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". 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}} with {{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: July 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/July 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: July 9 • List of music releases from Popstars contestants • Parliament of the Cook Islands • Kirkcaldy July 8 • Clara Elsene Peck • Christian Conventions • Murder of Huang Na July 7 • Mark Steel's in Town • Computer Bismarck • Link Light Rail July 6 • Skunk Anansie discography • Strictly Come Dancing • Lomana LuaLua • Living River Siam July 5 • Canadian rock • Joey Hamilton • University Village, New York July 4 • North by North Quahog • History of Florida State University July 2 • 4 Minutes (Madonna song) July 1 • List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters • Serial ATA June 30 • No Line on the Horizon June 28 • 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team 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] Number-one albums of 2008 (Australia)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article, with intention of getting it to featured list status, and would like feedback on how to get this article closer to FL.

Thanks, Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 July 2009, 07:51 UTC)

---

[edit] Joey Jordison

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article up to GA status as of now. This article has perviously had one unsuccessful GAN, and is currently listed as a B-class article; I need some feedback from other users. Also I need some assistance to get this article to meet the GA standards. Any input and improvements to the article would be happily appreciated.

Thanks, —Terrence and Phillip 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 July 2009, 16:38 UTC)

---

[edit] List of music releases from Popstars contestants

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I am trying to get the set of articles for Popstars, Pop Idol, Fame Academy and X Factor to Featured List status. I would like some feedback on the layout of the page, completeness and general points for improvement.

Thanks, 03md 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 July 2009, 09:56 UTC)

---

[edit] Clara Elsene Peck

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 July 2009.

I worked this article up to what I feel is a decent Wikipedia quality and would eventually like to see it get a GA rating. Any input and improvements to the article happily appreciated.--Scott Free (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely ignorant about this topic and once I clicked the link, figured I might as well give you some comments. As I looked further, though, I noticed a sourcing problem: the two sentences in the 'early life' section are essentially the same as those on the website http://www.ortakales.com/illustrators/Peck.html (note 1). If you are the maintainer of that site, then you need to properly document the GFDL release of the text; if you are not the maintainer, then you need to substantively reword the statements. In any case, the website does not look like a reliable source - particularly for the quote attributed to Peck. Since the site gives what look like good book references, you'd avoid these problems and get more material for your article by tracking those down instead of trying to cite this potentially unreliable web intermediary.

An additional, minor point about citations - in the illustration section, the magazine examples given in the references support the statement that she illustrated for those magazines, but not necessarily that she 'specialized' in particular types of illustration.

On other points, the lead would be much improved with the addition of a general time period, for those who do not recognize the other names mentioned (I'm sure I'm not the only one who mentally blocks out infoboxes). Something like 'early twentieth century illustrator who later worked on....' would be sufficient. Wikilinks or additional information on her comic book work would be very helpful. The list of illustrations is, well, listy, and doesn't communicate (to the ignorant, at least) the importance of the works or of the style they reflected. Adding a section on critical reception, either of Peck's work in particular or of her style/format in general, would help establish context, as would an explanation of how and when women illustrators became involved in comic books.

Lastly, there's a rather large image:text ratio in this article considering that some of the images are non-free, and in addition, some of them have bad or incomplete tags. For example, File:CEP-Aspen.jpg says public domain, but lists its date of publication as 1947; I'm not convinced 'old ebay auction' qualifies as a valid source even for a public-domain image, much less a non-free one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2009, 23:04 UTC)

---

[edit] The Bartered Bride

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 July 2009.

The article has been expanded from Start-class into something much more comprehensive. General review comments welcome. It's a great opera, and I hope the article will make people want to hear or watch it. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I've fixed typo errors of all Czech names.

Thanks for doing that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Libretto" section mentions an "operatta". I think that it is an "operetta".

Typo, well spotted. Now corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The last sentence of "Music" section says "It has also been suggested (...)" - I'd say that this is a weasel word.

I agree. Sentence altered to record who actually suggested it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the titles in the List of musical numbers. I found this source - website of Supraphon. It is a 2009 release of the opera. The list of the numbers on that page is pretty different to this one - why is that? (By the way there is a link on that page to a pdf file with an English translation of the whole opera - maybe it's useful).

The main difference between the Supraphon list of number titles and the one in the article is Supraphon that lists the recitatives, which I do not. Otherwise the lists are pretty much the same; in some cases the Supraphon title is longer, in Act III they show a slight difference in number order and, most usefully, they give the words which the chorus sings to the Act I polka. I will make a few adjustments. The Supraphon site, with its link to an English libretto, is a good External link, and I have added it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can see no other problems for now. I really like that there's a lot about reception. Both synopsis and music have good coverage as well as the lead section.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Allright. These were just single points. I'll check it again later for more general issues (if there are some at all) because I am extremely busy right now. Have a great day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! Here are some futher comments.

