" is meant to convey.

Done. It means social group - ie posh kids.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The lead switches between referring to "truce terms" in the plural and singular - it is confusing to the reader. I would suggest sticking with either "truce terms" or "truce term".

Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Recorded incidents of use of truce terms are - I think it could be made clearer to the reader that these are instances in which truce terms are used.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Recorded incidents of use of truce terms are; being out of breath, a stitch, undone shoelace, fear of clothes being damaged, needing to go to the lavatory, checking the time, wanting to discuss or clarify rules during a fight or game, or when one combatant wants to remove their spectacles or jacket before continuing. - This list should be constructed as a parallelism (grammar).

I've tried this but grammar is not my strong point. Can you give me an example? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a list and the grammar of each phrase needs to match all of the others. So, for example, "being out of breath" is not "parallel to" or the same as "a stitch". "Being" is verbal phrase (beginning with a verbal participle) while "a stitch" is a noun phrase. "Being out of breath", "needing to go to the lavatory", "checking the time", and "wanting to discuss or clarify the rules during a fight or game" all match (-ing verbs). The entire sentence needs to be rewritten so that all of the phrases have the same grammatical. Does that help? Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Aah. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The southern boundary of the Danelaw (to the north of London) is marked by the speech of young children of which vainites is a surviving example. - I found this sentence a bit confusing.

Done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Truce terms are described by Peter Trudgill in Dialects of England as being particularly rich in regional variation as they are not based on official or television culture - Are there any specific examples you could give the reader?

I've put it with the Opie bit where they explain about regional variations and give examples of the etymology. Is this OK? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved again to 'post opie' bit.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would add a citation for each word's entry. Generally, at least each paragraph needs a citation.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is recorded specifically as a term used to demand truce by children in Jamieson's 1808 Scottish Dictionary. - Do we have a first name for Jamieson? Check throughout the article that all people are mentioned by first and last name and given a brief descriptor in the text.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've added two images to the article to brighten it up a bit. I tried to choose images that were appropriate. Feel free to remove or replace them if you think they don't work well.

Thanks very much. It would be difficult to find a picture specifically illustrating use of a truce term. What would be nice would be to be able to reproduce one of the Opies maps. They did several.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch might be able to help you out with out - he makes maps. Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "Thoume" (thumb) that is "sklyss" (sliced) in the quote above may refer to the thumb having been raised by the man calling barlafummill - Some readers may not read all of the sections, so "the quote above" may not make sense to them.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd always assumed barley came from Parley, especially as the Scots and French were always in cahoots. It seems a bit too much of a coincidence to have two almost identical words meaning "truce" but I can't find a source to this effect. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 March 2009, 12:37 UTC)

---

[edit] Love Hina

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is more or less complete. It is well referenced with reliable sources, although the article still needs a copyedit. I am unsure if the Anime difference section is currently suitable, so haven't yet tagged the for a copyedit. However, I believe that only minor cleanup will be needed, rather then any major grammatical rewrites. The aim is for the article to be submitted as a Good Article Nominee in the near future, depending on any issues raised. However, if you have any suggestions that will be of use for a potential Featured Article attempt at a later date, I am happy to try and accomodate them

Thanks, Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)
Just some quick comments about your references.

• Ref 19 should be retyped out.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 22, 23, and 23 have no publisher, retrieved date, etc. info.

I Will look into replacing these as I have concerns over the use of the sites in question. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Had to settle for Amazon as I couldn't find any reliable sources elsewhere. Also removed a claim supported by a unreliable reference. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 30 can link to Oricon.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 32, 33, 38, 42, 48, 82 have messed up titles because you used ]. Change those to parentheses.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed refs 49, 81. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• As per the conversation at WT:ANIME, try to avoid the encyclopedic section of Anime News Network. (Refs 41, 45, 47).

I did remove two uses before listing, I obviously didn't look hard enough. I'll take a look at finding alternate sourcing Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• You link Amazon.com some times, but not others. (Refs 62, 63, 71, 72)

Unfortunately some things aren't listed at the sites I've used for other references (such as the Kodanclub ones). I saw a FLC where the reviewer said that Amazon should be a last resort if the information isn't available elsewhere. In this case, things that were found off Amazon were used before using Amazon. I'll look into finding other reliable listings Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. If you are going to wikilink for some Amazon references, you need to wikilink for all of them.

ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes sense. I was very tired at the time :P DoneDandy Sephy (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 64 should have 07 instead of 7.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• You have a comment after the Light novels subheading to "change english references to tokyopop's own site". Can you do this?

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

There are multiple references to both "Love Hina Mugendai" and "ラブひな∞" (refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 16); either use one or the other, considering the ISBN is the same for all of these. This also applies to "Love Hina 0"/"ラブひな0" (refs 13, 15, 61, 62, 63).

If you do use the Japanese script for these refs, put them in {{noitalic}}, as Japanese script should never be italicized. Also, add {{noitalic}} to ref 53 (or give the English equivalent).

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Include the ISBN for refs 13, 15, and 61; fix the ISBN for ref 63. I assume the ISBN given for ref 62 is the correct one.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Change "TokyoPop" to "Tokyopop" in refs 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 to match the use of "Tokyopop" in the lead and in ref 2. Add Tokyopop as the publisher for ref 9.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting away from references... under Love Hina#Anime, "cd" should be capitalized; "Love Hina Xmas Eve ~Silent Night~" and "Love Hina Spring Special ~I Wish Your Dream~" should be unitalicized, and the tildes replaced with a colon before the subtitle ("Title: Subtitle"); there is a stray apostophe before "Love Hina Again" and an instance that should be italicized instead of in double-quotes; decapitalize "Opening"; change the title emphasis for "Kirai Takaramono" and "Be for me, be for you" from italics to double-quotes, and title-case the latter.

DoneDandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Love Hina Final Selection" should be italicized and not in double-quotes.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of Love Hina#Anime, "films comics" and "anime" should not be capitalized.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The section heading Love Hina#Video Games needs to be sentence-cased to "Video games".

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Under aforementioned heading, all the game titles should be italicized instead of in double-quotes. There is also a stray right-bracket in "Love Hina: Totsuzen no Engeji Happening".

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Under Love Hina#Soundtracks, "Image songs" and "Maxi singles" should be decapped; the listed singles in the first paragraph should be in double-quotes, not italics; in the second paragraph, "Love Hina" and the soundtrack names should be italicized and not in double-quotes; the two vocal collections in the third paragraph should be italicized; the title "ラブひな OKAZAKI COLLECTION" should be replaced with a properly-cased English equivalent; "Love Live Hina" should be in double-quotes and not italics.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of Love Hina#Reception, "Anime Product of the Year" should not be italicized.

Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

—tan³ tx 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note Just to say that I've been busy with other things, so haven't resolved the ANN encyclopedia refs yet (I have some ideas though). Has anyone got any content issues rather then copyedit related ones? Is the article ready for a GA nomination once the ANN refs are changed? I want to look at adding an image or two for the production section and possibly something else. Aside from that there are no major content updates planned. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2009, 19:22 UTC)

---

[edit] Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

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

• 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 March 2009.

I think I would like to take this article to FAC. Please evaluate the prose of the article. In particular, I would like help reducing the length of the plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 22:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] 1998 Winter Olympics medal table

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FLC soon. It's been a while since an Olympic medal table has been at FLC, and I want to ensure that it meets the ever-incresing FL standards. The article is based on 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, though I have changed a few things, most notably the introduction. Prose comments are usually what I need most, but all feedback is desired and appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 March 2009, 21:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Star Trek: The Motion Picture

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

• 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 March 2009.

Listing to get any sort of comments. The cast, music, and home video sections aren't complete, but those are relatively minor and rather than sit on my hands waiting for the sources I figured I'd put it up here to gather feedback. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• The lead section does not mention any of the lead actors in the film. For readers new to the topic, it may be useful to mention/link to the actors and their characters. Also, the premise in the first paragraph seems to assume the reader's knowledge of Star Trek. Can the premise be a little more expositional? Like the fictional universe, the era, the civilization setup (on a high level)? It seems too specialized to start off with the presence of the cloud.
• The last paragraph of the lead section says, "...the franchise was revived with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." Was it not already revived with this film? How about "continued" or something of the like?
• "Plot" section: Also seems to assume too much of the readership's knowledge of Star Trek. Maybe be more expositional?
• Two sentences at the end of a couple of paragraphs seem uncited. Can they be properly referenced?

• "The show developed a cult following, and talks of reviving the franchise began."
• Though the space opera Star Wars performed well at the box office a few weeks after Kaufman's film was cancelled, Paramount believed a film was still not viable."

• Any plans for "Themes"?

Just some preliminary thoughts... the article is a lot to absorb! I will read it in full depth later on and ask about anything else I come across. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Can you elaborate on what you think needs more exposition? I've tweaked everything else, I believe. As for themes, there's not much (surprisingly), and I think it would be better off in various sub-articles or related pages, rather than here. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Readers unfamiliar with the film may read the premise with the mentality that it's current or in the near future. I was suggesting something like, "In the xx century, when the United Federation of Planets encompasses the galaxy, Starfleet Admiral James T. Kirk... blah blah." Better written than that, obviously! But a way to provide a setting for readers, like we would do for other science fiction films or historical films or other non-contemporary films. The "Plot" section could start out similarly. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Not a review: I haven't read much, and can't promise I will, but the lead has some magaziney prose, for example: "a revolving door of acclaimed writers", "took a shot at", "silver screen". OK in a newspaper article but not encyclopedic. Also, the phrasing of the last part of the lead's final sentence: "ths edition was received better than the original by critics" is very awkward. Brianboulton (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments

Doing... --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 March 2009, 03:11 UTC)

---

[edit] Necrid

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

• 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 March 2009.

Needing a peer review of Necrid to do a final sweep and make sure all the kinks are hammered out of the article at this point before I approach FA again. The sources are exhausted, the work's done, the images get better captions, so all that's left is to bug hunt. Thank you for your time and patience, Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Levi's comments
Prose/Tone/Style

Lead

• "Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game, no voice actor has been attributed to the character." - Later on in the article, it says that Necrid speaks only gibberish. Should the gibberish be referred to as "lines"?

Design

• "Necrid only speaks gibberish, and the vocal samples in his profile are named after emotions, such as "Determination" and "Indignation". He is the only speaking character in Soulcalibur II whose voice remains constant regardless of the game's language setting." - Possible tone consideration—the sentence may be better served by "Necrid's speech is unintelligible..." with "unintelligible" having a wikilink to gibberish.

In video games

• "A nod, however, is made in Soulcalibur IV to the dialogue between Necrid and Talim, reused in reverse order in Talim's initial Story mode battle." - Another tone consideration. "Nod" could be replaced with "reference". Also, Soulcalibur IV should probably be wikilinked, along with other video games mentioned in the article.

Gameplay

• "Using a fighting style Yotoriyama described as "horrific splendor", Necrid fights using a transforming energy called Maleficus, a physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, controlled through the jewel on his chest." - Kind of a run-on, consider splitting it up halfway through.

• "Necrid can utilize other forms of energy as weapons, such as ignis fatuus, æther, and chaos, with varying effects and attributes." - Lots of inlines in rapid succession; could they go at the end of the sentence?

• Should "In game" be hyphenated?

• Do those move names need to be italicized?

Promotion and merchandising

• "Drawn by Greg Capullo, it featured a comic book rendition of Necrid fighting Spawn in one of the game's arenas" - Needs a period.

• "Sweepstakes" kind of sticks out, could it be "contest" instead?

Critical reception

• "...but added that despite Necrid's appearance the character was decent to play as." - Sentence ends in a preposition.

• Are the wikilinks inside the quotes necessary? The pantheon link, for example, leads to an article about groups of gods, and the Soulcalibur characters in general don't appear to be gods.

• "GMR described him as an example of 'Bad American Comic Book Design.'" - Is this the exact quote, with all of the capitalizations? It's a magazine reference so I couldn't check.

• "However other reviewers instead gave the character positive reception, praising both its gameplay and design." - Necrid is referred to as "him" elsewhere in the article, not "it".

• "Despite their negative reception, IGN listed Necrid as one of the top eight characters contributed to the games by designers outside of Namco's Team Calibur, placing 8th in the list." - Redundant, might sound better as "Despite their negative remarks, IGN listed Necrid as 8th on their list of the top ten characters contributed to Soul Calibur games by designers outside of the design team."

Took care of all of the above, though the first is an odd one...technically they are lines, just...well, gibberish? As for fighting moves in italics, I don't think there's an exact MoS for it to be honest, just makes it easier to isolate in the text?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on the gibberish. As for the move names, I think quotation marks would be better, but that's just me.

Sources

• Is #7 a magazine, or a website? If a magazine, it should have a page number; if a website, should have a URL. Same for #27.

Page numbers in some cases aren't possible, especially when the information is taken from periodical databases such as MyWire.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the Design section looks like original research, especially with the game references.

I'll add an artbook reference alongside the game reference just to be safe.

• Is "Insert Credit" reliable?

Insert Credit's founder has credentials listed at Gamasutra, and Tim Rodgers has been vouched for by games journalist Chris Kohler.

Otherwise, prose and sources look good. Good job! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I responded to everything above, hope it's adequate enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 March 2009, 07:36 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Miami Heat head coaches

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because this list has cannot be promoted to featured list status, as a result of the community 10-item minimum, and also because of featured list criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks great. The only error I find is "The Miami Heat are" which should be "The Miami Heat is". Check the lead, there is another similar error.—Chris! _ct 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• The Heat is owned by Micky Arison. -- the previous sentence began with The Heat as well, so reword to something like The team..

• Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Heat first played its home games at the Miami Arena until 2000;[4] they have played its home games at the American Airlines Arena since then. -- Question: When do you refer to a team in plural and singular tense, since the lead began with singular tense but is plural here

• I tihnk it is correct...hope Dabomb87 comes back soon... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I mean, I'm just asking you personally, since I myself don't know.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Riley is the only Heat head coach to be named one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history,[7] to have won the NBA Coach of the Year Award, having winning it in the 1996–97 season,[8] to have won the NBA championship with the Miami Heat, having won it in the 2006 NBA Finals,[3] and to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach, -- To avoid messing up the flow of the sentence, how about rewording the middle part to ..to have won the NBA Championship (2006) with the Miami Heat, and to have been elected... (to avoid the flow interference)

• Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Table

• NBA Championship should be capitalized

• I don't think it should...Dabomb87... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yet, you have it capitalized in the lead? O_o--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where? o.O -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Look above in one of the sentences I found a problem in.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I didn't add the capitalization of C. Just check the whole article, no "Champions". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• NBA Championship and NBA Champion is the same thing. So the C needs to be capitalized in both instances.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, but see WWE Championship, List of WWE Champions.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• List of NBA champions, List of Stanley Cup champions, List of Super Bowl champions, List of World Series champions. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hope Chris or Dabomb87 can comment on this... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Since both capitalization and non-capitalization are in used, this may require a wiki-wide discussion.—Chris! _ct 05:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

References

• Be consistent with the formatting of the NBA source, one uses NBA.com the other uses National Basketball LeagueAssociation; the latter is correct.

• Haha...National Basketball League...Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Argh. I'm not thinking clearly.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

General

• The rest of the list looks up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2009, 04:39 UTC)

---

[edit] Planescape: Torment

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

• 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 March 2009.

This article was recently the focus of a collaboration between WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and WikiProject Video games that resulted in a successful GA nomination. We'd like comments on the article to move it in the general direction of FAC. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A cursory glance at the article reveals:

A severe lack of citations in the Gameplay and Plot sections. Most of Gameplay is uncited, which could easily be remedied with reviews and the game's manual. If none of the editors have the manual, it is downloadable at the always-useful Replacementdocs. As for the Plot section, reviews and developer commentary could and should be used. The Story subsection will need a ton of references. If all else fails, it is (as far as I know) still acceptable to use quotes from the game's script.

Mobygames used as a source. Mobygames, while one of the most useful game-related sites on the Internet, is edited by users. If the old rules still apply, this means that it cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.

A lack of Legacy section. This is only relevant if there's enough information floating around to cobble one together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy! I'll take a look at the issues you mentioned. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The instruction manual for Planescape: Torment is very small, especially compared to great manuals like the Baldur's Gate one. I used it as a reference for a couple of gameplay points, but there's not much else in there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Mobygames and replaced the credits reference with Allgame, which is more reliable. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tezkag72:

This is a good article (I don't mean the term, I mean it's good); there are just a few fairly minor things that stand between this and a featured article.

• First paragraph of lead says it was released in 1999. List the whole release date (December 12, 1999) there. Also, delink the date where it lists it in the infobox; and in the first paragraph, link "1999" to 1999 in video gaming.

• Abbreviations for terms are not necessary (i.e. "(RPG)" in the third paragraph of the lead, and "(NPCs)" in the second paragraph of the gameplay section.)
• Needs more sources in the gameplay and plot sections. The game's reviews will have information about the gameplay and plot; they may be praising or criticizing certain aspects of the game. Also, if you own the game, you can find quotes to use as references. This shouldn't be hard to do but it's the kind of thing many people notice first in FACs.

• A second screenshot would be helpful. Maybe also enlarge the image there is.
• A legacy section that JimmyBlackwing suggested would be helpful, but probably not necessary unless there really is enough of a legacy. If not, the Awards section should be plenty.
• If possible, change the dates in the references from the YYYY-MM-DD format to actually written out. Not a big thing at all but it makes articles look better.

These are a few things I thought of while reading this well-written article. Try to fix these issues, as well as what everyone else has said, and you should be good to go. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome! Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"RPG" is necessary as that term is used later in the article. I removed NPC though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 07:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

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

• 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 March 2009.

I'd like to eventually take this article to FAC and all input is welcome.

These are my main concerns with the article, so any thoughts, input or opinions anyone has on any of these are more than welcome.

1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([1]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
5. Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? There really hasn't been anything major, José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 March 2009, 13:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Posting system

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review twice before this, but I have done extensive work on the article's content, structure and references since. I'm looking to possibly nominate this for FAC sometime soon. I'm looking for any suggestions here! I need someone else less familiar with the system to run through it and tell me if everything makes sense and looks good. Thanks!

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that explains a process that many readers might otherwise find mysterious. I have a few suggestions for improvement. None is complicated or involves any great change.

Lead

• "currently in effect between" - Delete "currently"?
• "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft" - A brief in-text explanation would be helpful here for readers who will not have any idea what Rule 4 is about. Suggestion: "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft that governs how MLB teams acquire amateur players." Or something like that.
• "as seen when pitcher Hideki Irabu was dealt to a MLB team despite stating he did not want to" - I think you need "did not want to be traded" for the sentence to make sense.
• "If the MLB team cannot come to a contract agreement with the posted player, then no fee is paid, and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team." - This could be tightened just a bit by deleting "back".