• Lead section
  • "(...)is considered by Czechs to be quintessentially Czech in spirit.": Is the inclusion of "by Czechs" necessary? What about "(...)is considered to be quintessentially Czech in spirit."?

I'm not sure whether the "Czechness" of the music is universally recognised, hence the qualification "by the Czechs" which I think is probably necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can follow you.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I linked the "libretto". It maight not be clear to everyone.

OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Context
  • I am not sure whether the name of the section "Context" is the right choice. I think it could be more specific. The word "context" does not really describe the content of the section, because a context is in fact pretty much the same thing as "Background" (currently a subsection of "context"). The sections Libretto, Composition and Restructure are not about the "context" of "The Bartered Bride" - they are about the opera itself. I am not quite sure how exactly this should be solved, but I think that a possibility would be to make a separate section for the current "Background" (which could also be called "Context") and then put those 3 (Libretto, Composition and Restructure) under a new section called "Writing process" or something like that.

I have followed your suggestion. "Background" has become "Context", and Libretto, Composition and Restructure have been grouped under "Writing history". You are right, this is more logical - thank you for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Writing history" is also a good possibility! But you've added "Writing process" - probably by mistake :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Composition
  • "(...) as instalments of Sabina's revised libretto were received." - This is an odd formulation. The text above explains that Smetana recieved a version of the libretto from Sabina, and then revised it. But the sentence: "as instalments of Sabina's revised libretto were received" makes a bit chaotic who recieved them and who revised them. If Sabina's instalments of libretto were revised by Smetana, they already must have been recieved by Smetana before they were revised by him. What the sentence says is that revised instalments were recieved, which then makes no sence because they were first recieved and then revised -if I understand it right. Therefore the sentence actually sounds like Sabina revised the libretto by himself. I hope this makes sense.

Yes, you are right. I have replaced the opening sentence of the second paragraph with: "The opera continued to be composed in a piecemeal fashion, as Sabina's libretto gradually took shape." I think this is consistent with the information about how the libretto was concocted, but please say if you think there is any remaining confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The meaning formulation is now accurate. Once the text explains how the libretto took shape in the "Libretto" section, here it explains that the rest gradually took shape the same way.

I think that's it. Good luck! Feel free to contact me if you need me to check some Czech spelling :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty happy with everything else.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments

In general, Brian, you've done an exceedingly good job—I wish my prose were so clear and polished! There is generally a greater vareity of sentence lengths here than there was in the bio on Smetana, which enhances readability; and it is fairly obvious from the overall tone that you were having more fun writing this article, which makes it more fun to read. Just some minor things:

Lead

• What is a Gilbertian twist? I know you have a link there, but for those who are not up on their Gilbert and Sullivan, such as myself, a couple of words ("A Gilbertian twist of ...") might help.

I have a bit of a problem here. The sentence is long enough without an extra clause explaining "Gilbertian twist", which would probably be too much detail anyway, for a summary lead. The nature of the twist is explained in the synopsis - what if I mention Gilbert there, so the reference is clear? Otherwise I could replace the phrase "with the help of a late Gilbertian twist" with something like "after a surprise revelation". What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"After a surprise revelation" would work for me. Jonyungk (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left the lead as it was, and explained Gilbert in the synopsis. I hope this works. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Context

• Background
  • Although I like your use of the word "descriptive" instead of "programmatic", Liszt's style was usually evocative in a general sense rather than literally descriptive. Just a nit to pick.

Are you suggesting a different word? "Descriptive" occurs frequently in the sources; "evocative doesn't,and might be considered POV. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Jonyungk (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Was Cornelius a pupil of Liszt's, or merely a follower? I'm not sure personally, but I know he was part of Liszt's circle in Weimar.

Large lists Cornelius among "pupils and followers". "Follower" is probably a better description, so I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "In September 1857 Smetana visited Liszt in Weimar, where he met Peter Cornelius, a pupil of Liszt's who was working on a comic opera Der Barbier von Bagdad." This sentence sounds a little long and "rangy", and it would be nice to have a little variety in sentence patterns in this section. What about, "In September 1857 Smetana visited Liszt in Weimar; there he met Peter Cornelius, a pupil of Liszt's who was working on a comic opera, Der Barbier von Bagdad"?

Happy to do this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "However, one of the factors which influenced his decision to return permanently ..." How about "However, one factor ..."?

Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Libretto
  • "There is evidence to suggest that Sabina himself did not fully appreciate Smetana's intention to write a full-length opera, later commenting: 'If I had suspected what Smetana would make of my operetta, I should have taken more pains and written him a better and more solid libretto.'" Do we need "There is evididence to suggest that"? Sabina's comment seems more than just a suggestion.