All great suggestions, all changed. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

History

• "was awarded the California League Rookie of the Year award" - Repetition of "award". Suggestion: "was named California League Rookie of the Year"
• "After putting up good pitching statistics as a reliever, Giants' executives decided to exercise a clause in their contract with the Hawks that allowed them to sign one of the three NPB exchange prospects to a contract" - The Giants' executives didn't put up good pitching statistics. Perhaps "After Murikami put up good pitching statistics... "?
• "the Giants agreed to send Murakami back to Japan after the upcoming 1965 season" - Delete "upcoming"?
• "In addition to Soriano disliking the Japanese's intense practice schedule, the Carp denied him a salary increase from $45,000" - A bit awkward. How about "Soriano disliked the intense Japanese practice schedule, and the Carp denied... "?

Again, all great suggestions, all changed. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Process

• "MLB teams submit sealed bids (in USD)" - Spell out as well on first use, thus: "MLB teams submit sealed bids in in U.S. dollars (USD)"?
• "and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team" - Delete "back"?

Done! --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Past postings

• "These contracts range from $52 million on the high end to $1.4 million on the low end" - Tighten by deleting "on the high end" and "on the low end"?

Ha, ya, a bit redundant, eh? Done. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

List of unsuccessful postings

• "(US$800,404 in 2003)" - Suggestion: "($800,404 in 2003)". There's no need to repeat the US.
• "(US$594,453 in 2009) contract" - Ditto for this one.

Hm, not sure why I added this in the first place. Thanks. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

• "a high bid simply to deprive the New York Yankees' an opportunity to negotiate with Matsuzaka" - Something's odd about "Yankees' an opportunity". How about "to deprive the New York Yankees of an opportunity"?
• "Sheinin suggests that, if the negotiations were to fail, Boras could take legal action." - Since the preceding sentences refer to this incident in past tense, it would be best to stick to past tense, thus: "Sheinin suggested that... ".
• "Boras does not believe that the transfer fee should affect a player's compensation in any way" - Maybe "Boras did not believe... " Also, delete "in any way"?
• "Kurkjian claims that a number of other MLB executives" - Delete "a number of"?

All corrected. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

References

• The citations use a mixture of m-d-y dates and yyyy-mm-dd dates. You can use either format, but it should be used consistently throughout the references.

I think I like the m-d-y best, so I will start converting yyyy-mm-dd ASAP. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Alfonso Soriano would be better positioned on the left so that he looks into the page rather than out. This draws the reader's eye into the article.

I never think of little details such as this! Great suggestion. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

General

• I had trouble throughout with constructions like "problems arose when NPB players began playing in MLB". I kept wanting to change "in MLB" to "in the MLB", parallel to "in the NBA", I suppose, but realized this would be incorrect. Maybe "in the United States" would be an acceptable workaround or in the Major Leagues or some combination of these here and there where these constructions occur.

I know what you mean, I originally had "the" in front of these acronyms originally, but then realized it was incorrect. I'll poke around a little and see what can be done to avoid these instances. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain comments

Good work here! This was an interesting read. I had no idea this system existed. I've outlined below what I see as problems that should be fixed before taking this to FAC.

• "The posting system was created to address both problems." Can we make this active voice and specify who created it? Example: "MLB and NPB worked together to create the posting system to address both problems."
• The lead is good! I am interested to read more.
• Just a pointer.. whenever you can replace the phrase "in order to" with simply "to" without changing the meaning, it's good to do go.
• "An agreement was reached, and the Giants agreed ..." I think just writing "The Giants agreed ..." wouldn't change the meaning and would eliminate a redundancy.
• "The posting system was created as a combined reaction ..." Same comment about passive voice as above.
• I was left with a few questions after reading the Process section that indicate it needs fleshing out a bit more: "If the team consents, the player is presented to the MLB Commissioner." What happens if the player wants to be posted and the team doesn't content? Alternately, what happens if a team wants to post a player and he doesn't consent?
• "Shocking both American and Japanese baseball executives, Matsuzaka received a high bid of $51.1 million." This is a dangling modifier. Matsuzaka didn't shock the executives, the bid amount did. Fix by rewording to something like "Matsuzaka's bid amount of $51.5 million shocked American and Japanese baseball executives." (You don't need the "both" either)
• I'm concerned that not all views have been represented in the Controversy and criticism section. You have the views of Boras and of an ESPN writer, but that's about it. I think this will have to be expanded to include views on both sides of the issue to maintain a neutral tone. --Laser brain (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to run through the article! I addressed the prose changes you suggested here. However, the content additions will take a little time. I don't really know if the questions you posed about how it is decided that a player will be posted have ever been addressed. I hope they have been though because they are very valid questions, and I hope to find the answers to them. The Controversy and criticism section is also a valid concern. I had concerns about it myself, however, it is hard for me to find Japanese sources because of my limited knowledge of the language. I will do what I can though. Thanks again for the help! --Torsodog^Talk 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 March 2009, 19:07 UTC)

---

[edit] 2008 Turkish Grand Prix

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a stub article when I took up the challenge and I would like to know what I should be aiming at and what I should be tryng to get it at the moment. Any comments are welcome. There are no pictures for this race.

Thanks, Chubbennaitor 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Turkish Grand Prix/archive1.

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 15:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Houston Rockets

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

• 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 March 2009.

This went through GA, bt was passed without a review. I'm going to be taking this article to FAC soon, and any feedback on the article would be welcome. Particularly in the prose area, and also if there are any sections missing about the team that needed to be added.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should modeled after the only NBA team FA Toronto Raptors as close as possible. If possible, add sections about uniforms, fanbase, community service, broadcasters.—Chris! _ct 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, personally I don't think that broadcasters are really relevant to the franchise (also, there are no references for them anyway). And I do think that their fanbase is mostly covered in "Home arenas" section. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it lacks images—Chris! _ct 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm working on it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Same applies to magazines
• Current ref 60 (Asin) is lacking a publisher
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 01:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Dead Head Fred

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

• 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 March 2009.

The entire article has been rebuilt from the ground up. I'd appreciate any comments on it. Thanks! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Casliber

Looking pretty good so far actually. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fred learns that Mr. Rossini had been reported missing by Jeanne, who hired Fred to find him. - this reads a little confusing as it isn't clear who hired Fred from the way the sentence is structured.

Reworded.

• Making an article for Massive Black Studios would be a good idea. Turning redlinks blue if you can is aesthetically prudent.

I'm not opposed to it, and I feel that the company is notable enough to warrant its own article. I may get around to it eventually, but hopefully some ambitious good Samaritan stumbles across it.

• was set in stone.. --> maybe just "non-negotiable" maybe the first is a bit casual, but if you feel strongly about it then keep it. Not a big deal really.

Reworded, hopefully less casual now.

• The development team didn't have any tangible ideas.. - not sure I like tangible here as the adjective doesn't add anything. Maybe a better word is "preconceptions" or something similar (?)

Reworded.

• The original script had only one instance of the "f-word," but after several sessions with McGinley resulted in a great deal of more colorful ad-libs that the design team liked, the script was tweaked to allow McGinley and other actors to curse more. - this sentence was a little hard to follow, you may want to break it up a bit.

I broke it up into two sentences and reworded it; hopefully it's clearer now.

• At E3 2007, D3Publisher was able to again show Dead Head Fred because of its delay - unable?

Games at E3 are generally only shown before release, therefore a delayed game can potentially be shown more than once.

Overall looks good, if I were you I would run it through WP:GAN which it should pass fairly readily and isn't too far off FAC really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll nominate it for GA today. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 March 2009, 13:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Jarome Iginla

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

• 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 March 2009.

This article on the Calgary Flames' captain is already a GA, and is on my list of articles to aim for FA status. As always, I am looking for feedback on prose quality, and also on whether the use of hockey terms is understandable to a non fan, as I would not be able to adequately judge that. Thanks! Resolute 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• What makes www.hockeydraftcentral.com a relaible source (Note I got a malware warning when I tried to access it... so I didn't click throuhg, thanks.)

• I've never had a problem with the site before in terms of malware (I get it too right now in Firefox), so I suspect it was a bad ad host that might have flagged the site. I've seen a couple other websites get hit the same way. As far as reliability goes, I'm not sure it is, though it is used simply to point out that an argument exists regarding Graham being the first black captain. I'll be looking for a better source before FAC.

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

• It shall be corrected.

• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (TSN?)

• lol, I'm starting to get hit with that a lot. Corrected.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Resolute 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This was a nice smooth read. I don't think it'll have much trouble at FAC. I had to look hard to compile this short list of suggestions to go with Ealdgyth's few above:

Images

• All look fine. The one under "Captaincy" should be moved down a paragraph or so to keep it from bumping against a second-level head. The licenses look fine.

• I always forget that part of the MOS. fixed.

NHL career

• "His 35 goals was still enough to lead the Flames for the fourth time in five seasons." - "Were" rather than "was"?

  fixed

Captaincy

• "though former Blackhawks captain Dirk Graham is also claimed to hold that honour" - Suggestion: "though former Blackhawks captain Dirk Graham is also said to hold that honour".

• Good call, changed.

• "said former captain Craig Conroy of his decision to relinquish the "C" to Iginla" - For the non-hockey fans, it might be helpful to explain what the "C" is. Maybe "... to relinquish the 'C' (captaincy) to Iginla" would do.

• I was guilty of using a bit of slang there. Changed it to "...relinquish the captaincy"

• "six player representatives with a mandate of coming up with recommendations" - "Preparing" or "devising" or "making" rather than "coming up with"?

• Eeee, that was awful English on my part. Fixed.

• "his $7-million per season wage considered to be less than he would have received had he tested free agency" - Missing word? "Was considered"? Also, wiklink free agency?

• done and done. Thanks! Resolute 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If these comments prove helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That it where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some excellent suggestions, thank you! I will look to act on many of these ideas, and certainly will try to help another editor out in another Pr. Appreciate the feedback. Resolute 00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments A few quick things:

• In reference to him losing out to Theodore for the Hart, it couldn't hurt to include the point margin. If I remember right, he only lost by like 1 or 2 votes, the closest it had ever been. That would definetly be notable enough to include.

• The image with him winning the Molson Cup should probably state that in the caption. At first glance I thought it was the Art Ross, not that it really matters, but a more explanitory caption should be added. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good point on the Hart controversy... especially since the difference was the result of a Montreal writer deliberately leaving Iginla off his ballot. I'll have to go digging through the archives on that one. And, caption changed. Thanks! Resolute 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I got a book that mentions the Hart controversy. I've got more written on the Iginla talk page. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2009, 17:52 UTC)

---

[edit] 2008 German Grand Prix

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it checked by other users - the aim of this is to get it to at least Good Article status for Apterygial's My Insane Idea project. I would like to be notified of any problems you can notice, and whether it is good enough to be nominated as a Good/Featured Article.

You're welcome to make the edits yourself - its not "my" page, or anything like that. If you don't want to edit, that's fine too! I'm happy to do it for you.

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 German Grand Prix/archive1.

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 February 2009, 19:35 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Utah Jazz head coaches

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it does not have enough entries to become an FLC. I need to peer review this article for Featured topic criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks decent, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think the tense works better as simple past: The Jazz have won two consecutive Western Conference championships in 1997 and 1998.[1]

You think or you know? I think the sentence with the word "have" sounds better in my opinion. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't like your attitude. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't think of it like that. I just want to know the answer if it is mandatory or not. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews are suggestions only, they are not "actionable" as FAC and FLC are. If you like it better the way it is, keep it that way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• The last three sentences in the first paragraph all start with "The Jazz ..." - can't this be varied somehow?

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would add "As of 2009," to The Jazz is owned by the estate of the late Larry H. Miller, and Kevin O'Connor is their general manager.[3] - things change and a date should be given

Wouldn't that be the same thing as adding "currently". A user once told me that using "currently" is inappropriate. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two years from now you may be retired and no one may update this, and they may have a new coach. If it says "As of February 2009, ..." people reading know when this was true. If it says "Currently" they do not know this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On the "Coaches" section, it says stats are as of (date). :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since the six coaches have served a total of seven terms, should that be mentioned in There have been six head coaches for the Jazz franchise.

Could you give a more clearer reason? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, say something like There have been six head coaches for the Jazz franchise, who have served seven terms. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant a reason say we need to tell the reader how many terms were served. It sounds like you also have an "attitude"? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Lead says The franchise's first head coach was Scotty Robertson, who coached for fourteen games. but the table says he coached 15 (and lost 14). Plus number 10 and above are numbers per the MOS.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Elgin Baylor served as head coach for one game, then came back for 220 more games - what happened? This sounds like a story that should be in the lead.

This is a list, not an article. If we include why all the head coaches left, then the prose would be way too long. It's also hard to find reliable sources that are from the 1970s. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a coach who served one day, then was brought back for a couple of years. I am not saying you have to explain it all, just note it in the lead (which is a summary). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but no reference for the reason that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would combine this sentence Sloan has been the head coach of the Jazz since 1988.[9] with this Jerry Sloan is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season games coached ... for something like Jerry Sloan has been the head coach of the Jazz since 1988, and is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season games coached ...

I usually like the last sentence to have something to do with the current coach. It is for consistency. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The move the Sloan stuff last (chronological order is easier to follow usually too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• This needs explained better (in the NBA? ever?) Sloan is the first coach to have more than 1000 wins with a single team,[4]

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Needless repetition Layden is also the only coach to have a number retired by the Jazz, having the number 1 retired by the Jazz in 1988.[8] Perhaps Layden's number 1 was retired by the Jazz in 1988, the only coach so honored.[8]

He was a coach, and he didn't have a "number". That is why I phrased the sentence like that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Layden is the only coach to have a number retired by the Jazz; "1" in 1988.[8] then? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Used brackets insead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am amazed there are no pictures of any of these coaches - have you tried Flickr?

I am not used to the photo area of Wikipedia. I hope you could help with me on that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]

No thanks, I feel like retiring from helping you (and its not laziness). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To you're comment, I'm pretty busy (lazy) right now, and feel like semi-retiring, so no thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no photos in any of the coach articles, I have not looked at Commons or Flickr. I will check for Sloan on Flickr as it tends to only have recent stuff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no coach pictures found dearching under Utah and Jazz on Commons. There is File:Houston Rockets and Utah Jazz.jpg. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also no free Jerry Sloan images on Flickr. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) SRE, please stay courteous. Ruhrfisch is an excellent contributor and one of the best (certainly the most hard working) peer reviewers on Wiki. Snarky commentsare not helpful.

• "The Jazz play"-->They play
• "The team joined the NBA in 1974 as an expansion team called the New Orleans Jazz, until they relocated to Salt Lake City in 1979. " Comma not needed.
• "who coached for fourteen games. "-->who coached for 14 games.
• Is there a source available about Jerry Sloan being the coach with the longest tenure with the same team?

There already was one in the prose and table, but the sentence was added onto the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "2 Western Conference championships (1997, 1998)" Link the years to the articles about the NBA playoffs for those years.
• "Had the number 1 retired by the Jazz in 1988." No period. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 February 2009, 07:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] Millennium '73

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

This article was peer reviewed back in October, and recently passed Good Article review. It was nominated for Featured Article, but did not pass. Many of the objections at FA concerned the quality of the prose. For that reason, copyediting suggestions are especially welcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2009, 00:29 UTC)

---

[edit] Martin Bucer

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC. I have tried cut down my wordiness, but help from others on the prose would be appreciated.

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 March 2009, 22:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Social sciences and society

[edit] Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It's just hit B-Class and i'm curious on how to put it up to A/GA class and then getting it featured.

There are more than 100 references, every position is in there. Some of the sections need a bit more meat though

Spinach Monster (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2009, 00:06 UTC)

---

[edit] Pat Condell

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I don't know what to do next.

Thanks, A pinhead (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 March 2009, 14:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Terri Schiavo case

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this GA article for peer review because it might finally be on the road to FA. It has been renamed away from being a biography and towards a legal/ethical case. While that emphasis is much less dramatic than the political conflicts that swirled around this case, a approach that views the article as primarily a legal/historical case has helped the article to settle down.

Thanks, --Lagelspeil (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Natural Cut: I didn't set out to rewrite your introduction but ended up making rather significant changes that I wanted to check with you on, because sometimes every word has been painstakingly assembled through consensus-building efforts on talk pages. (I didn't feel like reading the 44(!) archive pages.) I'll base my edits to the rest of the article on your response.

One comment I do want to make is that a free image relating to the media frenzy would be useful. Natural Cut (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I would suggest that you be bold. For too long, this case languished as a political battleground for obvious reasons. Now that the emphasis is legal/ethical, it has found focus and, I expect, easier and faster consensus. If what you mean by media frenzy image is this familiar one, then please note that User:Zscout360 deleted it as not free.--Lagelspeil (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go through it with a fine-toothed comb in that case. I had intended to do so today but have been busier than expected. Expect to see something here tomorrow. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (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. 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 19:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Cham Albanians

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is good enough, full-referenced and totally NPOV, and I want to see if there is any problems left in it, in order to nominate it for a GA status.

Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Cplakidas

In terms of content a rather good and well-researched article on a controversial topic. Some parts needed extensive copyediting and typo corrections, but I've done it myself where I saw the need. There are however some unclear areas and various minor quibbles:

• "Chams live mainly in Albania, Greece, the USA and Turkey.[2] Their original homeland is the Chameria region of Epirus, divided between Greece and Albania. Cham communities in Albania, USA and Turkey were created after their expulsion from Greece.[2]" This is both a bit redundant and unclear, as their origin has been stated above, while nothing about their expulsion has been mentioned yet. You could simply reduce it to state: "Cham communities now mostly exist in Albania, the United States and Turkey, as a result of their expulsion from their homeland in Greece after World War II." or variants thereof.
• "Chameria is the name applied by the Albanians to the region inhabited by the Chams", Perhaps "historically inhabited" might be more accurate, since most no longer live there.
• On the medieval history section. The cited date for their appearance in the region is the 12th century, but the header says "c. 1080". Either change the header or source it. Also, could the date be made more specific, e.g. "late 12th century" or even more precise? And it would be nice to know in which contemporary document they are actually mentioned. Also, there is claim of "a number of uprisings", already from the 12th century. Where and when did these happen? Until 1358, there is no mention of any uprisings, nor under Ottoman rule.
• I have some problem with labelling the Russian Party as "conservative". Given the nature of Greek politics at the time, this is a misleading term, and many of its leading members actually stood for progressive ideas - the right to a constitution, first and foremost.
• I made some edits on Osman Taka, since the section was a bit convoluted. I hope I've got the meaning right.
• I notice you persistently use "Cham Albanians" throughout the article. "Chams" would suffice, IMO. Their Albanian ethnicity is pretty much made clear without needing to remind the reader at every instance. It does come off as a tad obsessive.
• In the population exchange section, there is a "Under the Greek recommendation". To whom was this recommendation made? What was its context? Also "only 1,700 were exempted under this promise" is a bit unclear. What exactly do you mean in this sentence? What promise? And just below you state that "it is estimated that 5,000 Chams had been forced to leave". Doesn't this contradict that "their number is unknown"?
• the "change of the Greek government" that foiled the enforcement of the 1930 and 1931 laws. Is this the fall of the Venizelos government in 1932? If so, perhaps it's best to mention it (or whichever government is meant).
• "something which was seen as a provocation". You obviously mean the Chams here, but its best to add it. Also, who were the RSC and the CAFC? Acronyms ought to be either links or explained.