Agreed, altered. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "... being one of the few in the Czech language written in trochees which matched the natural first-syllabus emphasis in the Czech language." Since I don't remember my studies of poetic feet from school, and many others won't, what is a trochee?

Fortunately a "trochee" is easily explained, so I've added a few words of text. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Composition

• • "Smetana's diary for December 1864 records that he was still working on the music for The Bartered Bride, but the piano score was not completed until October 1865." You use "but" to connect the two clauses of this sentence but I don't understand how the piano score's not being completed is a contradiction of the fact he was still working on the music. What about a semi-colon after "Bride" and dropping "but"?

Yes, better. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Restructure
  • This section looks good.

Synopsis

Why do you use Roman numerals for the Act numbers elsewhere in the article and not here?

You may well ask. This was done by someone from the Wikipedia Opera Project, "in accordance with Opera project guidelines". The same thing happened with Agrippina – Roman numerals in the text, Arabic in the synopsis. It is a guideline, not a rule, and I could change it back, but I don't want to offend the Opera Project unneccesarily, so as with Agrippina I propose to leave it unless it becomes an issue at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, was just curious. Jonyungk (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Act 1
  • "However, her desires are for Jeník although, as she explains ..." It sounds strange having "althouth" come so soon after "however". Do we really need "however"?

No, I've reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Act 2
  • In the second paragraph, will everyone know what you mean by "verbal fencing"?

I would have thought so. Alternative suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Same paragraph: I don't undererstand how Jeník would ponder "the deal he has supposedly made" since it isn't clear that Jeník isn't bartering in true faith. To me, it sounds like a legitimate deal, so the word "supposedly" confuses me. A sentence or part of a sentence clarifying this would help.

The purpose of Jeník's aria is to alert the audience to the fact that the deal he has just made with Kecal is not all that it seems. He doesn't give any direct information, but from now on the audience is at least partly aware that "something is going on". I have changed the wording a little, to make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "Krušina and the crowd marvel at Jeník's apparent self-denial, but the mood changes when they learn that he has been paid off, and the Act ends with Jenik being denounced by Krušina and the rest of the assembly as a rascal". This sentence feels a little long. What about a period after "off" and a new sentence beginning with "The Act"?

Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Act 3
  • "They are horrified: ("He does not want her - what has happened?")." Having a colon just before a parenthetical comment looks strange. Remove the colon.

OK Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception and Performance History

• Premiere
  • How does Smetana's comment at the end of the section fit with what preceded it? Seems like it belongs earlier in the article.

You are right; Smetana made his comment 16 years after the premiere, so it shouldn't be in this section. The question is, where to put it? I will give this some thought. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've transferred it to the end of the Restructure section. It reads pretty OK there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Later performances
  • "In the years after its first performance, The Bartered Bride reappeared in the Provisional Theatre's repertory at regular intervals". Why, if the opera was initially such a failure?

Partly because there were very few Czech operas around at the time, and the theatre had to settle for what it could get. And partly because Smetana himself became the theatre's principal conductor in September 1866. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this information could be included? Jonyungk (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I.ve added a short explanaation - don't want to overdo it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Music

• I like how you show how Smetana imparted folk character in his music.
• In the second paragraph, I generally understand what you're saying, but will non-musicians know what fugatos, tuttis and syncopations are? Do you need to explain briefly what these are, or what they might sound like to general listeners? This type of question dogged me through the FA review of Symphonic poems (Liszt), so someone else might ask the same questions.

It would be very tiresome, and disruptive to the article, to have to explain all the musical terms. I think this is a situation where a link to the appropriate article (or to Wiktionary) is appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the principal culprit for Jonyungk's concern. In this case, I think it is okay to forgo elaborating fugatos, tuttis, and syncopations, as the context of the sentence has placed them as "striking features". These features are not crucial for the reader to understand; the subsequent text or the rest of the article do not use them as a basis for information. Of course, there are some concepts that I feel could be elaborated, per my review below. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good explanaton of musical reminiscence in the third paragraph.
• Fourth paragraph: "Otherwise" in the beginning of the second sentence is unnecessary. You've already explained there is little characterization and listed the exceptions to this in the preceding sentencce.

Otherwise deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good explanation later in the fourth paragraph on the use of major and minor keys—very clear and understandable.

The rest of the article looks good. Well done! Jonyungk (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfula nd encouraging comments. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

Doing...

I only have a few comments so far; the article as a whole is really beautifully written. Many of the sentences have a lovely, slightly twisting syntax, without losing clarity, and, as Jonyungk said, the article communicates a great enthusiasm for the subject.