This covers it up to the end of the History section. I'll check on the remainder tomorrow. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Michael X

• Is this A-class or B-class in the first place? I think we should think for getting it in those classes before planning GA, which is far far away.This article has a lot of issues like:
• Article ownership by Balkanian's word who cherry picks his sources and decides what should or should not be included and what is or is not RS.
• Albanian and pro-Albanian POV. This article is almost entirely based on the (proven) pro-Albanian author Miranda Vickers, who is then mostly based on Albanian propagandists like Pollo and Puto, forums, "Cham" sites, etc.
• Anachronism. "They have played an important role in the wars of independence of both Albania and Greece and have influenced the cultures of the two countries, by popular dances, songs and folk traditions that originate from Chams." "Cham" (20th century term) is used here to describe peoples of the 18th and early 19th centuries (mostly the Souliotes).
• Strong POV statements like "the Christian minority, which remained in Greece, has suffered from public suppression of their Albanian heritage and language." that are still based on pro-Albanian authors whose statements have not been NPOV-ed to be used here. Remember that all authors write with their own POV, and it is our business to NPOV them.
• Lots of spelling mistakes
• Almost no inline citations for such a controversial article with strong POV statements like "Ali Pasha was under attacks from Ottoman Army, he created an alliance with Souliotes, under Markos Botsaris, mostly because of their common ethnicity."

That's what I can see so far. But I'll be expanding this soon.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 March 2009, 15:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Charles A. Wickliffe

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

• 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 March 2009.

My goal is to get this article to good article status. (Please note, I am not shooting for featured article at this point.) For some reason, I don't feel that it is quite up to GA standards yet, but I can't put my finger on why. I'd like to get feedback on what needs to be improved to make this a GA, or if you think it is already there, please let me know that as well.

Thanks, Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: My impression is that this is almost GA. It's generally well-written, seems factually accurate and verifiable, is broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. I have some suggestions about images and their licenses, about sections where the prose seems a bit choppy, and about a few other quite minor prose issues.

Images

• The lead image has a license problem. Please see WP:FURG for an explanation of this fairly complicated business. In addition to the non-free copyright tag and rationale, the license page needs a link to the image source, not just to the disconnected image. The idea is to provide the information that a fact-checker would need to verify the claims being made. It would also be helpful to broaden the description a bit to include the dates of Wickliffe's term as governor.

• Sorry about that. I didn't check the image, so I didn't realize it was using the wrong tag. I found a source that says the image was created in 1908, which should put it in the public domain. I've updated the image page accordingly.

• The licenses look OK on the other two, but the descriptions could be more complete. Suggestion: Imagine a reader who finds the image without having read the article, and briefly explain the image to that reader.

• I've added some verbiage to the Wickland image, but I don't know much about the other one. Bedford, the image's creator, would have to add those details.

• This is a nitpick, but the Wickland photo seems tilted to the left. It might not work, but I'd be tempted to rotate it a few degrees clockwise, re-crop, and see how it looks. This is possible in some photo manipulation programs like Photoshop (commercial) and Paint.NET (free and downloadable) but not others.

• Again, I think Bedford would need to address this issue, especially considering my Photoshop skills are adequate at best.

Lead"

• "Wickliffe received a strong education both in public school and through private tutors." - Tighten by deleting "both"?

• Done.

• "Following his term as governor, President Tyler appointed Wickliffe as Postmaster General." - To move modifier close to the noun modified, perhaps this would be better: "President Tyler appointed Wickliffe as Postmaster General after his term as governor."

• Done.

Early life"

• "His family immigrated to Kentucky" - "Emigrated"?

• Done.

Later political career

• It might be worthwhile to link "trestle".

• Done.

• In this section and in a few other places in the article, I found the writing a bit choppy. I think this could easily be fixed by adding a little variety to the sentence structure in the midst of the choppy places. Combining an occasional pair of similar short sentences and making a slightly longer compound sentence might do the trick. Example: "Wickliffe served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention of 1864 in Chicago, casting his vote for George B. McClellan.[19] In the final years of his life, he became totally blind.[3] While visiting his daughter in Maryland, he fell gravely ill.[16] He died on October 31, 1869, near Ilchester, Maryland and was buried in Bardstown Cemetery in Bardstown.[6] During World War I, a U.S. naval ship was named in Wickliffe's honor." This might be adjusted as follows:

"Wickliffe served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention of 1864 in Chicago, casting his vote for George B. McClellan.[19] In the final years of his life, he became totally blind.[3] While visiting his daughter in Maryland, he fell gravely ill[16] and, dying on October 31, 1869, near Ilchester, was buried in Bardstown Cemetery in Bardstown.[6] During World War I, a U.S. naval ship was named in Wickliffe's honor." Or something like that.

• Corrected this example and a few others. Let me know if I made anything worse!

Links

• This article has quite a high density of links in places. I'd suggest weeding out a few here and there. For example, I don't think you need to link "British" or "French" or "blind" in the lead.

• I've taken out the examples above.

If you find this review to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; it has given me more confidence that the article can pass a GA review in the near future. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2009, 01:55 UTC)

---

[edit] Lydia Foy

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've just created this article after stumbling across the subject, googling it, and finding it worthy of a page. I think it's an interesting tale, but I'm concerned that, in gathering the facts, it might have become a bit bland. I think the 'storyline' should be stronger.

The reason that there's no conclusion is, as far as I can ascertain, no progress has been made since the 'landmark ruling' - but I'm checking into that.

I welcome any and all comments, and I hope some people will be kind enough to edit this and improve it. I think the subject matter could make a FA one day, and it's got to be a good thing to increase public awareness about these issues.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I agree that this is an important subject that could do with greater coverage. I have listed some points below which I think will improve the article.

• The lead needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, rather than a simple introduction to the subject. Everything in the article needs to be briefly foreshadowed in the lead.
• The "Life as a man" section begins "Lydia Annice Foy of Páirc Bhríde, Athy,Co Kildare is a retired" A retired what? (dentist, presumably)
• It doesn't seem that, when the missing word is inserted, the rest of the sentence should start with an "and". New sentence suggested.
• Clumsy wording: "birth was registered with the Register of Births and Deaths with the Christian name of Donal Mark." Suggest "The birth was officially registered with the Christian names Donal Mark."
• "...who diagnosed of Gender Dysphoria." "of" is redundant here.
• What is the purpose of <Sunday> in the text, towards the end of the Gender reassignment section?
• "...nothing in the 1863 Act or in the regulations required sex be determined by biological criteria alone." "that" required before "sex"
• "Foys former wife" – "Foy's former wife"
• delete comma after "130 pages"
• "They said the UK Government had discriminated based on Violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights" Poor phrasing. Perhaps "...the UK Government had violated Articles 8..." etc.
• "Foys case" – "Foy's case". This error is repeated again, later.
• You have "High Court" and "high court" in the same line. Perhaps, before this point, either by links or explanation, you could clarify the relationship between the "High Court" and the "Supreme Court"
• "in a dilemma" rather than "with a dilemma"
• Do not abbreviate months ("5 Jan")
• There seems to be inconsistency in the way in which references are formatted. Dates of newspaper/journal articles are sometimes given, sometimes not. The sequences of title–date–periodical–access date are not uniform.
• I appreciate the difficulty, but have you considered whether ther are any images relevant to the issue, f not the specific case, that could be used to illustrate the article?

I hope you find these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2009, 01:21 UTC)

---

[edit] List of U.S. state mottos

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've added a reference and year to every motto, written a lead, and inserted images. I want to take the list to WP:FAC soon. I'd be happy to review your article in return.

Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead could used more references
  • I added one that is the same as a later one. the problem is that much of the lead is general and derives from the list, not sources that say that exactly.
• "English and Latin are are used language for almost all mottos"
  • Done
• "English and Latin are are used language for almost all mottos, which are used by 25 and 23 states and territories, respectively." --> "English and Latin are the most used languages for state mottos, used by 25 and 23 states and territories, respectively."
  • What do you mean by "25 and 23 states and territories"?
    • First is done. Is says respectively after it, so English is used 25 times and Latin 23 times. What would you suggest?
• "To promote tourism, states also establish slogans, which are unofficial and change more often than state mottos." probably need a reference
  • That was actually there before I began working on this page. Although it's self-explanatory I doubt I could find a source that says the same thing, so I'll just remove it.
• Use n/a for all empty cells in "Year and citation" column
  • That would imply there is none. Am Samoa is the only one without a year and that's because I can't find one. I'll see.
• Add PDF to the format parameter for all PDF documents
  • Done, though there's already the PDF symbol next to the name
• How is http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/hi_motto.htm a reliable source?
• How is http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/ok_motto.htm a reliable source?
  • It cites its sources and seems very reliable to me. I'm only using it because I couldn't find anything on the state website.
    • Well, I would cite the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary instead since it is more reliable. Hawaii, Oklahoma
• I also resized images for you. Feel free to adjust them, though, if you don't like it.

—Chris! _ct 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• I am not sure if the translation column should have references, also. I don't think so, but FL reviewers may see that as an issue.—Chris! _ct 03:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the ref for the translation is the same as the main ref. And I don't have a problem with it, but is there something that says the refs must be in a separate column? About Guam: the link you gave said they are slogans, which is a different topic. Finally, you moved the link to a Google Book up to the References section. I did not use it as a reference, and most of the motto pages are not in it, though it says Guam that doesn't have a motto. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, then you need to clarify that for Guam, rather than omit it. You can do that by adding a footnote.—Chris! _ct 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • What you've done is fine. Thanks for your help! Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I used Netstate for a ref because it gave the year of adoption; the Merriam-Webster site doesn't give that. There is a ref for both to the states' pages with the translation. About the missing years: A year for Washington does not exist; it was never made official and is not on the seal. I changed the n/a to a dash like Guam. For American Samoa, there should be a year because it is on the seal, I'm just unable to find that. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think American Samoa should have a dash also if there is no info about the year.—Chris! _ct 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found the year with reference. I would like to nominate this for FLC this week. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 February 2009, 20:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Madia Gond

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish that this article is selected as a featured article. Thanks, Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and while it is clear a lot of work has gone into it, much more is needed before this is anywhere near ready for Featured Article status. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Please read the Featured article criteria carefully. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Azerbaijani people is a FA and may be a useful model.
• Links to disambiguation (dab) pages should be avoided and links should only be made to pages that are accurate, but the very first sentence links their alternate names incorrectly to Madia (a flower) and Maria (a dab that has one link of many back here)
• Some terms that should be linked or explained are not, such Naxal in The Madia Gonds are strongly affected by Naxal activities.
• 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
• Watch POV language like astonishing in an astonishing 91.08 percent of Madia Gond families lived Below Poverty Line[7] or this Madia children are competing with students across the state and have proved that they are second to none.[10]
• Ref 1 is the only one used for "Physical features, farming techniques, garments and ornaments" but it is about 100 years old - surely things have changed some since?
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What I have done

• Azerbaijan: I will study.
• Dab etc. links removed.
  • No, there are still several dabs left - see here
• Naxal had an internal link further in the article, I have added it in the lead too.
• The lead needs to be rewritten, I will do that.
• POV language removed.
  • I disagree Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 1, is a Government Gazette, first compiled in the early 20th century, rewritten in 1960 and uploaded contemporarily, and the article clearly mentions that what has been referred to is a historical description and may not be partially or entirely valid today.
  • The preface says this is the original 1909 version, see here. There was a reprint in 1973, but this is not it. You have copied large chunks of it almost verbatim. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• URL that is a big job, will take time and I need help.
  • I will fix one as an example. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Major copying - this must be paraphrased in your own words.Here are the first two sections of the Madia Gond Section from the 1909 Gazetteer onlione here:

The Madias inhabit the wilder tracts of what once were the zamindaris and in their unsophisticated state are a very attractive people. The villages are usually situated deep in the jungle near some wide shallow stream, which offers facilities for cultivation and the surrounding jungles supplement the fruits of their agricultural efforts.

Here are your first two sentences of the section. I bolded words that are taken unchanged from the orginal:

The Marias inhabit the wilder tracts, and are in their unsophisticated state a very attractive people. The villages are usually built deep in the jungle near some wide shallow stream, which offers facilities for the gata cultivation,[nb 1] and the surrounding jungles supplement the fruits of their agricultural efforts.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please see three references I have modified, do you think that they are incorrect, you have used a slightly different tag. Please check the ones I have changed.
  • If you go to WP:FAC (and this is still a long way away from being ready for that) then the references all have to be consistent. If you do it consistently, that is fine. I like {{cite web}} and cite book and cite journal and cite news because they make things consistent. It is your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have changed the POV examples you pointed at, I suppose there are others still there.
  • Part of what I see as POV language is some of the very old material you use almost verbatim - if you write that they are in their unsophisticated state are a very attractive people that will be seen as POV. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have quoted the Gazette under history of the Madias, that is how the Madia lived in the years gone, wonder what is wrong in using a old source for that, does it not add to the authenticity.
  • The problem is that it is written in present tense and not identified as being older (seems to me to be from 1909, you may be right that it is older). If you said that "According to the 1909 Gazeteer, the Madia Gond live in the jungles...." that is clear, but the way it is written now, it is unfortuantely not clear. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the dab finder. Makes life so simple.
  • It is a very nice tool - you are welcome, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• I will have another go at the verbatim text you have marked and then get back to you.

• I will need to read a few more books on the Madia and then more content can be added, then there can be a major revamp.
  • Have you tried Google books? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As a reminder please check the reference style I have used.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it is written that the Gazette is a reprint, it actually is another edition. That is why there is information about prohibition, which is a post 1947, law, which obviously cannot be there if it was just a reprint. This is the section I am refering to. Madia_Gond#Government.27s_liquor_policy Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I should be prepared for the long haul. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines - I will be glad to look at the article again. Just let me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 February 2009, 05:42 UTC)

---

[edit] History

[edit] C. Rajagopalachari

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…I had expanded the article a great deal. The article has been rated B but I feel it has vast potential. Would like to know ways to improve this article further. Thanks, The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2009, 17:44 UTC)

---

[edit] 2007 Pakistani state of emergency

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because to promote it to FA.

Thanks, yousaf465' 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 March 2009, 04:43 UTC)

---

[edit] George Washington judicial appointments

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

• 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 March 2009.

The new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is working on making complete, high-quality lists of federal judges appointed by various presidents. We would like to make some or all of these featured lists someday, and the beginning seems like a good place to start, so here are the appointees of America's first president. What does this list need to bring it up to featured status? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the automated suggestions, I added free images to the list and expanded the lead. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few points for you to consider:-

• There are numerous uncited statements in the lead, for example "a record ten judges", "10% of Reagan's appointment" etc
  • All of the data comes from the Federal Judicial Center database (as indicated in the first footnote). I suppose it should be simple enough to find a secondary source for the numbers.
    • The first footnote says that "All information on the names, terms of service and details of appointment of federal judges" comes from the Biography of Federal Judges. The information I have suggested should be cited is unconnected to names, terms of service or details of appointment, and is therefore not covered by the blanket footnote. It should be separately cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, no, "a record ten judges" is a detail of appointment that comes from counting the number of appointments made, as listed at FJC. "10% of Reagan's appointments" is also a detail of appointment that's found by merely adding up (and dividing) the numbers at FJC. I don't want to get too hung up on semantics though, and as BD2412 said, we should be able to find secondary sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really see the relevance of the "2% as of 2009" information, bearing in mind the growth of the U.S. between the 1790s and 2009
  • Well that's actually the point, to demonstrate how much the judiciary has grown.
    • OK, the point could be more explicitly made, but no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the Supreme Court list, why not add the states from which these judges came? It would be interesting to see the geographical spread.
  • Not a bad idea at all.
    • Are you going to act on it? Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I was going to, but Quadell beat me to it. bd2412 T 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of bits of information that you may wish to work into your Supreme Court table: Cushing was appointed Chief Justice on January 26 1796 but declined to serve; Robert Hanson Harrison of Maryland was appointed an Associate Justice on September 24 1789 but likewise refused to serve. This information is worth footnoting, at least. Harrison's declined appointment means that Washington made eleven, not ten appointments to his Supreme Court.
  • The FJC doesn't count a judge as an appointment until the judge receives his commission (after all, there's no draft for judges). Technically, the table only covers successful appointments (i.e. those who served for at least a day as a federal judge). I do not know if Washington had any nominees (other than Rutledge, who was already "appointed") rejected by the Senate.
    • Even if you don't incorporate this information into the table, it is relevant. The article is called "George Washington judicial appointments"; Cushing and Hanson were appointed, but refused to serve. Worth footnotes, at least. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right, it's relevant and deserves a mention, even if it's not in the list itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Confusion with Rutledge: his Chief Justice term appears to have expired 4 years before his appointment. Footnote [5] does not clarify.
  • Fixed - that was just a typo.

• Non-Americans don't understand the state abbreviations you have used in the District table. Perhaps the column heading could be "Court district", the repeated "D" done away with, and the state names given in full?
  • Problem is, as you go forward in the series (to, e.g., Abraham Lincoln judicial appointments) the "D" becomes an E.D. or a W.D. or an S.D. and so forth. Washington just happened to precede the advent of subdivision.
    • OK, us Limeys will just have to use the links. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Judiciary Act image is an unreadable grey blur - is it worth keeping?
  • I added some handsomer images - maybe we can get a clearer image of the bill (or a close-up of some text)?
    • Have you spoken to one of the image gurus? They are sometimes good about improving blurred images. Trouble is, the lack of clarity might be due to the state of the document rather than to the quality of the image. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think so. I added the image just because I was looking for some sort of relevant free image to put in, but you're right that it's not all that useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hope my responses help! bd2412 T 04:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• These comments are very helpful, yes, and thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have implemented all of the suggestions you have made. Thanks again! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 22:43 UTC)

---

[edit] Battle of Barnet

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

• 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 March 2009.