• Set in a country village, with recognisable characters from everyday life - could this be shortened to something like "with realistic, everyday characters"?
  • Good suggestion. I have slightly reconstructed the sentence, as it was gathering too many commas.
• a "real Indian" sword swallower - is this India-Indian or American Indian? A wikilink could clarify which.
  • Well, my English libretto says "A real Indian from the Fiji"! Should I extend the quote to cover this? (Another Eng. translation calls him "a veritable Indian from the Otahiti isles").
• His antics convinces his parents - s/v agreement
  • Fixed, thanks
• compared the work unfavourably to the Offenbach genre - a link here would be useful, I think
  • Now linked.
• was criticised for lacking theatrical values - I'm not sure what this means. Good acting - good backdrops, etc. - or something else?
  • The most general criticism related to the inappropriate stage sets, and I think I've clarified this.

More later. I am enjoying reading the article, and will probably look to download at least some of the Bartered Bride soon - I've never heard any Smetana, and now I would like to. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thans for your comments, will look forard to any others. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Review by Jappalang

Background

• "... descriptive style championed by Wagner and Franz Liszt Franz List and Richard Wagner." to break the "... Liszt. Liszt ..." repetition?
• "Liszt was a Smetana's long-time mentor," for clarity?
• "... Wagner's development of sung-through music drama.": what is "sung-through"?
• "A comment was made by another present,": another... follower? Visitor? Any chance of identifying this person?
• "Smetana did not act immediately on this aspiration. However, a factor which influenced his decision to return permanently to his homeland ...": this does not gel well in my opinion. Smetana need not return to Prague to compose a natively Czech work, right?
• "whom Smetana had met briefly during the 1848 Prague uprising.": the mention of the uprising is a bit too surprising event here, possibly disruptive to reading experience. Might I suggest simply "whom he had met briefly in 1848."
• "By this time he had heard the completed music of Cornelius's Der Barbier,": to allay questioning if Cornelius had not conveyed to Smetana some rudimentary rhythms and musical ideas at Liszt's.

Restructure

• "For this, Smetana used a dance piece of music from The Brandenburgers of Bohemia.": I had a sudden thought that "dance" would encompass the choreography as well, and that making it clearer again would help to reinforce it was simply the score that was adapted... is that the case?
• "A new scene, with a drinking song for the chorus, had been was added to Act I, and Mařenka's Act II aria "Oh what grief!" had been was extended."
• "Various numbers, including the drinking song and the new polka, had been were repositioned,"

Synopsis

• Unpleasant as it seems, citations at the end of each paragraph perhaps should be added? Since this is a synopsis, the primary source can be used and the Libretto by the Metropolitan Opera House is a suitable choice? However, there seems to be some interpretation ("implying, however, that all is not as it seems.", "In an surprise identity revelation reminiscent of the plots of W.S. Gilbert,"), which can be construed as original research?

Premiere

• "The premiere of The Bartered Bride took place at the Provisional Theatre on 30 May 1866, with Smetana himself conducting conducted by Smetana."
• "The stage designs were by Josef Macourek and the producer was Josef Jiři Kolár." -> "Josef Macourek designed the stage and Josef Jiři Kolár produced the opera." for active phrasing?
• "... the threat of imminent war ...": seems a bit sudden with sole definite article "the"... perhaps "... the threat of an imminent war ..."?
• "... that had judged Harrach's opera competition,": who or what is "Harrach"?

Later performances

• "... replaced by recitatitive.": what is "recitative"?
• "... to the Offenbach operetta genre.": Why is Offenbach the standard to be compared against?
• Perhaps integrate Smetana's death somewhere here to give a sense of post-mortis performances of his work?
• "Since the Czech language was little known not widely spoken,"?

Recent revivals

• "... once the home of a large Czech settlement. Antonín Dvořák spent the summer of 1893 in Spillville, during his American sojourn.": the Dvořák mention as a separate sentence seems disjointed and trivial. He does not seem to have anything to do with the opera and this is the only spot he is mentioned... Perhaps, "... once the home of a large Czech settlement, where Antonín Dvořák spent the summer of 1893 during his American sojourn." Still has a bit trivial of trivial tone though... (more pertinent for Dvořák's article).

Music

• "... to Czech dance metres of ...": what are "dance metres"?
• "Historian Harold Schonberg argues that "the exoticisms of the Boheman musical language were not in the Western musical consciousness until Smetana appeared."" -> "Historian Harold Schonberg argues that the Western music circle were unware of "the exoticisms of the Boheman musical language" until they listened to Smetana's opera." or something like that.
• "Smetana's language The language in The Battered Bride is, on the whole, one of happiness, expressing joy, dancing and festivals.": I had visions of Smetana's constantly spouting of joy and happiness, dancing and festivals...
• "It does not, however, contain many of the opera's later themes, instead concentrating on general scene-setting and establishing a mood, in the manner of Mozart's overtures to The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute, with which works biographer Brian Large makes comparison.": sounds a bit awkward to me.
• "... and other instances fall short of being full-blown Wagnerian Leitmotive.": I think it would be better to attach a brief descriptive clause to Leimotive.
• "... except in the cases of Kecal and, to a letter extent, the loving pair and the unfortunate Vašek.": "To a letter extent"? I also think it would be better to identify Jeník and Mařenka than to name them "the loving pair" here.
• "Large suggests that the character may have been modelled on that of the Baron in Cimarosa's opera Il Matrimonio Segreto.": perhaps a short descriptive of the Baron's role (main villain, supportive sidekick, or fool) in Cimarosa's opera can be added here?

Film in adaptation

• No mention of Czech films (although the first two of them, Max Urban's 1913, are silent and likely filmed at the opera, and the third is 1 year later than the German version)?
  • Some commentary on the 1981 Czech television series (directed by Otto Schenk)
  • Another review on the DVD of the television series (though the reliability of this site may be suspect)
  • London's 2002 production of the play
• "Opera-lovers should not expect too much, but the work nevertheless gave an attractive portrait of Bohemian village life in the mid-19th century.": the tone is non-encyclopaedic; it seems to be casual, a recommendation between "friends", sort of what you would expect to read in a movie review.
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to Movies, Flicks and Film and Acting does point out the first film rendition of the opera is 1913 (the first only states it in one short sentence, the second expounds it as a creation by Max Urban who cast his wife in the leading role), but they might not be particularly good-quality sources.

Additional sources

• Did you know that ...
  • ... "Prodaná nevěsta was sung at the National Theater in a performance dedicated to the memory of the fallen" four days after "the last significant fighting of World War II in Europe" on (9 May 1945)? (p. 235 of The Coasts of Bohemia, Princeton University Press.)[1]
  • ... "one of the opera's liveliest coruses extols the virtues of good Czech beer"? (p. 122, ibid)
  • ... the 20th century world is more familiar with the German version of the The Battered Bride than the original Czech? (ibid)
  • ... "it was Prodaná nevěsta that was staged at the Stavovské divadlo on the night it was occupied in 1920, a message obvious to all"? (ibid)
  • ... The Battered Bride was one of the regular features, starting from 1943, of cultural life in the Nazi camps for Czechs? (p. 228, ibid)
  • ... The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera provides 3 pages (pp. 501–503) of reviews of the recordings: 1952 Supraphon (M), 1961 Supraphon (S), and 1980–81 Supraphon (D) CD?
  • ... Alan Rich, music critic for the New York Magazine, enjoys The Battered Bride and was so diappointed with the Met's 1978 staging that he called his review "The Sin of False 'Bride'"? (New York Magazine, November 20, 1978, p. 121)

If you cannot access the Google previews, page me if you want them. Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2009, 21:33 UTC)

---

[edit] Mark Steel's in Town

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it nominated for FA. I am not sure what needs to be included or improved to the article in order to get it promoted, so any advice would be useful.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2009, 14:31 UTC)

---

[edit] Skunk Anansie discography

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated for FL status but was not successful. After taking all pointers made into account I would like to please renominate but make a peer review first.

Thanks, Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 July 2009, 20:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Strictly Come Dancing

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to good article but needs that extra push. I can see some unsourced material and a lot of red links.

Thanks, LizzieHarrison 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 July 2009, 16:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Canadian rock

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like a general over view.(Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 July 2009, 06:20 UTC)

---

[edit] North by North Quahog

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. I just finished working on it, and I have decided not to take it to GAn, but directly to FAC. However, I would like to have some feedback first. Also, if anybody owns the DVD set, audio commentary might be helpful to expand the production section. If anybody can find some more negative reviews of the episode, that would be great too, since the final paragraph of the Reception section kinda sucks.

Thanks, --Music26/11 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find him, contact User:Qst, as he worked on the article.Mitch/HC32 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He did some nice cleaning up and a little expansion before I started working on the article, but he has retired since, just read the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice though.--Music26/11 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 July 2009, 18:14 UTC)

---

[edit] School Rumble

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it checked over for content, for any editing (any copyediting you can do would be appreciated), to see if I can get help shrinking the reception section without removing anything vital (perhaps also splitting it up more) and I want some feedback on whether the remaining items marked with ^{[citation needed]} need could be removed without harming the article and/or in the case of titles would be better moved to List of School Rumble episodes.