Parallel WikiProject Military history peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Barnet

I am aiming for Featured Article with this article on a historical decisive battle in the Wars of the Roses; thus, I am soliciting any comments and suggestions to help it reach that mark. Your help is appreciated, many thanks in advance. Jappalang (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• "The Battle of Barnet took place..." I don't know what it is about battle articles I've read recently (hopefully it's not a MILHIST guideline), but these openings are pretty bad at establishing context. Can we get an overview, what war it's from, et al, before we go into locations?
• "bringing about fourteen" - sounds strange. Just make it fourteen or fifteen, whichever is closer.
• "Yorkist" is never explained as a term--is it a guy from York?
• "was not governing" - there's locations like these where the tense seems off? I'm not that great at english tenses, but a more straightforward "did not govern" seems better here.
• "started to bestow gifts" - in a similar vein, redudancy such as this: change to "bestowed gifts"
• "Therefore, he was unlikely to have fought at Barnet." - source?
• "No longer, was each opposing group facing the other directly; they were slightly offset to their right" - spot the bad grammar!
• "The English Heritage" - there are a couple locations like this one I wish there was a little more introduction in the text. Blue links are fine, but unless you've got popups you have to navigate away from the page to figure out what the English Heritage is, so prefacing it with a phrased intro would be nice.
• "Here was fought the Famous Battle Between Edward the 4th and the Earl of Warwick April the 14th ANNO 1471 in which the Earl was Defeated And Slain" - is that bizarre capitalization scheme actually from the plaque?

Otherwise, prose looks pretty good, images look fine for the most part (although I have no idea if Tassauds could claim any rights on the figures seen in File:Warwick prepping for Barnet.jpg.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Rewrote the first paragraph of the lede. How does it read now?
• "Bringing about fourteen years" should not be read as "bringing (verb) about (quantifier) fourteen years (noun)" but "bringing about (verb) fourteen years (noun)"
• "Yorkist": somewhat, it refers to the alignment with the House of York, much like "Crusaders" . I think it would be awkward to explain or define the term here.
• "was not governing" and "started to bestow gifts": Changed
• "Therefore, he was unlikely to have fought at Barnet.": that is a summation of the two preceding statements that explained the disputes. Modern analysis (Haigh, Gravett, Goodman, etc) omit Somerset for the battles, i.e. they do not talk about his presence or absence, instead they just said that he left London to greet Margaret.

• Vantine84 pointed out the same thing in the MILHIST peer review. I managed to find Gravett's statement of this and cited it.

• "No longer, was each opposing group facing the other directly; they were slightly offset to their right"': changed to "Each group was not facing the other directly, but offset slightly to the right."
• "English Heritage": I appended a descriptive clause to it, does that help? For others, I have described the broad category in the preceding statement, but could you point out any that are still confusing?
• Inscription: yes, the captialization is what the inscription on the obelisk itself states (the reference from Haigh's book is a photo of the words).
• File:Warwick prepping for Barnet.jpg: the figures are copyrighted by Tussauds (created c. 1995); however, United Kingdom permits freedom of panorama and the exhibit is permanent. Commons has allowed for such photos, as long as the "fop copyright tag" is applied.

Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • One problem is that Weir is a "popular" historian, not a "scholarly" historian. Relying on her works is not a good plan. There are MUCH better sources for Wars of the Roses information.
  • Also, the Hicks work from "Essential Histories" .. this isn't a bad bad source, but like weir, it's more popular. Better sources can be found.
  • Same deal for Desmond Seward. Popular historian, not scholarly.
  • Look for Charles Ross' biography of Edward IV, also his biography of Richard III, as well as Wolfe's biography of Henry VI. A good overview of the time would be "Shaping the Nation 1360-1461" in the New Oxford History of England. Also Carpenter's "The Wars of the Roses" might be useful.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye carumba... looks like I have plenty of work to do. My country's library has only Richard III from the list you gave. Looks like I have to do detective work around the bookstores... Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: – only on the lead and first section, for the moment. Other comments will follow as time permits, over the next few days.

• Lead: as a general point, I think the lead has too much detail and could be reduced by about a quarter. See comments below for where this particularly applies.
  • This is not my favourite formulation: "Taking place a few miles north of Barnet, a small town on the northern outskirts of London, the battle was fought on 14 April 1471." Why not: "The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 a few miles north of Barnet, a small town on the northern outskirts of London."?
  • The next sentence is also awkwardly phrased: "The forces of the House of York, under Edward, defeated the House of Lancaster's army, which was led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and fighting for the cause of Henry VI." I suggest: "The forces of the House of York, under Edward, defeated the House of Lancaster's army which, led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, fought the cause of Henry VI."
  • I wonder, is there a better word than "recognised" to describe the two kings' status? Perhaps "rival" would highlight their relationship to each other?
  • "...having brought about..." would in my view be better phrased as "since it brought about..."
  • Tense issues in second paragraph: I suggest "Warwick had defected", "the earl had defeated..."
  • Repetition: "a town on the outskirts of London". Location of Barnet established in previous paragraph.
  • "In the dark of the night" is literary; "Under cover of darkness" would be factual. Similarly, "sneaked" is POV; a neutral word like "moved" is required. But I am uneasy about this extent of battle detail in the lead, which should summarise in broader strokes than these.
  • "Edward's victory proved crucial in securing his throne." More or less repeats the information from the first line of the article.
  • Margaret of Anjou's status as queen, and head of the Lancastrians, should be explained, but personally I wouldn't mention her here. I'd simplify this information to: "Deprived of Warwick's support, the Lancastrians suffered their final defeat at the Battle of Tewkesbury on 4 May 1471, which marked the end of the House of Lancaster and ensured the ascendancy of the House of York. Three centuries after the Battle of Barnet was fought, a stone obelisk was raised, on the spot where Warwick purportedly died, to commemorate the event."
  • Which event is being commemorated by the obelisk, the battle or Warwick's death?

• Background: there is some confusion in the history here.
  • The first sentence doesn't square. Henry VI was effectively deposed in 1461, Edward being proclaimed king after the Battle of Towton (29.3.1461). Edward reigned from then until the brief period of Henry's restoration as Warwick's puppet during 1470-71, and resumed the throne, as you indicate, after the decisive Battle of Tewkesbury. Thus 1461, not 1469, was surely the milestone year, not 1469. The first paragraph will make sense if you adjust the date.
  • In the second paragraph the statement that Warwick decided to "resort to any means to make Edward compliant with his wishes" is too vague to be useful. Why not say what he actually did, which was to provoke a rebellion in the north and, while Edward was preoccupied with this, invade from France and overcome the king's forces at Edgecote?
  • The reason Warwick fled to France was because the king discovered his complicity in the rebellion which Edward put down at the Battle of Empingham (aka "Losecote Field", but I live three miles from Empingham, and that's what we call it here).
  • Warwick "submitted to Margaret" is very indirect language. What you mean is that Warwick joined the Lancastrian cause.
  • You need to give a date for Edward's flight to Burgundy (September 1470?)
  • I've not checked the prose in this section, because I think you need to make some alterations first.

Sorry to be rather piecemeal in my comments, but this way you don't have to wait until I've finished before starting. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Lede: I have taken action for most of your suggestions...

• "recognised Kings of England": my intent was to state that here were at the same time, two royals who were acknowledged as Kings of England. Edward entered London as a King, but Henry was not officially deposed at the time, so technically there were two Kings. I think there is no other time such as this. Please correct me if I am wrong.
• Obelisk: per the inscription, the obelisk seems to be commemorating both the battle and the earl's death. I tried a wording; does it suffice?

• Background: mostly implemented...

• Warwick's flight to France: would putting the reason in the footnotes do?

Waiting for the rest of the stuff. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More comment, taking the review a little further.

• Commanders - preamble
  • This introductory paragraph contains no dates and is therefore confusing. It is also a bit of a ragbag of assorted facts, few of which relate to what I thought would be its function, a preface to the introduction of the key commanders on both sides of the Battle of Barnet. I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten to state a few simple facts: Edward IV was head of the House of York, the turncoat Warwick was the de facto head of the House of Lancaster, they were each supported by other military commanders hardened by previous battles - no need to say more at this stage. Then go ahead and introduce the commanders properly, in the following subsections.
• Yorkist
  • "personally" is redundant. "Led his armies from the front" is a bit of a cliché; what about something like: "King Edward was normally in the forefront of the armies which he took into battle"
  • Where is the "charisma and charm" information cited to?
  • "Several times..." Sounds weak. Suggestion: Frequently he would recognise and exploit defensive frailties in the enemies' lines, to claim victory in battle."
  • Financial accountability" is not in itself a virtue to be listed alongside good looks, personality, capable leadership etc. You can be accountable, but still make a mess of the finances (think credit crunch). I think you may mean "financial honesty" or "acumen"; whatever is meant would have to be supported by a source. Is it worth keeping?
  • "Standing on Edward's side..." is definitely odd. "On" could be "at", prewferably with the "standing" omitted, so the paragraph begins "At Edward's side..."
  • You need to specify when Gloucester was 18 years old. Thus: At the time of the Battle of Barnet Gloucester was 18 years old..." (the age should be given numerically)
  • "at the least" seems a bit unnecessary
  • "in the matters of loyalty" - delete "the"
  • Warwick married his daughter off to "their" prince - can you identify this prince?
• Lancastrian
  • As a general point, the focus of this subsection should be on briefly introducing the Battle of Barnet commanders on the Lancastrian side. As it stands, this section is three times the length of the equivalent Yorkist section, and I think there is rather too much backstory, given all the relevant commanders have their own main articles.
  • Opening sentence: it needs to be "had fought" rather than "fought", and "the house" would be better expressed as "that House"
  • "moniker" is slang, egregiously so in an article about the Wars of the Roses. Suggest replace with "nickname" (moniker may be a respectable term in American scholarly prose, but trust me, it will sound odd to English readers).

Well, that's another slice. Apolgies if any of these have been picked up by others. The review is beginning to look like a case of too many cooks, so I will leave it for the present. When you have dealt with the various suggestions being heaped upon you, please ping me if you think my comments on the rest of the article would be helpful, and I'll be quite willing to resume, but there is such a thing as over-reviewing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicks from Iridescent Lots of minor nitpicks, I'm afraid; in no particular order)

• "records of the town boundaries and geography were not detailed enough for the historical body or other historians to conclude the exact location of the battle" reads a bit strangely – what is "the historical body"? If it's English Heritage you mean (not "The English Heritage", incidentally) I think that needs to be specified;
• Two sections start with left-aligned images; unless there's a very good reason to have them immediately below the headers, Sandy will give you Strong Words Of Advice should it go to FAC;
• In the lead and in the text, Barnet is described as "on the outskirts of London" – at around 10 miles from Westminster and 12 miles from the City of London, on the opposite side of steep hills; it was certainly not a London suburb at the time of the battle (it was only with the coming of the railways in 1850 and construction of the A1 road in the early 20th century that Barnet began to develop into a London suburb);
• "Shakespeare ("The Bard")" looks very odd to me – is a nickname really appropriate? It's hardly necessary to differentiate William from any other Shakespeare (no sane reader is going to think any of these guys wrote Henry VI, Part 3), and "The Bard" as a term for Shakespeare is an Americanism; in Britain the term is just as likely to refer to Robert Burns or William Wordsworth, depending on who you're talking to and in what context;
• Nitpick par excellence – the units of measurement are inconsistent. I've not fixed them as I don't know if you want to standardize on metric or imperial, but sentences like "an obelisk about 200 metres south […] it stands 18 feet tall" jump out at me;
• "Higher spiritual being" reads very oddly. Is this the exact wording Hicks uses, in which case its usage is justified? Otherwise, the fact that mediaeval England was a Christian country is not in doubt, and "sanctioned by God" is a lot clearer;
• "Historians theorised that had Warwick's force joined Margaret's before challenging Edward, the combined Lancastrian army would have overwhelmed the Yorkists and brought about a different English history." is uncited, and really needs to be both cited and explained. Firstly, which historians? Secondly, does "theorised" as opposed to "theorise" mean they don't believe it any more? Finally, what aspect of history would have been different?

I know they're all minor nitpicks, but I think they all need to be at least looked at. – iridescent 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Changed "the historical body" to English Heritage (and dropped the "other" before "historians")
• Regarding left-aligned images, it is starting off a third-level section (i.e. one that is started with "=== xxx ===") that earns the disproval of the MOS. Starting off a second-level section ("== xx ==") is okay.
• Barnet's location is now pinpointed as a distance from London.
• Well, "the Bard" was to vary the mentions of Shakespeare; it would be monotonous to keep referring to "he" or "Shakespeare". In light of what you have said, I will try to find another way to name him. Add-on: changed to "dramatist"
• "sanctioned by a higher spiritual being" changed to "sanctioned by God" and "approved spiritually"
• I presented metrics as the primary standard (although I am still in pretty much two minds over this; imperial fits the age better, but we are living in the metric era).
• I will dwelve more into the "different English history" part. I think it was more of a mention rather than an in-depth study, which in that case, I could remove it.

Solving nitpicks will yield a better article; thus, your opinions are very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions from HLGallon Mainly to do with historical context

• It should be mentioned that Charles the Bold of Burgundy was not only Edward's host in exile, but also his brother in law. No wonder Edward obtained support there.
• Other relationships; Warwick was Edward's cousin (his father, the Earl of Salisbury, was the brother-in-law of Richard of York (Edward's father)
• I wouldn't refer to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York as "Plantagenet". The man he tried to supplant was also Henry Plantagenet. Every history I have read refers to him simply as "York" (or occasionally as "Richard", but since he had been dead for a decade by 1470, this could cause confusion with Richard of Gloucester.
• It may be mentioned that residual suspicion of Warwick on the part of Margaret of Anjou, formerly his mortal enemy, was part of the reason Margaret and her son, Edward of Westminster, did not arrive in England for several months after Warwick forced Edward into exile. The role of Louis IX of France, in arranging the awkward alliance of Warwick and Lancaster so as to prevent a hostile alliance between Burgundy and England under Edward, could perhaps be expanded.
• You may mention Edward's concerns that the Bastard of Fauconberg might attack London, as he did in May, which caused Edward to bring Henry VI along in his train instead of leaving him in the Tower of London. (The auguries weren't good; at every battle at which Henry had been present previously, whether compos mentis or not, the side which held him had been defeated.)
• Hope this helps. HLGallon (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Charles' relationship to Edward is now mentioned.
• Edward and Warwick's relationship is inserted, I hope it is not in a too casual or throwabout manner.
• The 3rd Duke of York is not referred to by "Plantagenet" now.
• I think Margaret's reasons for her delayed arrival is best contained in the Battle of Tewkesbury, rather than here.
• The possibility of Fauconberg's attack is a good thing to insert, but I need a good source for it. (I am still sourcing for Ross' Edward IV, which I believe should have this info on p. 173, but cannot confirm).

Every little bit is always of help. Thank you very much. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments

• "The earl decided to resort to any means to make Edward compliant with his wishes." Consider "to make Edward comply with his wishes."
• "Lancastrian supporters took advantage of Edward's imprisonment to stage uprisings, and because most Yorkist-aligned warlords ..." I might be misreading this, but shouldn't the conjunction be "but"?
• "When York waged war to coerce Henry to remove Somerset from power, the warlords mostly took sides ..." The "mostly" is misplaced here, as it seems to modify "took".
• "The king continually overlooked the duke's failures and promoted him to positions of power; this was often done ..." Avoid using "this" to refer to a previous idea or action. It is ambiguous. You can avoid it by rewriting: "this treatment was at the expense of ..." Please check throughout for this issue.
• "The Wars of the Roses, however, saw executions ..." Avoid anthropomorphism like this—the wars did not see anything. Again, please check throughout if you have the tendency to use such phrasing.
• "... killing his foes while wearing his suit of gilded armour." As with the "comply" example above, you seem to have a bit of tendency toward wordiness. Would not "killing his foes wearing a suit of gilded armour" serve just as well?

More later. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actions taken on the above, except "... killing his foes while wearing his suit of gilded armour." A possible problem with "killing his foes wearing a suit of gilded armour" is that it introduces a question of "who is wearing a suit of gilded armour", the king or his foes. The conjunction bit ("and" instead of "but") on Edward's imprisonment is also unchanged. The "... because ..." is more descriptive (explanatory) than a contradiction to the preceding clause [think of it as "Uprisings started and Warwick was forced to release Edward (because no one wanted to listen to the earl)."]. Looking forward to your further comments. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• In the infobox I would add that Edward IV is on a horse or mounted to the image caption for clarity - I thought he was one of the figures on foot.
• The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 a few kilometers north of Barnet, a small town 19 kilometres (12 mi) north of London. I presume the battlefield location and distance from London is known, would it make sense to give the distance of the battlefield from London? The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 some 21 kilometres (13 mi) north of London, and a few kilometers north of Barnet, a small town. (my guess on distance from London - whoops reading more it seems the location is not known as well as I assumed)
• which, led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, fought the cause of Henry VI. Should it be "fought [for] the cause of Henry VI"? Just sounds odd this way
• Can "constituted" be linked - perhaps to Wiktionary? in Both constituted Kings of England were present on the battlefield.
• In the Background, I would identify Edward as Yorkist and Henry as Lancastrian on first mention.
• I would add the year that Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville, and the year(s) for the Commanders section
• House is unclear in Formerly a trusted Yorkist, the Earl of Warwick fought for the house since the early stages of the Wars of the Roses ...
• Should this be past tense (owed)? Phillip Haigh suspects that the earl owes some of his acclaimed victories ...
• I thought it was "bestowed on" but At her prodding, Edward bestowed gifts of land and titles to her relations ...
• I would identify the forces by colors in the map captions (very nice maps by the way)\
• Watch units - metric is first almost everywhere, so has reported the battlefield as lying a mile or half-mile north of the town of Barnet. needs to include metric and have km first to be consistent with the others.
• The quote in the Battlefield section uses {{cquote}}, which is for pull quotes, but {{blockquote}} is supposed to be used here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I have implemented the above, except:

• Distances between London, Barnet, and the battle: I will try to find another way around this.
• "fought the cause" vs "fought for the cause": it seems either form is correct (from books), although the latter is more commonly seen. I think it can be easily corrected later if needed.
• Years: I am trying to avoid an overload of dates, inserting a "benchmark" year here and there. I added the year to the marriage in the Background section to hopefully create another benchmark.