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dandy Sephy

• I've only skimmed the page as I'm only 10eps in and don't want to spoil anything. The first thing that caught my eye was the references in the lead and plot. Neither of these sections need referencing, and so they should be moved to the article body if possible (or removed if already present elsewhere in the article). Theres also a typo in some of your AnimeonDvd sources - Anime/mange :P Again, i've not read the reception section in case of spoilage, but looking at the refs for that section, are comments from every volume necessary? Unless they are discussing vital issues/praises, would it not be better to provide a summary of the entire series (such as first and last volume comments, maybe middle of the series comments if different enough)? 48 review references is definately excessive, but it's difficult to see at a glance if they are justifiable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time reviewing this article. As for plot, controversial statements, which probably will be challenged do generally need to be cited. If you think some are not, please let me know which and why. As for the lead section, moving references only applies to items not listed later in the article.

As for the volume releases, a lot are from different people. In order to not violate WP:NPOV all relevant reviews should be posted. If you can see a way to reduce this while keeping that let me know.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Every GA I recall seeing seen has no refs in the plot section, in the way that an episode list doesn't need referencing for it's summary's. It's not like claiming media releases, the work is it's ow source. Anything in the lead should be mentioned later in the article, so there should be no new information introduced that requires a reference - The guidebooks and light novels that are being referenced should be mentioned in the media section but aren't. As for the reception, I'm, not concerned about the number of sites offering views, but more the use of 6+reviews from each different reviewer. Do the opinions really change that much from volume to volume that can't be summarized better? For one sentance I spotted you've got 6 references! Also I've noticed a lot of citations mid sentence, they should all go at the end of the sentence. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Popotan has several items not listed later on in the article which are still necessary for referencing, such as why the title was named. Same for Sasuke Uchiha for merchandising. I think your misrepresenting what WP:LEAD#Citations says, ie that it is not a catch all to remove sources for statements nor does it state everything in there must be talked about later (FE: in Popotan there is no reason or section to talk about the title. That is best described in the lead and for Sasuke, with only one merchadise mentioned it would be merged back into the lead having 1-2 sentance sections is highly discouraged for such articles and there is no other proper place for it). That said, I am probably going to extract the novels and guidebooks and put them in a "related media section".

As for the reviews in general they do. Most of the reviewers slowly begin to like the series more as they go along.陣内_Jinnai 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the novels and guidebooks to a new section. That should solve your problem with the refs in the lead, but I'm not retracting my disagreements with the general principal; it's just with that new section there is no need for any refs in the lead and section is long enough that it shouldn't need to be re-merged.

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Nice article. Some examples you could check of these comments are the FA Tokyo Mew Mew or the GA Fullmetal Alchemist:

• The lead could use a little mention of the manga's plot per WP:Lead.
  • Thanks. I'll do did that. Let me know if you think more is needed.
• I agree with Dandysephy that the lead does not need refs.
  • Those items references are not mentioned later in the article as any section for them would be quite small. There isn't enough "related media" for School Rumble not covered elsewhere (merging music or video games into related media is generally not done).
• The second paragraph seems a little overdetailed, titles from the light novels could be moved to a light novels section (which it should be created)
  • There is no reception. All I'd be doing is spouting out the same thing I am there. Although maybe adding light novels + the fanbooks in a "related media" section might work. Thoughts?
    • A reception section is not needed. If such media has not appeared in North America or Europe it would be hard to have reception.
      • So...should the light novels and guidebooks be put into their own section?
        • Yep.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Done.
• If you are planning for GA, "The series takes place where the original left off" would need to be removed until it can be sourced
  • Yea, I'll either have to find a scantalation with page numbers or a press release or something. Before it goes to GAN everything will be cited or removed.
• The impact section is a bit short. The content could be moved to the anime.
  • It was originally like that, but the anime section was getting way to long and unweildy. It's already trying to cope with 2 seasons and an OVA. I do admit it is rather short, but there hasn't been much else for impact. If that can be cleaned up, then it might be better.
• The music section is overreferenced. As I checked if some are removed, the article is still well-referenced.
  • Please mention which refs you think could be removed.
    • In the part it is talked about Drama CD, the refs of the discset is enough since the site commonly explains the products.
      • This section has been fixed and expanded.
• Concept and creation could be merged with Production and development since those sections are not very long like the ones from other series like Death Note (although its otherstuff).
  • Maybe. I am going to look for more release info on some of the Japanese pages. I probably do it though if not much more comes up.
    • Combined the 2 sections. While I can get more release information, I doubt without a second interview from Kobayashi I'll get creation information.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• The characters section should be removed and the link to the characters list needs to be to moved to plot since both sections talk about the same.
  • ?? This is news to me. WP:MOS-AM does allow for it. Although, yea I think you might be right here since the plot revolves so much around character interactions. Although some of the info should be merged then if that's the case.
    • I've merged those 2 sections together.
• Gamefaqs is not a reliable source since all its content is user edited. Try using GameSpot or other sites.
  • Wrong. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. For their data page, GameFaqs is reliable. Only their data page. If you want to dispute that, you can, but I believe you'll have an uphill battle as that information can only be sumbitted by company officials.
• Some refs are lacking publisher.
  • Can you please list them?
    • 76-77, from 53 to 65.
    • *53-65 should be taken care of. All of them should be taken care of now.
  • I've made some comments. For some of the issues, most notably GameFaqs for the way its refenced, I flatly disagree with you. Most of them could use clarification.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Reviewers are requested not to subdivide the review using level-2 or level-3 headings, which disrupt the page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt Can't help much ;) Video game possible ref: one Another one one more --KrebMarkt 06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another batch mixed game/merchandising: merchandising merchandising again PSP bandai --KrebMarkt 06:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Last and very last batch if you can't do it with all those refs then....