Thank you very much for the look through. Jappalang (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 16:07 UTC)

---

[edit] Inauguration of Barack Obama

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because the recent WP:FAC resulted in the feeling a PR was needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 23:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Quedagh Merchant

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I need WikiPedians who know more about this topic than I do, assist me in getting this eventually promoted to GA status.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Kidd's story is interesting, and this could become an illuminating article. The main problem, though, is that it relies almost entirely on one source, the book by Zacks. This means that it isn't broad in coverage and has no chance at GA without additional information. To be considered for GA eventually, it would also need to be illustrated. I have a couple of suggestions about how you might proceed.

• Although you can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, you can use it as a research aid. The Wikipedia article on William Kidd includes a bibliography. The Zack book is listed, but so are many others. Suggestion: Obtain from the library or elsewhere as many of the books in the William Kidd bibliography as you can. Each of them is likely to have a bibliography with the titles of other books and articles about Kidd. Find and read as many of these as you can. Based on this research, re-write the article with less emphasis on the small details of the Quedagh voyage, such as the names of most of the ports of call on the journey to New York, and more emphasis on details about Kidd, his other voyages, the people he worked for, his imprisonment and death, and the controversy about whether he was a pirate or not.

• Image suggestion: The William Kidd article has images that you might be able to use to illustrate this article.

I hope these couple of suggestions prove helpful. I would think the reading of the Kidd books itself would be fascinating, and you never know what you might find. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 03:31 UTC)

---

[edit] Treveri

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input, criticism, and additions from other editors. I did a fair bit of work on the article about a year ago, and there have been few changes of substance since then. If there are any editors who can make use of German-language sources, I'm sure it would be highly useful. (After peer review, I intend to expand the French article using this article as a starting-point.)

Thanks, Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hello! There should only be footnoted references, i.e. all those {p. 2) citations that precede the footnotes should be incorporated into the footnotes. We should not use both parenthetical citations and footnotes. Also, when we get down to the Treveri#Language_and_ethnicity section, a couple of claims are uncited. I tried some Google Books searches for those claims and while I may not be using the best search strings (I tried such combinations as "German Treveri third or second century BCE", but have not had much luck. If you have a source for these, it would be immensely helpful here. Anyway, I hope these suggestion helps. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, nice illustrations for the most part. I agree with the above comments on mixing reference styles, which is a non-non. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The current one sentence lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
• Make sure to provide context for the reader - as one example, the lead does not give a time scale and the first indication we get is the mention of Caesar in etymology.
• The map of tribes in Gaul is pretty hard to read - could the caption describe about there the Treveri were? Perhaps something like "Map of Roman Gaul showing tribes; the Treveri lived in the northeast corner of Celtica, near the territories of Belgica and Germania"
• There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article in most cases.
• Article needs more references, for example "After the Roman conquest, Latin was used extensively by the Treveri for public and official purposes." or the {{fact}} tags. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Isn't the Latin name for Trier (Augusta Treverorum) and the current French name (Trèves) derived from the name Treveri? Should this be in the Etymology?

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 _><>°^° 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 March 2009, 14:10 UTC)

---

[edit] Wilfrid

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FAC and would appreciate comments on comprehensiveness, the ability of non-medievalists to understand it, and prose. All other comments are of course welcome!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it looks pretty good overall, so these are fairly minor issues.

• The lead image is nice, but I am guessing you will have trouble with it at FAC. The source should link to the page that contains it here. That website gives no indication the image is over 100 years old and says "NOTE: Pictures in York Cathedral not to be reproduced without permission of the Dean and Chapter of York". If you can get permission, there is also a stained glass image of Wilfrid on the same page.

Whacked it and replaced with a panorama of Whitby. Wilfrid's just a bother on images. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The labels on File:Northumbrian bishoprics and monasteries, 680s.svg are so small I have trouble reading them even when I click on the image for the full view - they are impossible in the article (at least on my monitor). Even making the caption clearer (York is the southernmost red star and Ripon the yellow star closest too it) would help.

Replaced with a different map. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:British seventh century kingdoms.gif is also difficult to read in the article and is set at 150 pixels wide, when the MOS says it should just be set to thumb. Maps can actually be set wider for legibility.

Made it bigger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wilfrid the diocesan violates WP:HEAD, could it be just "Diocesan"?

It's now diocesan affairs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the article needs to do a better job providing context - most casual readers will not know that there were multiple kingdoms then, in what is now England. So I think it would help to add a brief paragraph on the kingdoms and the situation at the time. I would also perhaps add "Kingdom of" before the first use of a place name, or King before names - as one example, I thought Oswald of Northumbria was a clergyman until I clicked on the link.

took care of the first part, check out the new first section (I swear, this article just grows and grows...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The three sections of "Other aspects" seem as if they would read better elsewhere - either put into the proper chronology or perhaps split between chronology and then discussed in the Legacy section
• I know you usually get someone to copyedit, but this prose needs to be tightened up. A few examples just from the lead:
  • After the appointment of Theodore of Tarsus as Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, Theodore resolved the situation in Northumbria by deposing Ceadda, and returning Wilfrid to the Northumbrian see. could just be Theodore of Tarsus, who was appotinted Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, resolved the situation in Northumbria by deposing Ceadda and returning Wilfrid to the Northumbrian see.
  • Or does the fourth paragraph of the lead really both Historians then and now have been divided over Wilfrid. AND Modern historians have differed widely on their interpretations of his life...

There's a start for you, sorry to take so long. Hope this helps. I think the major concerns are the images, a few places where some context is needed, and polishing the language. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Unfortunately, I lost my main copyeditor when Malleus left. I'm still looking for a replacement... (grins). I should get to these in the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not know Malleus had retired - so sorry to hear that. Hope the highly addictive nature of the place draws him back in eventually. Let me know on my talk page if you want a second look, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 March 2009, 18:56 UTC)

---

[edit] History of Valenzuela City

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think there are some instances that we need to review or add to this history.

Thanks, I heart CE! (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm glad to see someone adding material about the Philippines to the encyclopedia. I have just a few suggestions for improvement.

• I did a bit of light copyediting of the lead and the first section. However, it would be good to have a skilled copyeditor go over the rest of the material as well. I see many small mistakes.
• Dates are no longer linked in Wikipedia. I was going to run a script to delink them, but I did not know whether you wanted them to be in d-m-y format, as they are in the "References and further reading" section, or in m-d-y format, as they are in the main text. You can unlink them one-by-one and arrange them in the format you think best.
• Instead of a "References and further reading" section, you might want to put the linked items in that list into an "External links" section. The links in "External links" don't need to display access dates; only the in-line citations need those. I would suggest re-naming the "References and further reading" section "Further reading", which at this point would then just contain the one book if you move the other items to "External links".
• Many of the paragraphs here are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for each paragraph, each unusual claim, each set of statistics, and each direct quote.
• I'm sorry I don't have any content to add to the article, but peer review is not really intended for that.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment: WP:CITY has a lot of helpful advice about creating articles about cities and towns, and it has links to city articles that have reached good or featured status. These are often good models to imitate. Just the general idea of adding something about climate, transportation, geography, schools, and so on, can be helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 March 2009, 14:23 UTC)

---

[edit] Gilbert Foliot

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take this article to FAC and would appreciate help on prose and how understandable it is for a non-historian.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 March 2009, 15:18 UTC)

---

[edit] New Netherland

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…substantial work has been done in the last months with improved text, format, references, links, and series template

Thanks, Djflem (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting and enjoyable article. It is broad and possibly comprehensive, neutral, stable, well-written, and well-illustrated. At least some of the references still have problems, as noted below, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

• I believe those em dashes in the infobox should be en dashes.
• A, an, and the are normally avoided as the first word of a section title unless it's a proper noun. Thus, "The North River and the Manhattans" should be shortened to "North River and the Manhattans". Ditto for all other section heads like this one.

Origins

• (The narrows are named for Giovanni da Verrazzano who had sighted them in 1524.[2]) - Footnote number after end parentheses?
• One-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Suggestion: merge the three short ones at the end into one bigger one.*"1613-1614" - En dash in date ranges rather than hyphen, per Manual of Style. Ditto elsewhere in the article.

Development

• "were used by the New Netherland Company (a newly formed alliance of trading companies) to win their patent" - Should this be "its patent" rather than "their patent"?

Algonquians and the Iroquois

• "It is likely the Hudson's peaceful contact with the local Mahicans" - Should that be "that Hudson's" rather than "the Hudson's"?

Early settlement

• "Most of the settlers were not Dutch, but Walloons, Huguenots, or Africans (who were brought as slaves)." - Merge with the paragraph above?

Director-General of New Amsterdam

• "During the period of his governorship that province experienced exponential growth." - Should it be "the province" rather than "that province"?

Fresh River and New England

• "50 Dutch miles" - Not sure what this means. If Dutch miles differ from miles, an in-text explanation would help.

Legacy

• "as well as by the character of those who immigrated to it" - Emigrated" rather than "immigrated"?

"Lore"

• "The seven arrows in the lion's left claw in the Republic's coat of arms, representing the seven provinces, was a precedent for the thirteen arrows in the eagle's left claw in the Great Seal of the United States." - Merge with paragraph above?

"References"

• Some of the citations are incomplete. All the on-line ones need access dates, for example. They should have publishers and publication dates too, if possible. You may be asked whether the dot-coms are reliable sources.

Images

• Images generally should be set to "thumb" size rather than a forced pixel width except for the lead image in the infobox.
• I think the image licenses are OK except that the source is not clearly identified for Image:Wpdms aq block 1614.jpg. It's probably a scan from a book, certainly in the public domain. It would be good to add bibliographic data about the source if you can track it down.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of above has been implemented. See below for reference check. Other question regarding footnote, miles, etc to be researchedDjflem (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 March 2009, 00:10 UTC)

---

[edit] Battle of Balaclava

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently rewritten it. Comments and criticism welcome.

Thanks, Rebel Redcoat (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Starting from the very first sentence I'm afraid that this is going to be written without regard to someone who's not a MilHis buff. "The Battle of Balaclava, fought on 25 October 1854 during the Crimean War, was part of the Anglo-French-Turkish campaign to capture the port and fortress of Sevastopol, Russia's principal naval base on the Black Sea." If you've never heard of the Crimean War, then this sentence will lose you. Is everybody fighting against Russia? Are there more combatants than mentioned? I think starting off with a slow "The Battle of Balaclava was..." would be better.
• Likewise—"earlier Allied victory" no clue who the allies are
• In that vein, perhaps a "background" section, detailing the events of the war up to the battle in a quick and dirty form, would be useful.
• There are many statements—particularly those at the trailing end of paragraphs—that are unsourced. Even if the source is in the next paragraph its best to cite it there as well.
• There appear to be lots of double spaces between sections that should be removed.
• On a cursory glance the images appear decent, but I'd like to see sources for photographer/artist life dates and more than just a raw link to images if they are online. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2009, 21:33 UTC)

---

[edit] Gregorian mission

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… It's passed GA, and I'd like to make sure that it's understandable to the non-historian as well as no outstanding prose glitches before heading off to FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 March 2009, 02:55 UTC)

---

[edit] Robert Burnell

Previous peer review

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FAC and would appreciate any help on missing context or copyediting that it can have.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 February 2009, 02:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Junkers Ju 87

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed as GA and the reviewing editor suggested it was a stron article that might make FA status. I would like to know what (if anything) needs to be done to get it there.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

• Rudel as most highly decorated soldier of the German Wehrmacht. This needs a citation
• sank the Soviet battleship Marat. This might draw some discussion. To some she was sunk, to others she was immobilized.
• Kriegsmarine, you may want to add that this is the German Navy
• The article is not consistent when using metric untis versus imperial units. While speed, distances and altitude are stated in metric as well as in imperial units, weight and volume is given in metric only.
• Some auditors like to see us translate German ranks and state the equivalent US/British equivalent. This applies to may other German words used in this article too. I don't always know how to address this best.
• It is Tempelhof not Templehof
• 37 mm cannons: Already early in the war this weapon was considered inappropriate as an anti tank weapon for the infantry. You may want to elaborate a bit on why it was more suited as an airborne weapon three years later (use of newly developed Tungsten carbide ammunition as well as the fact that the slanted armor of the T-34 was useless in the typical approach of the Ju 87 from the rear; you know what I mean)

MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• Note that this article is 12,000+ words. Suggest breaking it down into subarticles.
• Current ref 58 is a bare url with no publisher or last access date. Needs to have a formatted link title and the publisher and the date it was last accessed. ALso, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 152 needs a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Okay, thank you both. Most of the points raised so far should not be a problem. I really didn't want to split the article, as I think is okay as it is. I will correct the above, but I don't think I'll go for FA or AC yet. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 February 2009, 21:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Geography and places

[edit] Caversham, New Zealand

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I started the article a couple of weeks back and I think I've got it successfully to B-Class. Just looking for some pointers to get it from there to A-Class (or to shore up any gaps if it's not yet a B). Any advice welcomed.

Thanks, Grutness...wha? 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2009, 01:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Islais Creek

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the prose is written poorly. I want to get more feedback on grammar. Hopefully, I can get this to FA in the future (the ultimate goal!).

Thanks, —Chris! _ct 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting urban creek, badly beat up but still alive. I have a few general questions and suggestions.

• I wonder if there is some way to explain the course in a way that would make sense to readers not intimately familiar with San Francisco. A map could do it, but it might also help to explain where the creek is in relation to a famous landmark, perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge. It would also help to describe the course from the source to the mouth. That's the standard procedure for creeks and rivers. Thus, instead of starting the course description with "The original Islais Creek stretched from the San Francisco Bay 3.5 miles (5.6 km) west into the Glen Canyon Park[7] and O’Shaughnessy Hollow," I think it should be the other way around, flowing east (apparently) from Glen Canyon Park and O'Shaughnessy Hollow to the Bay. You might then be able to give a course description that identifies changes of direction, major streets, landmarks, or points of interest by the left bank, right bank convention from source to mouth. This should be possible even if much of the former creek is in a pipe or culvert. It also sounds as if the stream begins in one park and ends in another park, which is interesting.

I try to rewrite the course section and describe it from the source to the mouth. I will try to add measurement and direction info later. There aren't any famous landmarks nearby, though. —Chris! _ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder in what sense the creek carries domestic sewage and industrial waste water. I'm assuming that San Francisco has modern waste water treatment plants and does not deliberately dump raw sewage into the bay. Does the culvert have sewer lines as well as the creek running through it? Do they cut through horizontally, or do they run parallel to the creek? Where is the sewage supposed to be going when things are working well? Is the creek relatively clean in Glen Canyon Park?

• Has the creek got any fish living in it?

Don't think so.—Chris! _ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any wetlands along the creek? If so, how extensive?

Historically, yes. But not today though—Chris! _ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• If possible, I'd describe the parks, including acreage, major features, and plants and animals.

• It's possible to find the source elevation by plugging the GNIS source coordinates into Google Earth. Once you have the source elevation, you can add it to the geobox, and you can also describe the creek at least generally in terms of slope; e.g. it falls X feet between source and mouth over a distance of 3.5 miles.

• It's often possible to find the size of a drainage basin. This one looks tough, but Friends of Islais Creek might collect such data. If you can find it, that tidbit can be added to the geobox as well.

• You might add Friends of Islais Creek to the External links section.

• The lower park was badly damaged in 2001. How has it fared since then?

• You asked about prose issues, grammar in particular. My advice would be to do any additions and re-writes first and then seek the help of a copyeditor. It's helpful sometimes to work in tandem with other editors who can see things with fresh eyes and point them out.

• I noticed several places in the text with phrases like "Today, a small creek remains inside Glen Canyon Park... ". Generally, it's a good idea to avoid "today", "present day", "now", "current" and other time-related words that are inherently ambiguous in context. More specific terms such as "as of 2009", "in the 21st century", "since construction stopped in 1995" and descriptions of that sort are usually better.

• Eliminating redundancy, even if it involves only a single unnecessary word, usually improves prose flow. For example, I noticed that the History section starts with "The history of Islais Creek can dated back to the 1700s... " This was missing a word, "be", but it also could be shortened to "The history of Islais Creek dates to the 1700s...". I made the change, but you can probably find other similar places to tighten.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 March 2009, 00:22 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Yellowstone National Park related articles

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because: Another editor has suggested this Yellowstone List be nominated for Featured List status. As of yet, it has not undergone a peer review.

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that some work has been put into this, I think it is a candidate for deletion (although much of it can be salvaged as actual lists). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The most basic problem with the list is the title. Wikipedia calls organizations of article categories, not lists. The organizing criteria for a list should not be the fact that all of these articles are in the Yellowstone category, but rather that they all are about the same topic. I think the list as it currently exists is way too broad a topic, but I also think big chunks of it could be saved / serve as the basis for better, smaller, more focused lists. Please read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists carefully.
• Next read Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Then read this article. Here are the two most obvious FL problems:
  • It has no (zero) references, but a FL must meet the criteria for verifiability, citations, and reliable sources
  • The lead is one sentence. The FL criteria says Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Please see WP:LEAD too.
• This also has a Trivia section, which is discouraged in any article, but especially in Featured content - see WP:TRIVIA
• The information that is there is not organized in an obvious way that I could tell - people are not in alphabetic or chronological order, topics seem to be listed at random, there is little overall structure.
• I would split out a lot of the smaller sections as real lists. "List of people associated with Yellowstone" is one obvious example. Another would be "List of geysers at Yellowstone", but wait I see there is already a List of Yellowstone geothermal features, which this list includes. Lists do not generally include other lists.
• Perhaps Rivers, lakes and waterfalls of Yellowstone could be another list.
• I will give you a week to salvage things, then nominate this for deletion. will move the top part to a new name, perhaps List of people associated with Yellowstone.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Hope this helps with other better lists. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2009, 19:25 UTC)

---

[edit] List of districts of Kerala

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this list has a potential to be a featured list. Please put your comments or suggestions 1)to improve this list, 2) to indicate what it is lacking.

Thanks, -- Tinu Cherian - 09:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from GDibyendu

• Some clarity may be needed on formation of Kerala, whether the full Travancore-Cochin state became part of Kerala and same thing for the erstwhile Malabar district also.
• Was there any change in the shapes of its districts since the state of Kerala was formed?
• As far as I know there is no 'Division' in Kerala, though many other states have it. But, is there a ref for it? Most probably it is not there because in British times, there were none: Malabar was a whole district and Travancore and Cochin were princely states.
• How are North, Central and South Kerala regions different? Geographically or otherwise. If some such differences are noted, it could be better.
• Map-colors as suggested in WP:India Cartography department page should be used.
• Are the terms Taluk and subdivision used in same sense? Noticed 'Subdivision Police': or is it defined for Police organization only?
• How are the 21 revenue divisions defined?
• Kerala High Court probably has jurisdiction over Lakshadweep also (not sure whether it should be mentioned)
• Some highlights on high literacy or 'Kerala Model' may be good to add.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Working on this -- Tinu Cherian - 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 March 2009, 09:31 UTC)

---

[edit] Kingston upon Hull

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is an excellent addition to Wikipedia. The article really describes Kingston Upon Hull in a good and appealing way, while not being biased or unconstructive. I would like to read everyone's opinion about this article so please, go ahead and review.