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --KrebMarkt 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

merchandise refs are more for character pages. Still its useful for there.陣内_Jinnai 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from squilibob

Wow, it's been over 2 years since the last peer review. You've done plenty of work to the article, I did a copyedit. There are a couple of lines in a row that seem out of place and are like trivia in their current position in the article:

To commemorate the ending of the series with the final chapter of School Rumble Z, Jin Kobayashi drew a poster for the event. has nothing to do with neither "concept" nor "creation"

Before reading the manga, Ami Koshimizu, the seiyū for Tenma, initially attempted to interview for the role of Yakumo. This isn't appropriate for the first line of "Production and development". The first line should be more specific to the heading.

There's minor problems with grammar and spelling and there's redundant writing "in addition" and "also" should be used sparingly. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and WP:WTA need to be applied properly. Other than that, the article seems ok. Good work. --Squilibob (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I combined the 2 sections mentioned above. I can't think of a general sentence for the section though as its kind of different elements.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 July 2009, 22:11 UTC)

---

[edit] Stacy London

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to the featured article list. Since creating an account on wikipedia I've developed an interest in writing and continued to edit pages that are appealing to me. I've recently moved into writing new articles and I've done a lot of rewriting/updating to this article in particular. Since I've never taken any journalism or creative writing classes I feel this is a good way for me to get some constructive feedback on what could be better. This article isn't long so it shouldn't take too much time to review/critique. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to WikiProject biography's quality assessment scale and change the status (if need be) on this article's discussion page.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Music2611

Here are my comments on the article. I think FA is a long way for this article, but it is getting there, slowly.

• The lead fails to properly summarize the article.
• The image is tagged because it doesn't have licensing info.
• Vogue magazine can be linked.
• Does ref 5 cover the first section of the Career section? Please make clear.
• Try to avoid words such as "currently" and "most recently", they have to be changed eventually.
• Either refer to Stacy London as "Stacy" or "London", you mix them up in the article. My advice would be London, because Stacy sounds like you know her personally.
• Kelly's first name in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the Career section is unneccesary since he is already mentioned earlier in the article.
• Final sentence of second paragraph in the Career section is unreferenced.
• Third paragraph of the Career section is unreferenced.
• Underscores in What Not to Wear (US) are redundant, (US) should be covered with a pipe: [[What Not to Wear (US)|What Not to Wear]]. The show should be linked the first time it is mentioned and it should be in italics.
• Does ref 18 cover the Oprah thing? Please make clear.
• Oprah's last name needs to be mentioned for readers who are unfamiliar with her.
• Please rename the final section "Personal Life", is more clear.
• TV.com is an unreliable source.
• References 4,5,6,9,10,18,19 and 20 are incorrectly cited.
• Reference 23 is missing publisher info.
• General Comment: Please try to keep the article as chronological as possible. In the career section you jump from this year to that year, which makes reading a bit uncomfortable.

Hopefully my comments are helpful.--Music26/11 12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 July 2009, 20:25 UTC)

---

[edit] 4 Minutes (Madonna song)

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has all the signs of being a Featured article on Wikipedia, however there can be issues with the prose since the article is quite huge. I request reviewers to scrutinize the prose and comment on what can be done to make it perfect for FA.