Thanks, Neu_tralle 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a few comments to get things moving

• The reference marked with {{dead link}} needs looking into, the figures that it relates to could be updated with later figures and a new reference found for this.
• The lonely planet reference (currently 15) is dead and the new page for this does not have information on car parks. May be the sentence needs to be rewritten and a new reference found.
• Under Notable people the term "Hullites" is marked as requiring citation I think this could probably be removed as it is not the usual term for someone from Hull.
• Under Sport the paragraph on cycling is unreferenced also the section is rather short and could probably do with some expansion.

Keith D (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to watch the review! Thankyou for your comments. I'll try to address some of these issues. Neu_tralle 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad, well-illustrated, stable, neutral, and appears to be well-supported. Hull is quite an interesting place, and I learned a lot by reading the article. I have some concerns about the many sentences that string clauses together ungrammatically with "with plus -ing" phrases tacked onto otherwise perfectly OK sentences. It will be tedious to re-cast all of these but worth doing. After the re-writes, another copyedit would be a good idea as well. I did a little copyediting as I went, but I don't have time to do a complete job.

Lead

• I'd suggest expanding the lead. The ideal lead is an abstract or summary of the whole article. This one comes close but leaves out any mention of the main ideas in the Education, Media, Dialect, and Notable people sections and gives pretty short shrift to culture and sports. An article this long might need a four- or five-paragraph lead to fit everything in.

Governance

• Generally, it's best to convert lists to straight prose. I'd suggest doing that with the list starting with "The council has several subcomponents... ".

Hull Blitz

• "Hull was the most severely-bombed British city or town apart from London during World War II, with 95% of houses being damaged or destroyed." - This sentence includes a dreaded "with plus -ing" construction. Suggestion: "Apart from London, Hull was the most severely-bombed British city or town during World War II. Ninety-five percent of the houses were damaged or destroyed."

Geography

• "Kingston upon Hull is near the east coast of the United Kingdom, on the northern bank of the Humber estuary, with the city centre being sited close to the Humber." - Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "Kingston upon Hull is near the east coast of the United Kingdom, on the northern bank of the Humber estuary. The city centre is near the water." If this seems too choppy, other options are possible.
• Wikilink "alluvial"? Y Done
• "Hull was hit particularly hard by the June 2007 United Kingdom floods, with the local topography resulting in standing water over a wide area affecting 20% of the city's housing and damaging 90 out of its 105 schools." - Another "with plus -ing".
• Wikilink "transepts"? Y Done
• "and included amongst Hull's Catholic churches" - The Manual of Style prefers "among" to "amongst". Y Done
• "The average total annual rainfall is 565 millimetres (22 in) with rain falling on 109 days of the year." Here's another "with plus -ing".

Demography

• "the largest minority ethnic group was of 749 Chinese people." - "749 people of Chinese ancestry"? They are British rather than Chinese, I'm guessing. Is "Chinese" correct, or should it be "Asian"? If Chinese, why? What was the attraction of Hull?
• "With regard to religious diversity, in 2001, the city was 71.7% Christian with 18% of the population indicating they were of no religion while 8.4% did not specify any religious affiliation." - With plus -ing
• "with a further 18,031 travelling between 5 and 10 kilometres (3.1 and 6.2 mi) to their place of employment" - With plus -ing

Economy

• "Freight handling is projected to rise with Network Rail overseeing a £14.5 million investment... " With plus -ing. I'll stop pointing these out from this point on, but you get the idea. I'd suggest tracking them all down and re-casting these sentences.
• "more recent additions including USC" - What is USC? Normally, abbreviations are also spelled out on first use, thus: "University of Southern California (USC)".
  • Its the name of a store not an abbreviation, made in to a wikilink. Keith D (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture

• "started in Hull in the mid-1990s and has released workings of Fila Brazillia[103] ,Mr Beasley and The Brilliance amongst others." - Something's amiss with the punctuation. The comma should come before the reference. Y Done
• "and Oasis in its history, whilst the Springhead, caters to a variety of bands - Suggestion: remove the comma after Springhead and change "whilst" to "while" per the Manual of Style. Y Done
• "which is one of Europe's largest travelling funfair" - Funfairs, plural? Y Done

Dialect and accent

• "The vowel in "Hull" is pronounced the same way as in northern English, however, and not as the very short /U/ that exists in Lincolnshire, although the rhythm of the accent is more like that of northern Lincolnshire than that of the rural East Riding, which is perhaps due to migration from Lincolnshire to the city during its industrial growth." - A bit too complex. It might be best to split it into two sentences.
• It might be useful to add a sound file here if one is available. I don't think most readers will be able to translate the written language symbols into sounds.

Good luck with the article. If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your extensive review! I will try to address most of these comments as well. I'm glad you found it a 'good read'! Neu_tralle 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 March 2009, 10:41 UTC)

---

[edit] Home of Truth, Utah

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I can see it's still not comparable to the Good Articles, etc. that I've seen, but I'm not sure where to go from here. This is an obscure topic, and I seem to have exhausted the published sources, so I don't know what further development is feasible. What's missing from the article? Obviously it could use some photos, but I don't think I'll be getting down there soon. Are there any other sections it needs, or other subjects the existing ones should cover? How's the text? There are a couple of potentially controversial issues here; is the article both informative and neutral? What does it need? Thanks, Ntsimp (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The only reference that I can find that is not used is "WHEN 'TRUTH' FOUND A HOME IN SOUTHEASTERN UTAH. Pierson, Lloyd M.; Canyon Legacy 1994 (21): 19-23." I don't know if this would present anything new as the author is the same as the The Canyon Country Zephyr already used in the article. Canyon Legacy appears to be the publication of this musuem. I don't have access to the article but you can try an email to the museum. --maclean 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll order that issue and see if it helps. Ntsimp (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article that requires more work. Here are a few general points for you to consider. I will deal with individual prose points later.

• Map: It would help if the map could also show the location of the nearest town to the colony
• Images: I think it would be possible to justify a fair-use rationale for either or both the images shown here (Ogden) or here (Home of Truth buildings). See WP:NFURG. If this is unfamiliar ground let me know and I'll find someone who will help.
• Marie Ogden: In view of her central role in the project you need to include much more information on Marie Ogden. It isn't enough to describe her as "a widow from New Jersey". The San Juan Record source has lots of personal information you can use to expand the Ogden section
• Article structure: this looks odd, and some of the section headings are not appropriate. "Geography" has very little geography in it and should be renamed "Location". Section headings should not replicate the article title, so the "The Home of Truth" subsection should be changed to something like: "Utah colony". At present, nearly all the article is within a main section called "History". This is unnecessary. I suggest that a better structure for the whole article would be:
  • Lead
  • Location
  • Marie Ogden
  • Utah colony
    • Foundation (based on first two paras of present "The Home of Truth" subsection)
    • Colony life (based on last two paragraphs of "The Home of Truth" subsection)
    • Raising the dead (based on first para of "The Rebirth of a Soul" subsection)
    • Decline and closure (based on the second para of the "Rebirth" section
  • Aftermath
• Numbers greater than 10, e.g. "twenty-two" in the lead, and "twenty-one" elsewhere, should be presented numerically: 22 and 21

Perhaps you would respond to these suggestions before I comment on the actual prose. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the ideas. I agree and will get working on these. I don't know enough to do what you suggest with the map, but I think it's a good idea. I don't like fair use images, but I wouldn't object to someone adding them. I haven't been satisfied with the structure, but didn't know what to do; I like your plan. Thanks again, and I welcome anything else you have to say. Ntsimp (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash comments: Quite an interesting article, particularly from a historical perspective. I think it's getting to a reasonably complete state (as complete as an article on a ghost town is going to be). To improve the article, I think that some photos of the current site, or maybe even historical photos (if available), should be added. I also think that having a section on "Marie Ogden" seems a bit awkward -- I think it would be better to move that text into the 'Foundation' section under 'Utah Colony' instead, since she is the founder of the community. I'm not sure if a separate wikipedia article on Marie Ogden is necessary, or if enough information could be added about her, but the content of the section seems more appropriate for the main section. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've moved the Marie Ogden section to "Foundation", and renamed the "Utah colony" section "History", which I think better fits the standards for articles on communities. That takes the article structure somewhat closer to the one Brianboulton didn't like, but at least it's broken up with better subsections now. I'll keep working on this; thanks for the input. Ntsimp (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 February 2009, 00:40 UTC)

---

[edit] Engineering and technology

[edit] MacBook

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to work on this article to Featured Article status, and wish to know which areas I need to work on.

Thanks, Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (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. 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2009, 19:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Twitter

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review for feedback of any kind.

Thanks, WhatisFeelings? (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about a popular subject. At least two parts, the lead and the technical material, need work to make this into a good article, which is certainly possible and desirable. Most of the parts of the lead and the Technology section that deal with the technical aspects of Twitter need to be re-written with the non-tech-savvy reader in mind. The lead also needs to be re-written to summarize the entire article, and elements such as the technical explanations need to be moved to the appropriate sections. I have concerns also about the prose in places, some of the references, and a few violations of the Manual of Style guidelines. I did some light copyediting as I went, but the whole article could use another copyedit after revisions and re-writes are done. Here are suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• The ideal lead is a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main points in each of the text sections and not to include anything that is undeveloped in the main text. The existing lead explains some of the technology that is not explained later, and it has nothing that summarizes History, Finances, Reception, Prominent users, and so on. WP:LEAD explains all.
• "SMS" - It's a good idea to spell abbreviations out on first use, thus: "Short Message Service (SMS)". Ditto for RSS, CEO, XMPP, and all the many others in the article. Otherwise, readers who aren't familiar with the abbreviations quickly get lost.
• "Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them." - It would probably be good to add that the profile pages are on Internet web sites (if that's the case) and that the updates are entered by the user (if that's the case). Someone unfamiliar with Twitter might imagine that it operates only or primarily via a hand-held device like a cell phone. It would probably be helpful to imagine an audience of readers who have just signed up for a basic computer class at a public library and do not necessarily know the difference between "e-mail" and "web site". If the article makes Twitter clear to someone like that, it will be useful to a very large audience.
• "The service is free to use over the web... " - Perhaps World Wide Web (web) of the Internet would make this clear to everyone.
• "As of March 2009, Twitter has received more visibility and popularity worldwide." - More than what? Perhaps what is meant is something like "Since its inception in 2006, Twitter use has grown steadily worldwide".
• "Twitter is often described as the 'SMS of Internet' in that the site provides the back-end functionality (via its APIs) to other desktop and web-based applications to send and receive short text messages often obscuring the actual website itself." - I don't know what this means. "Back-end functionality" is jargon with no obvious meaning. "APIs" means nothing by itself. How does Twitter obscure a website?

History

• "Twitter was founded by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams. It began in March 2006 as a research and development project inside San Francisco podcasting company Odeo. - Thinking again of the reader in the library class, I'd be inclined to link podcasting rather than "research and development" or "San Francisco". Almost no one will have to click to see what "San Francisco" means, but lots of people might find "podcast" mysterious because it is a term of much more recent origin.
• "SXSW" - This should appear right after the first use of South by Southwest, thus: South by Southwest (SXSW).
• "Twitter acquired Summize and rolled it into their own site at the subdomain " - Wikilink subdomain? Twitter is an "it", not a "they".

Privacy and security

• "Nitesh used fakemytext.com[1] to spoof a text message, whereupon Twitter... " - The direct link to a site outside of Wikipedia needs to be turned into an in-line citation. Ditto for the Shakespeare link in the next section. Ditto for the direct link to twitter.com in the Outages section. Ditto for the Red Cross later in the article.

Outages

• Wikilink uptime?
• "For approximately five months, instant messaging support via a Jabber "bot"... " - "Jabber" and "bot" need brief explanations or linking.

Reception

• "But some users are starting to feel 'too' connected... " - Remove apostrophes?

Similar services

• "is touted as an enterprise version of Twitter" - What does "enterprise version" mean?

• Quite a few paragraphs in the article consist of only one or two sentences. Generally its best to either expand these or merge them with other paragraphs.

References

• Some of the references such as #83 and #84 are incomplete. Some have dates in ISO format, while others are in m-d-y format. WP:MOSNUM allows you to pick a preferred format for the dates in the notes but insists on consistency. It appears that changing the non-conformers to ISO would be the easiest fix. The date format for the notes can differ from the date format, m-d-y in this case, in the main text.

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 02:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Chemtrail conspiracy theory

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know how to further improve this article.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The second paragraph of the lead is one sentence with a quotation - I would either expand it or combine it with one of the other paragraphs
• I know contrail is linked, but I would specifically take a few paragraphs to spell out what they are. That way the contrast between the actual contrails and alleged chemtrails becomes clearer.
• missing word I think reasons given by those who believe in the conspiracy vary widely, spanning from military weapons testing, [to] chemical population control, to global warming mitigation measures.[10]
• Refs I checked seemed reliable, but some are incomplete. 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
• Also make sure newspaper titles are correct, for example this ref is from the Akron Beacon Journal, not the "Beacon Journal News" as claimed in Ref. 8
• I have never seen so many individual refs packed into one inline citation (and this is done several times). Some of them do not fit - for example this article (the last ref in Ref 1), is about odd U-turn contrails, but does not mention chemtrails at all. It could be cited individually to say that even without this conspiracies like this, there are sometimes things with contrails that are not easily explained.
• If you want to expand the article, why not address some of the individual claims in the refs - just mentioned one possibility. For another example, there are articles from the US and UK so you could cite a few to show this is not just an American phenomenon.
• Would it make sense to break this up into types of claims in one section, then give the rebuttals in another section?
• There are some other contrail photos in the Contrail article that would have more variety than the three used - a satellite photo perhaps.

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 _><>°^° 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou.Smallman12q (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 March 2009, 13:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Ethanol fuel in Brazil

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback before nominating the article as FAC, so I can improve it to make sure it meets all of the FA criteria, as this could be my first FAC experience.

Thanks, Mariordo (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
• The following references are laking last access dates and/or publishers, which are the minimum required at FAC.
  • Current ref 36 (HOw to Beat..)
  • Current ref 56 (Brazil invests...)
  • Current ref 68 (It's not even got a link title... needs that too.) (and it deadlinks)
  • Current ref 69 (doesn't even have a link title..)
  • Current ref 71 (Inae Riveras..)
  • Current ref 81 (US Congres..)
• Per WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations, we don't use op. cit. or similar abbreviations.

• Done using Shortened footnotes, as in these cases is important to point to the specific page number.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.icis.com/Articles/2007/11/12/9077311/brazils-flex-fuel-car-production-rises-boosting-ethanol-consumption-to-record-highs.html
  • http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/
  • http://www.greencarcongress.com/
  • http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/frost-home.pag
  • http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
• Current ref 30 needs a publisher at the least. Needs to have the title in italics aslo
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
• Current refs 77, 78 and 79 are in portugese, need to note that in the ref

• Done!

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I will work on these improvements as soon as possible.--Mariordo (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 06:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics

[edit] Homologous recombination

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to at least good article quality. The biggest problem in this article seems to be its lack of accessibility to people without a strong background in molecular biology. While I would like to keep the article useful and informative to undergraduates in the biological sciences and more advanced readers, I also want it to be interesting to and digestible for high school biology students. Other specific suggestions on how the article could be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 March 2009, 16:40 UTC)

---

[edit] Four color theorem

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

• 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 March 2009.

The article is currently listed as A class by WikiProject Mathematics, but I think it could use improvement in the "fine writing" category. Also, things like style and formatting. I'd like to know how it reads to someone unfamiliar with the topic, preferably not too much into mathematics. I think the topic itself is more approachable than most advanced math topics, so I would like a "layman" perspective.

Thanks, C S (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 March 2009, 06:51 UTC)

---

[edit] Human musculoskeletal system

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an additional opinion on what is needed to progress to GA and to overall improve the article.

Thanks, Dondevoy01 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments: With regard to what's needed to meet the GA criteria, the points at the GA review left here are a good starting point. The actual GA criteria can be found at WP:GACR. Because the review left by Doc James seems like a good skeleton of a review, I'll use that as a framework for this review.

• First, the introduction (also called the lead) needs work. The current number of paragraphs (three) is good, but they should be increased in length slightly. Consider adding one or two sentences to the second and third paragraphs, and make the first paragraph similar in length to those two paragraphs once they're done. Also, keep the guidelines from WP:LEAD in mind: the lead section should serve as both an introduction to the subject of the article and a short, independent summary. To achieve the "summary" aspect of the lead, add a few sentence to the lead about each of the subsystems of the human musculoskeletal system (i.e. skeletal, muscular, nervous, etc.), including how they interrelate.
• Rather than deleting the subsections on carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoporesis, I would have merged them into the 'Diseases and disorders' section as suggested by Doc James. Consider working the lone, hefty paragraph that constitutes that section into separate paragraphs, one for a few diseases of each subsystem of the musculoskeletal system. The current paragraph seems rather fluffy in its language, and should be significantly parsed down. For example, the following excerpt should be reworked to speak less abstractly about diseases, and instead specify which diseases (like carpal tunnel and osteoporesis) people are actually diagnosed with: "Articular (of or pertaining to the joints)[14] disorders are the most common. However, also among the diagnoses are: primary muscular diseases, neurologic (related to the medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it)[15] deficits, toxins, endocrine abnormalities, metabolic disorders, infectious diseases, blood and vascular disorders, and nutritional imbalances."

I'll be back to add more later, but this should be enough work for the moment. Emw2012 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) My knee-jerk response when reading this interesting article for the first time was the obvious need for a good textbook, rather than relying on internet sources. The article does not describe a system and this is a problem. For this article to successfully describe a system, I think a homeostatic approach is needed, to show how the parts of the anatomy work together. Can I offer some advice regarding the structure of the article?

I would start with an description of the bones—spongy bones, compact bones, and the bone cells, —especially the bone-building cells, the osteoblasts and the bone-sculpturing cells the osteoclasts and their parents the osteogenic cells. Then describe the skeletal system from head-to-toe; skull, spine, ribs and sternum, pelvis, hands and toes and arms and legs. Then a better section on the joints and their types—ball and socket (hip), hinge (wrist) for example. Joints need muscles to make them work. How big are these, how are they attached, how do they work, where do they get their energy from? How are they controlled? Which leads to the nerves, which are clearly a part of this system. Is the brain part of the system? If so, what part of the brain controls it and how does it do this? A lot of this is in the article, but it has not been brought together in a systematic way. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 March 2009, 01:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Cyathus

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to nominate for FAC. This would be my first FAC nom, and I'm hoping someone with more experienced WikiEyes could have a look and see if there's any MOS violations or referencing problems. I'm pretty confident about the content, but will be happy to expand or clarify if it is deemed necessary. I'm also considering making a diagram for the life cycle section (picture=1000 words), but would first like an opinion if that section is comprehensible to the average reader.

Thanks, Sasata (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn

Yay, more fungi featured articles! Ok, here are some thoughts-

• The lead is a little short- see Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. I'd personally go for another paragraph of the same size on top of the one you already have.

• Lead has been expanded to two paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Cyathus is distinguished from other bird's nest fungi genera Crucibulum by having a distinct three-layered wall, and from Nidula by the presence of a funiculus, a cord of hyphae attaching the peridiole to the endoperidium.[2]" One line paragraph- suggest expansion or merging.

• Good point. Have expanded that to clarify differences between lookalike genera. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "4–8 mm diameter × 7–18 mm tall." Not sure about the little symbol there- why not just say "by"? I'd change it myself, but I don't know hte MoS backwards, so I'm not sure.
• "of 5–15 × 5–8 µm." Again, I don't love it, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are.

• I caught that habit several months ago when someone else copyedited an article I wrote, and I've just assumed since then that it was proper technique. An actual search of the relevant section doesn't readily yield the answers, so I'll change to text. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "G.W. Martin in 1924,[11] and was later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to describe the phenomenon.[12] His major conclusions are summarized by Brodie:" Full names in prose?
• "named cyathuscavins A, B and C," Named what? Link or explanation?
• "do the polyketide compounds cyathusal A, B, and C." Again, perhaps a little technical?

• Have reworded so hopefully it's clearer now. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "C. olla is being investigated for its ability to accelerate the decomposition of stubble left in the field, thereby reducing pathogen populations and accelerating nutrient cycling through mineralization of essential plant nutrients.[33][34]" Again, the paragraph is a little short.

• Expanded this section with another example. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• No other uses? None of them edible at all? None medicinal? There's no discussion of edibility at all, which I would personally expect on a complete fungi article.

• Another excellent point. I've added an edibility section under "Uses", but left out a separate section on medicinal uses, as this is touched upon in the bioactive compounds section. Essentially, some of these Cyathus compounds have physiological effects that might lead to them someday being developed into products with therapeutic potential, but I didn't want to overemphasize this by putting it in a separate section. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "The genus Cyathus was first described by Haller in 1768, and was later subdivided into two infrageneric groups (i.e., grouping species below the rank of genus) by Tulasne―the "eucyathus" group, with the inner surface of the fruiting bodies folded into pleats (plications), and the "olla" group without plications.[35] Later (1906), Lloyd published a different concept of infrageneric grouping in Cyathus, describing five groups, two in the eucyathus group and five in the olla group.[36]" Again, full names in the prose (at the first mention, anyway) would be best, I think.

• Will have to dig around a bit to find some first names. Have fixed what I can for now. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of interest, do we have all known species listed there?

• No, it doesn't have several species described since the publications of Brodie's monographs. The List of Cyathus species, when finished, will be a complete list (I hope). Still contemplating how to treat non-validly published taxa for that article. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Brodie text is cited with the "Smith, John Q." format, as opposed to the "Smith JQ" format favoured in most other cites.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cite 13 is Smith, JQ.
• More inconsistent cites- 30 and 31 lack "Salony"'s first initial, 5 has full names, 14 has small text (perhaps use a different sort of footnote, if not citing a source?). Rest look OK.

• The first appears on the original paper without an initial, the last is some chemical compound template, but I fixed the other ones. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I've watchlisted this page, so I may be back to offer more thoughts! J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks kindly for your helpful comments, the article looks better already. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a history section. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a few more comments from the new additions-

• "Greek word κύαθος," when single words are quoted, they should be in italics- this may be different as it is in Greek text, but I doubt it.

• Normally, foreign words are italicized, but in this case the MOS says: "Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page." Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "by Schmitz," full name?

• I've looked through various sources, but I can only find the first initial of his name. Am wondering if I should drop all first names in the article to make it consistent, or leave as is and hope it doesn't stick out too obviously? Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd go for the latter, and add the initial if you have it. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "and highly regarded by subsequent researchers." And is or and was?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• If it's going to FAC- "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975." Cite?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Surely there'll be some more categories to use? I can't really find any, but I don't really know how the genus articles are categorised. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of cats, including all of the continent-location cats, due the species' worldwide distribution. I suppose I could have added all the country location cats too, but thought this was excessive. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 March 2009, 05:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Solar urticaria

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because after its failed GA attempt, it has underwent many revisions and additional information has been added. However, this does not mean that it meets GA standards. Any criticisms that can be used to make this article better will be most appreciated. Thanks, NYYfan1 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Sasata

• "The types of the disease are controversial; there is a type I-VI classification system and also a watered down type I-II system." This seems way out of place as the third sentence of the lead. The average reader has no background context for these differently numbered classification systems. Also, the phrase 'watered down' is colloquial and should be rephrased.

• "The disease itself can be hard to classify because it is so similar to other dermatological disorders such as polymorphic light eruption or PUVA." According to the linked article, PUVA is a treatment for a skin condition, so I'm confused how S.U. could be mistaken for a treatment.

• "Once recognized, treatment of the disease more commonly involves administration of antihistamines and desensitization treatments such as phototherapy."

• "However, the disease that they contributed to is not a prevalent one." Unclear. Who is they? How do you contribute to a disease?

• "The areas constantly subject to the sun's rays..." subject->subjected. Same fix for next sentence.

• " The urticarial reaction will begin in the form of pruritus. It will then progress to erythema and edema in the exposed areas of the skin." Combine for better flow: " The urticarial reaction will begin in the form of pruritus, later progressing to erythema and edema in the exposed areas of the skin."

• ..."away within several hours. [11]" Remove unnecessary space before citation number.
• " These classifications are based upon what part of the electromagnetic spectrum causes the allergic reaction." -> " These classifications are based upon the wavelength of radiative energy that causes the allergic reaction."

• use an endash for number ranges. Put a nonbreaking space after the wavelength and before nm (eg. 290–320 nm).

• "Type II is induced by UVA radiation. The wavelength can range from 320-400nm." Again, combine for less choppy phrasing and better flow: "Type II is induced by UVA radiation, with wavelengths between 320–400 nm."

• "Both type III and IV's wavelength can be from 400-500nm." So how are they different?

• "Another way of classification has also been suggested. This form would only contain type I and II solar urticaria" -> "Another classification system distinguishes only between type I and II solar urticaria."

• "A subgroup of solar urticaria, fixed solar urticaria, has also been identified." Should mention that its rare.

• "It is a less intense form of the disease with wheals that occur in affect similar areas of the body." Need to say what wheals are.

• "Solar urticaria can be primary and secondary, or introduced by..." -> "Solar urticaria can be caused by primary and secondary factors, or induced by..."

• "...is "induced by UV or visible radiation."" Needs a citation for the quoted part.

• Wikilink tar, pitch, and dye

• "For those susceptible to visible light, white t-shirts may be a hinderance." The use of white t-shirts promote the occurrence of disease, not hinder it.
• " In one particular patient, doctors found..." -> "In one case, "

• "Another patient was being treated with the antibiotic tetracycline for a separate dermatological disorder and broke out in hives when exposed to the sun." changing the tense (and combining the following sentence): "Another patient treated with the antibiotic tetracycline for a separate dermatological disorder broke out in hives when exposed to the sun, the first case to implicate tetracycline as..." (and u"nlink one of the tetracylines)

• "The photoallergen is believed to begin its configuration through the absorption of radiation by a chromophore." Underlined part unclear. Is the implication that absorption of a chromophore causes a structural transformation in the normally benign photoallergen that results in it becoming allergenic?
• "However, another test known as a phototest is the most useful in identifying solar urticaria." Source?

• "Finally, there are laboratory tests which generally involve procedures such as blood, urine, and fecal biochemical tests. In some situations, a skin biopsy may be performed." I'd like to know more about what the clinicians would be looking for to verify S.U. using these lab tests.

• "Polymorphic light eruption (PMLE) is the easiest disease to mistake for solar urticaria because the locations of the lesions are similar." Source? Same comment for most of these statements in this section. I think these types of statements require citations after every sentence, rather than just blanket references for the entire section.

OK, must sleep now. I'll add more comments later. Sasata (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) OK, continuing review:

• "When this occurs, the permeability of vessels near the point where the histamine is being released is increased. This allows blood fluid to enter the vessels and cause inflammation." Combine and reword -> "When this occurs, the permeability of vessels near the area of histamine released is increased, allowing blood fluids to enter the vessels and cause inflammation."

• "Antihistamines simply suppress the activity of the histamine."

• "An H1 receptor known as terfenadine has been found to be the most potent antihistamine..." Terfenadine is not an H1 receptor, rather it is a drug that interacts with the H1 receptor. And that 1 should be subscripted (i.e. H₁).

• "Patients perscribed 240 millagrams per day..." prescribed, milligrams

• "In fact, In clinical tests, patients were ..."

• "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with an antibiotic..." Replace treated with "effected" or something similar for less word repetition.

• "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with an antibiotic known as fexofenadine. Proper administration of the drug can prevent outbreaks in the future" -> "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with the antibiotic fexofenadine, which may also be used prophylactically to prevent recurrence."
• "Photochemotherapy, or PUVA, has the upper hand over phototherapy ..." -> "is considered superior to" And needs a citation.

• "Also set aside for intense cases are immunosuppressive drugs such as prednisolone and ciclosporin which have been known to be prescribed." Poorly constructed sentence.

• "... which is why they are reserved for the worst of cases." -> the most extreme cases.

• "This technique is used to remove the blood plasma or fluid in the red blood cells and then return the cells to the body." Not an expert, but I doubt it removes the fluid from within the RBCs. Please verify and reword if necessary.
• "... relief of the urticarial outbreaks for an extended period of time." How long?

• "... induce urticaria by phototesting and using increasing amounts of differing wavelengths." -> "... induce urticaria by phototesting with increasing amounts of radiation of varying wavelengths."

• " Finally, in 1942, Rajika became the ..." Take out the initial word "finally", because it implies that is where the history stops, which is obviously not the case.

• In the epidemiology section the stats (4% and 5.3%) must have a citation at the end of that sentence.

Those are my thoughts about the article. I hope these suggestions help this article get to GA class. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 March 2009, 00:22 UTC)

---

[edit] Loihi Seamount

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

• 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 March 2009.

This article is part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal). Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC. I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or be BOLD and do it yourself!

Thanks, ResMar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is obviously COPYVIO issues. Can you please point out specific trouble spots? ResMar 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you think that the article covers the topic comepletely, enough for a GA.?

• Initial comments (coming back later):
• The article doesn't look terrible, though it could use some thorough copy editing and expansion.

I've hit about a dozen resources, do you really think so? What part needs expansion? ResMar

Truth to be told I've exausted myself expanding it. See this diff. It made DYK, of course.

ResMar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done More and more put in. Now 24,576 bytes, up from 21,000. I've basically spent all the non-subscription refs I can find. ResMar 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• First off, when using measurements you need to use the {{convert}} template. Ie. 30 miles

Except of the "Squared" mesurements (I Keep messing up there for some reason), that's all in order. ResMar

• Images should not be directly under headers per MOS - you should check that out too.

Please clarify- do you mean that I should seperate the images from the headers with a few lines of text? ResMar

Y Done Shifted all images into meatspace on right.

I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceranthor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please! ResMar 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{check mark}} Y {{N}} N.

Assess	Criteria
	1. well written
	(a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
	(b) complies with Manual of Style:
	lead
	layout
	jargon
	words to avoid
n/a	fiction
	list incorporation
	2. factually accurate and verifiable
	(a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
	(b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
	(c) no original research
	3. broad in coverage
	(a) addresses main aspects of topic
	(b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
	4. neutral
	5. stable (no edit wars)
	6. images
	(a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
	(b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 19:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Sustainability

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

• 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 March 2009.

We've listed this article for peer review because... we have had a team of editors re-writing the article with the goal of bringing it up to FA status. We have now re-written each section and reviewed FA criteria. We would like general feedback on the article's readability and conformity to guidelines and FA criteria. We have specific questions with respect to use of "Main article," "Infobox," and "Topics related to" templates and our use of graphics.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (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. 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article about a complicated subject. It's a long way from FA, although it has potential. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Layout

• The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against sandwiching text between two images. Many of the images in the existing article should be moved to avoid these text sandwiches.
• Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width.
• When an image is directional, as in the case of the dodo, it's best to position it so the reader's eye is directed into the text rather than out of the page. The dodo would be better positioned on the right.
• MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."
• Generally, lists should be turned into straight prose.

Direct quotations

• The MoS suggests using blockquotes only for direct quotations of four lines or more. Shorter quotations should be embedded in the text inside normal quotation marks. The quotations should not be in italics.
• Direct quotations need attribution within the text and not just in the footnotes. Otherwise, readers may mistake assertions for statements of fact. An example from the final section of the article is "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." This should be embedded in the text, put in quotation marks, de-italicized, and attributed to George Lakoff with a dialogue saying "according to George Lakoff" or "George Lakoff said" or "in the words of George Lakoff" or something similar.

Assertion vs. verifiable fact

• It's important to make a clear distinction between what Wikipedia is presenting as verifiable fact and what an outside writer is advancing as an opinion. The distinction must not be blurred. An example of blurring appears in the first two sentences of the "Human settlements" section: "While sustainability is a major global issue, implementation must occur first within our communities, households, and organizations. The study of the interrelationships among these communities, households, and organizations must occur in order to determine a successful and quantifiable plan of action." If this is coming from Wikipedia, it violates NPOV. To avoid violating NPOV, it must be clearly labeled as the opinion of someone outside of Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia would not use "our" or similar pronouns in this way, partly for reasons related to NPOV. It's important to write as though seeing Earth from Mars, a detached reporter of verifiable events. Don't insert Wikipedia into the text as "we" or "us". I see several other places in the text that slip into "we" and "us" mode.

Bolding

• Bolding is added automatically to the section heads. In the main text, it should be used only in the first line of the lead for the word "Sustainability". Otherwise it should be removed from all instances in the main text such as "Management of human consumption" in the "Implementation" section.

Sourcing

• A good rule of thumb is to source every unusual claim, every direct quote, every statistic, and every paragraph. Although the article includes many citations, some sections have none. An example is the short "Chemicals" section.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Most helpful. Many thanks Ealdgyth and Finetooth. We will keep plugging away at it. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2009, 21:04 UTC)

---

[edit] 1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on this article which I've expanded from stub to GA. I've looked all over and have found no further information on any of the storms. Comments on the prose and layout of the article are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally cleanly-written and informative, well-sourced and well-illustrated, stable, and neutral. I have a few small prose and style concerns and a couple of concerns about image licenses.

"Dates"

• Since the article is India-centric, shouldn't the dates be expressed in d-m-y format?

• I'm not sure, I haven't run into this issue before with the other NIO articles so I'd rather leave it in MDY format unless someone from WP:India says otherwise. Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "There are two main seas in the North Indian Ocean - the Arabian Sea to the west of the Indian subcontinent." - Something seems to be missing from this sentence. The Bay of Bengal?

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "On average, 4 to 6 storms form in the North Indian Ocean every season." - Numbers smaller than 10 are generally written as words. Exceptions include sentences like the next one: "With 11 depressions and eight tropical cyclones... ". Here the MoS advises consistency rather than one number as digits and one number as a word.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "4.9 m (16 ft) storm surge" - WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the main units and abbreviate the secondary units.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Rs. 120 billion ($3 billion USD)" - I believe it should be Rs.120 billion (US$3 billion)

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Season summary

• "The storm reached its peak intensity with winds of 120 km/h (75 mph) before weakened due to strong wind shear." - "weakening" rather than "weakened"?

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone 02A

• "the JTWC issued their first advisory" - A center is an 'it" rather than a "they". Ditto in the other places this construction occurs.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone 03A

• "$25,000 (USD)" - The U.S. dollar amounts throughout should be expressed in the format US$ per WP:MOSNUM#Formatting; thus here it would be US$25,000.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep depression"

• Since this identical section head is used twice in the article, I'd suggest "First deep depression" here and "Second deep depression" later.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "The last advisory was issued the next day while over open waters." - The advisory wasn't over open waters. How about "while the storm was over open waters"?

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Depression"

• "with winds peaking at 45 km/h (30 mph) before making landfall" - How about "before the storm made landfall"?

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Nicely illustrated. The license for the lead image is incomplete because it lacks a rationale for the source map. It's pretty clearly a NASA base map, so the license should be easy to fix. The locked source map image:02A 1998.jpg is a problem too. How can fact-checkers verify the source if their entry is blocked? I'd recommend double-checking the other image licenses too to make sure that the source links actually go to the sources.

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find this review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! It was very helpful :) Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:FAC and WP:PR; as there are numerous dash and hyphen issues in this article, I suggest withdrawing from FAC and continuing with Peer review to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive just been having a scroll on the WMO website and found this [[2]] which clearly states that Very Severe Cyclonic Storm and Super Cyclonic Storm were used in 1998. so basically Cyclonebiskit you need to add in the IMD intensites using the IMD Report of 2009 which has the final figures for 1998 in itJason Rees (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 February 2009, 16:09 UTC)

---

[edit] Apothecaries' system

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just assessed it as A-class for WP:MEASURE and I would like feedback as to whether the article fits the normal A-class requirements of completeness and style. I think it does, obviously, but I would like some more eyes on the article to make sure.

Thanks, Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review notified at the following WikiProjects:Physics; Chemistry; Pharmacology; History of science; Medicine; Science. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite formatting remark: The article has several doubled edition abbreviations in "Notes and references" due to minor misuse of the cite book template. The template automatically adds a .ed to the end of the text placed in the edition field. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have fixed this and a few similar problems now. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Hornoir I won't even pretend to understand this article, but…

• In the lead, the sentence…
  "In this exact form the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and also in its former colonies well into the 20th century."
  …is confusing. If I understand it properly, the following would be a more direct manner to express the information:
  "This exact form of the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and its former colonies, well into the 20th Century."
• The end of "For a long time, medical recipes were written in Latin, often using special symbols to denote weights and measures, or even substances." is awkward. Perhaps: "often using unique symbols to denote weights, measures, or substances."
• "The use of different measure and weight systems for different purposes…" to "The use of different measure and weight systems for various purposes…"

Sadly, this is as far as I can get. This article is far too densely written for the common reader, I'm afraid. Which, to me, is a problem with it. While I am typically not a fan of saying this, I believe it need to be "dumbed down" a bit. hornoir (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the sentences you mentioned, with some modifications (the system was abolished in the UK before the 20th century, and it seems better to drop the substances red herring altogether).

If you have specific suggestions for "dumbing down" I would be interested to hear them. Here is what I had in mind when writing the article in its present form: I expect that most readers will come from the background of the English systems, since only these survived long enough so that some people can still remember using them. I hope that most of these readers will be happy just with the table in the lede and the sections on apothecaries' measure and medical recipes. If these sections are also too densely written, then I agree there is something wrong with the article. The rest of the article basically says that internationally the situation was immensely complicated, and gives the historical development. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

Well, I didn't find this article hard to follow. Maybe that's just because I tend to read arid & densely-written books, but there are many articles on mathematical & philosophical topics which cause my eyes to glaze over within the first or second paragraph, so maybe there's another reason Hornoir couldn't get into it. (And no, this is not meant to disparage Hornoir's intelligence or attention level.)

Another reason I liked this was that this article linked to a number of articles I never suspected existed. For example, Schola Medica Salernitana, which while still needing work is a fascinating topic.

One problem I noticed is that articles are linked to many times here. Although links in different sections can be defended -- & are often reasons to ignore the rule -- the ones that most bothered me were multiple times in the same section, often closer than a couple of paragraphs apart.

Another problem is that otherwise fascinating map showing the variations in the weight of an apothecaries' ounce. For one thing, it would make the illustration more useful if the values were tied to a city or country by name. Another (& perhaps more fixable) is that although the explanation for the map states that there were three different methods, which could be located in different parts of Europe, for determining the value of an apothecaries' ounce, I didn't easily find a section in the article that explained what these methods were. I think in one section two of them are mentioned -- the German & the French -- but what of the Southern Italian?

Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 February 2009, 13:49 UTC)

---

[edit] General

[edit] Obi (sash)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

• I have just completely rewritten it as a translation from the Finnish version
• the article has a Good Article status in fi.wikipedia, so I thought this might not be far from attaining the status either and I'm actually aiming for it — my only real concern is the language since while I can get my points across and get fancy with prose, I haven't had much exercise in writing encyclopaedic text. There might also be embarrassing botches since the article is so long.
• the texts are longer in Finnish, so the pictures may need to be made fewer. I'd like other people's opinions on what should be ditched.
• about the references and footnotes: I added them in the original Finnish version so they should be all right

Thanks, Pitke (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 March 2009, 14:24 UTC)

---

[edit] The L Word

Previous peer review

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed The L Word for peer review because the article has undergone significant change since the last peer review -which was over two years ago-, and we would like to get assessment to improve sections. Most especially "season outlines", "the Chart", and "spin-off" subtopics.

Thanks, --TLW (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 March 2009, 22:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Australian handball

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review to expose the article to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors. The page is being repeatedly being reverted to a previous unreferenced version, and so I ask all reviewers to review this version only. Thanks a bunch, Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a very short article, and frankly I am not sure it meets the notability criteria. I will not WP:PROD it, but would not be surprised if someone does.

• I looked at most of the refs and they are mostly very sketchy - just a mention or two of the word "handball" - this needs much better refs. The Diabetes ref seems most detailed, but still does not give the detail present in the "Description of the rules" section.
• Many of the refs that are used do not seem to be reliable sources - what makes Excitement Machine magazine a RS?
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. Why not get a camera and get a picture or two of someone playing this?
• Article contradicts itself - first is the "Description of the rules" secion (which could just be "Rules"), then the section opens with The game has no governing and no definite set of rules.[2] This is incomplete / ungrammatical - governing what? body? This is then followed by the rules.
• Is the title correct - the refs almost all just call it "handball"? The website "Varieties of Australian Handball" is an East Timor based domain - why is it reliable?

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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 10 March 2009, 09:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Pakistan International Airlines

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…it has gone through major changes and should be reviewd so that it can further prompted for a FA.

Thanks, User:Yousaf465 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs):

This is an interesting article but a lot more work is needed before FAC can be seriously considered. The big problem is the lack of citations. One would expect to see over 100 reliable sources cited for an article of this length. For example, every "fact" listed in Marketing and sponsorship and Achievements and recognition should provided a source. The Lead section is too short and does not adequately summarise the rest of the article. About four short paragraphs are needed here. The article is very wordy and should be checked for redundancy. Is every single word necessary? This sort of very close attention to detail is needed to meet Criterion 1. for featured articles. I see there is a link to a Main Article that does not exist, (ie. a red link) this should be corrected or deleted. I can see that a lot of very hard work, time and enthusiasm has gone into this, but I recommend that an editor, new to the article, is asked to copy-edit it. I am sorry if this sounds negative, but these points would be quickly raised at a FAC nomination as grounds for opposing promotion. Graham Colm ^Talk 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton: Numerous problems, some of which may be touched on in Graham's summary above.

• Lack of citations: The article is woefully under-referenced. There are several citation tags in place, many more could be added.
• Most of the references are improperly formatted. Minimally, formats require title, publisher, url and access date. Author and date should be given where possible. See WP:Cite web for guidance; you don't have to use the templates themselves, but follow the instructions as to minimum information.
• Lists: there are seven lists in the text, and that's way too many. Some, for example "Incidents and accidents", should be converted to prose. Others, like "Codeshares", would be better as appendices at the end of the text. Although some lists, especially those involving numeric information, are inevitable and useful, bullet-point lists of fctoids should in general be avoided.
• Some sections seem underdeveloped. Graham has pointed out the "Retired" section, which consists solely of a redlink to a main article. The Destinations section is a short list of services starting in 2009. These snippets do not require sections.
• There are MOS violations, for example use of boldface in the text for emphasis, an image placed under a level-3 section heading, and text squeezed between images
• There are jargon terms, for example "wet lease" and "dry lease". These need proper explanation.
• There is POV language, for example: "The Balochistan tail is a striking and colourful reflection of robust activity..." This sounds very much like a verbatim quote from somewhere. Unless you use quote marks and specify sources, you will be accused of plagiarism.
• I concur with Graham's view that a thorough copyedit is needed, but I believe this should be done after the more basic tasks of increasing citations and restructuring. It is unrealistic to expect that all these things can be done quickly, but there is no reason why, in time, this should not be developed as a quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2009, 09:41 UTC)

---

[edit] Colleen Howe

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…Colleen Howe sadly passed away recently and the article will probably be viewed quite a lot by the WWW, and it should be ship shape - as one of Wikipedia's finer works.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by JiggleJog: Okay. Here goes: the first two sentences are baffling.

• At first, you identify Gordie as "Gordie Howe" but then you call Collen Howe's sons "her sons". Then in the second sentence you decide to call Gordie "her husband".....
• I know what you are trying to do here. But it is silly, and just causes a reader to say, "Ouch. Whaaaaat?"
• The autogenerated review says that your lead should be longer. Well, who really cares whether or not a lead fits into a formula (which has been specified by Wikipedia) as the rule when that rule is a stupid rule. If one has a short article, there is no need for a 350 word summary. However...a good lead should be interesting enough to hook your reader into wanting to read on. In your case, your lead ends abruptly with a parenthetical thought, one which really says more about who says what about the Gretzky Award then it does about Mrs. Howe. I think you need to reorganize the close of the Lead so that your reader is excited, not bewildered.
• By the time, I got to the following statement I gave up: "She was instrumental in the construction of the Gordie Howe Hockeyland arena, Michigan as well as Michigan's first indoor ice hockey rink." I gave up for two reason. First of all, the sentence makes no sense; and secondly, I had been copyediting as I had gone along and the copyediting had become so frequent that I had lost all concentration by the close of that sentence. What in the devil is meant by Hockeyland arena, Michigan?
• You need to copyedit much much more.
• Also, the pull quote style is no longer acceptable (i.e. according to Wikipedia current standards) on "fine featured Wikipedia articles" so I suggest that you merely work your quotes into the text. Unless there is a real reason for blocking a quote (e.g. 4-5 lines or more), it should be treated as little more than what it is: a quote.
• I will continue copyediting tomorrow when my sanity returns. I did however get a chuckle out of this: "...will probably be viewed quite a lot by the WWW, and it should be ship shape - as one of Wikipedia's finer works." Thanks for the lift; it made my day. *smile* JiggleJog (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 March 2009, 02:28 UTC)

---

[edit] Newlands College

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been recently refurbished. The new article reflects the school much better with its emblem, the Houses, and some encyclopedic detail. Hopefully it is to everybody's liking. And hopefully the article may be reassessed.

Thanks, Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's nice to see this article, and I encourage you to expand it. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

• The ideal lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. The existing lead should be expanded to include at least a mention of each of the sections such as "Houses", "Arts", and "Sport".

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Each paragraph and every unusual claim, set of statistics, or direct quote needs a citation. Some of the paragraphs in the existing article mention no source.

Lead

• "Mr. Grant Jones. The current deputy principals are Ms. Deb Mills, Mr. David Pegram, and Mr. John Murdoch." - Wikipedia does not use the titles "Mr." or "Ms." Instead, simply write "Grant Jones", "Deb Mills" (although perhaps this should be Deborah or Debra) on first reference and then just the last name on second and subsequent references.

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Whilst the latter is on leave" - "While" is preferred to "whilst"

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

School Executive Council

• Unless the "School Executive Council" is its formal name, it should be "school executive council" in the main text and "School executive council" in the section head.

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Newlands College has a school executive with several roles that comprise of students." - Suggestion: "Newlands College has a school executive with several roles for students."

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "form class" - Many readers around the world will not know what "form class" means. A brief explanation would help.

Y Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Arts

• The Manual of Style, found at WP:MOS, recommends slightly longer paragraphs than the ones in this section. Generally, one-sentence paragraphs should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs.

Citations

• The citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, insofar at this is possible. I added the author's name and the access date (using today's date after actually checking the link and looking at the article) to Reference #1 so you could use it as an example.

Images

• I have two thoughts. One is that when I click on the source links for the two images, I'm sent to the official school web site but not to the specific page that shows how the images are licensed by the copyright owner, most probably the school. Since the site itself is marked with a copyright notice, I suspect that the images are under private copyright and can't legitimately be tagged with a Creative Commons license. This might be a blessing in disguise because it might be fun to try to capture better photos with a digital camera, upload them to the Wikipedia Commons, and tag them with a Creative Commons license that would be legitimate. If you do that, they should be .jpg files, not .png files. The .jpg files are better for photos.
• I fiddled around with the layout a bit. It's generally best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a numerical pixel width.The images should be positioned so that they do not overlap the section breaks. This gets easier to do as an article gets longer. I had to add an additional "upright" parameter to the second image to make it fit. This is only necessary in the case of vertical images that seem too big even set at "thumb".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Good luck with expanding the article. Finetooth (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Very useful indeed! And thanks for contributing to the article's structure too! Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 March 2009, 08:17 UTC)

---

[edit] Mountainboarding

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

• 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 March 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have just completely re-written the article with some collaborators, and it's my first major edit of a Wikipedia article. I would like some feedback to make sure it meets quality standards etc.

Thanks, DLangrish (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

• The article has far too many short sections. They should be combined into longer text sections with fewer abrupt breaks. For example, the five parts of the "History" section could easily be turned into a single section under the head, "History".
• Lists should be turned into straight prose.
• Direct links from the text to external sites are deprecated. Instead, use inline citations. For example, in the UK subsection, instead of linking directly to the NoSno site, add an inline citation at the end of the sentence.
• Citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date if all of these are known. The "cite" family of templates is handy for doing citations. They live at WP:CIT. You can copy and paste the templates into an article or your sandbox and fill in the blanks.
• Bold text is used only for the main topic text in the first line of the lead. Aside from the automated bolding for section heads, it should not appear at all in the article. The many bolded names in the lists in this article should all be changed to ordinary type.
• Parts of the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for each paragraph, each statistic, each direct quote, and any unusual claims or claims that might be reasonably challenged.
• Image licenses should include a description of the image subject and the location in which the image was created.
• Wikilink slopestyle and boardercross in the lead?

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 March 2009, 15:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Arnold Schwarzenegger

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review in order to further improve the article

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• I would treat the failed GA reviews (especially the most recent one) as a very detailed peer review. Make sure all of the points raised in it have been addressed before resubmitting to GAN, perhaps even ask the GA reviewer to look at the article again once you think everything has been fixed.
• 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 (TIME 100). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. DOes the lead really need 5 nicknames? Please see WP:LEAD
• Since the lead can be four paragraphs, I would expand the first paragraph to more than one sentence and keep the general structure of the lead - one paragraph each on bodybuilding, movies, and politics. Perhaps one on business too.
• Article uses {{cquote}} when it should use {{blockquote}} (as these are not pull quotes).
• One sentence from personal life section to illustrate several problems: On Sundays, the family attends Mass at St. Monica's Catholic Church.[68] First off, I am not sure this is notable. Second, it fails to provide context to the reader - where is this church (the preceding paragraph lists several places the family has homes)? Third, it is a one sentence paragraph and as such should be combined with another paragraph (sometimes short paragraphs can be expanded, but not here). Fourth, I think if this is notable, I would combine it with another sentence, perhaps something like The Schwarzenegger family has lived in an 11,000-square-foot (1 022 m²) home in Brentwood since YEAR,[63][64] and attends Sunday Mass at St. Monica's Catholic Church there.[68] This avoids "currently" too.
• Instead of the various "___ career" headers, why not "Bodybuilder", "Actor", "Politician"?
• I would carefully read this and try to combine things better - there is a section on steroid use and his heart valve problems in bodybuilding and some of this is repeated in the personal life section on accidents and health issues. The GA review points out more examples of this.
• Watch British English - he is an American citizen now so the article should use AE, not BE.
• Watch needless repetition - just say all four children were born in LA, not repeat born in LA for each (one example)
• Watch undue weight - there seems to be more material on Barbara Outland Baker that on his wife Maria Shriver - see WP:WEIGHT
• If this is going to FAC, people may object to the length of many of the quotations (pick out the salient parts and just quote that for most of them)
• I already noted this with the attending mass sentence, but some of the details seem to be of dubious notability. Is it really notable that he saved a man from drowning, or that his Hummer is being converted to hydrogen? The latter is a bit better because it is tied to his efforts to introduce hydrogen stations in California. Perhaps the trick is to tie the stories into the narrative better - as it is they sometimes read as trivia nuggets
• There are many FA Biography articles on movie stars and politicisns and athletes that would be good models to use for ideas and examples to follow.

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 _><>°^° 05:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 February 2009, 19:49 UTC)

---

[edit] 2012 Doomsday Prediction

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

• 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 February 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review for feedback on how it reads and anything that may have been left out.

Thanks, Rosemary Regello (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I bring no special knowledge of the topic to this review, and I can't say whether it is complete or not or whether it does the subject justice. I found it interesting, and it reminded me of a white-bearded cartoon figure holding up a sign reading, "The End is Nigh". Eventually, he will be right, so the fear that "eventually" might mean next Wednesday never goes away. I wonder if biologists have anything to say about "end is nigh" behavior. Just a thought. Here are a few suggestions, mostly about form rather than content.

• The images are good but in some ways problematic. Photo credits are not normally included in the captions. In most cases, images except the lead image should be set to "thumb" size without a forcing pixel size. Image:Orion-nebula.jpg has incomplete licensing information. It should include a direct link to the NASA source page, so that fact-checkers can check the source. Also, the image is tagged for lack of categories. Similar problems occur on the licensing page for Image:Long Valley Caldera.jpg. The source link for this one connects to the USGS article in Wikipedia rather than to the source document.
• The lists in the lead, in the Prophecies section, and in the "Scientific forecasts" section should be turned into straight prose.
• Bolding is normally used in the main text only for the title words of the opening sentence of the lead. The bolding in the "Scientific forecasts" section and in the notes should be rendered in plain letters rather than bold.
• The citations should include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, and url and access date (for on-line sources). A convenient way to organize the notes is to use the "cite" family of templates at WP:CIT. You can copy-and-paste these into your article or sandbox and add specific data to the general form. A further explanation of citations can be found at WP:CITE.
• I'd advise against repeatedly linking the same terms. In the lead, for example, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is linked twice, and I see other examples throughout. I would also not include links in the "See also" section that are already linked in the main text.
• A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph and every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and any claim that is likely to be challenged. The first paragraph of the "Precession-alignment theory" gives no source for some fairly complicated material, for example.
• It would be helpful to include the locations of the Yellowstone caldera and the Long Valley caldera in the main text.
• I may have missed it, but although the Fifth World and Fourth World of the Hopi are mentioned, what about the first, second, and third? It would be helpful to include a brief explanation.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestions are good and I would implement them if the article hadn't been taken over by a few people who are using it to discredit the premise and discourage readers from even spending time on the page. Every time I try to correct the misinformation and sarcasm, one of them deletes my changes within hours, sometimes minutes. A request for protection was denied. Wikipedia apparently puts the feelings and sensitivities of propagandists ahead of actually conveying factual information, as if this were a message board. For that reason, it seems pointless to bother with the formatting and other editing particulars. The article itself is useless as a source of credible information. In fact, what's going on here sort of mirrors some of the prophecies I read, which is rather alarming...HRIN (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that difficulties have arisen. Sometimes when a dispute occurs, walking away from it for a while solves the problem. It might be that in a month or two, the other parties will have found new things to occupy them, and you can take up where you left off. The review will be here if you should ever want it, and the work you have already done is archived, not lost. Finetooth (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 February 2009, 23:01 UTC)

---

[edit] WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Biography: John Mitchell (football coach) • Colleen Howe •Florence Shapiro • Robert Ford (politician) • John Edward • Mario Ančić • Tess Gerritsen • Christa McAuliffe • Pope John Paul II • Jada Pinkett Smith • Pin Malakul • John Pitcairn, Jr. • Dwight Lauderdale • Ramakrishna
• WikiProject Military history: Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial • Battle of Barnet • Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 • Victory Monument • Soldiers and Sailors • Battle of Balaclava • Wolfgang Lüth • Battle of Hampton Roads • Braunschweig class battleship • USS New Jersey (BB-62) • Battle of Triangle Hill • USS Kentucky (BB-66)

[edit] Archives

• 2009:
  • March (current)
  • January, February
• 2008:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2007:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2004
  • Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 1