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody please ? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is on the backlog (with 24 othger requests, 14 older) so someone will get to it in the next several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 July 2009, 09:19 UTC)

---

[edit] Vincent van Gogh

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has undergone a very successful GAR with over 500 edits made to improve the article. Talk page discussion mentioned an interest in pursuing a WP:FAC. However, I believe that a PR is an appropriate first step in this regard.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope all you guys who helped with the GAR are watching this. I have started to address the APR above. I will need some help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned Tony, I will stay tuned, real life permitting...Modernist (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Without having read the article; just with a quick look, a problem I see is that the article is overloaded with pictures. There must be some selection of the most representative works.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Much of the GAR was spent moving images from the gallery to the main article. I believe many visual arts articles have a lot of images. In this case, we have the opportunity to actually show the reader what the text is talking about. If the images can fit in the text why not include them in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tony..and an artist like Vincent van Gogh is best explained by his pictures. The text can always be expanded...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tony and Modernist, and do not think there are too many images. But still the text needs more work, especially the second part, and then we shall see, which images are necessary (perhaps even more, probably others!). --RPD (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2009, 23:11 UTC)

---

[edit] Vengeance (2009 film)

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it follows the producing and theatrical stages of the film. What is needed for this article is a full synopsis of the film.

Thanks, FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First part of review. I have read the first sections of the article and have made some detailed comments, as listed below. The main weakness, as compared with other film articles, is the inadequacy of the Plot section.

• Lead
  • Suggest link ensemble cast
  • The description "French" is meant to cover both Hallyday and Testud, but does not obviously do so. Is it possible to clarify this? I have tried a few rewordings, e.g. "...the French duo of musician Johnny Hallyday and actress Sylvie Testud..." but I don't know if that cuts the mustard.
  • The word "along" in the last line of first paragraph is unnecessary
  • "...and her family..." It's basically his family; how about "and the rest of his family..."?
  • "ARP co-founders and French producers Michèle and Laurent Pétin first came up with the idea of having Johnnie To produce an English-language film with actor Alain Delon in mind for the lead role." Shouldn't that be "direct" rather than "produce"? In any case this is a clumsily worded sentence which really needs completely rephrasing. I suggest: "The idea of Johnnie To directing an English-language film originated with the ARP co-founders and French producers Michèle and Laurent Pétin, who had Alain Delon in mind for the lead role."
  • Avoid "eventually" repeat in third line, second paragraph.
  • "...with the crew consisting mostly of a Hong Kong production team." This reads oddly. Don't "crew" and "production team" amount to the same thing? If so, why not say "with a crew mainly based in Hong Kong."?
  • "positive, critical reaction": I would make this "positive critical reception", without the comma (which you should drop even if you keep your original wording.
• Plot: this very brief sketch does not amount to a summary of the plot. I would expect this to be expanded to around 400-500 words at least.
• Cast and characters: Why is "George Fung" described as the film's protaganist, i.e. main character? From the very brief plot details this doesn't seem to be the case.
• Production
  • First paragraph needs rewording. "...co-production, jointly produced" is saying the same thing twice. Later in the paragraph you go on to say that the film was "co-produced by Laurent and Michéle Pétin.", when you have just described it as a co-production of ARP and MilkyWay image.
  • "contributors to...", not "contributors of"
• Development
  • "At the time" is a redundancy. In the same sentence, so is "already" and so is "such as"

• • Second paragraph, first sentence: Why "also", why "of sorts"? In fact, you could lose this whole first sentence.

Perhaps you would respond to these points. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, please ping my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2009, 04:13 UTC)

---

[edit] No Line on the Horizon

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually bring the article to FA. A lot of hard work was put into a promotion to GA, and I can't see any issues with the article after the GA concerns were addressed. However, a fresh pair of eyes would be very much welcomed. I think the Charts/certifications, Linear, and U2 360 sections are without worry, but if someone could look over the rest of the article it would be much appreciated!

Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief comment: The purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the whole article (per WP:LEAD. At present the lead makes no reference to the "Linear" film, which has a significant section in the article (although the section is not well integrated with the rest of the article). I suggest that the lead is extended to make reference to the film, and that the film section itself is given a better relationship with the album that is the article's principal subject. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 June 2009, 04:29 UTC)

---

[edit] List of music releases from Pop Idol contestants

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get the opinion of editors on improvements before the list is submitted for FL. Please can I be notified if I have missed out any releases from the table or prose.

Thanks, 03md 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• General Point: most (probably all) featured pop song lists have numerous illustrations; this has none. Have you thought about how to obtain images?
• Text: since this is a list, not an article, there may be questions about the extent of text. In some lists I have seen a "Notes" column used to record additional information, rather than having a lengthy prose section.
  • It is common to have a lengthy lead section in discographies and other similar lists, so I will leave it at that level and get the opinion of other editors.

Some specific points in the prose:-

• • Should "top 5" be "top five" per MOS, or is there a dispensation for music chart entries? I honestly don't know.
    • Changed to top five"
  • Why is album of the same name in italics
    • Changed
  • For the sake of those uneducated in the language of pop, can you explain or link "double-A side"?
    • Wikilinked double-A side
  • "After "What My Heart Wants to Say" broke this run of successful singles..." Was it unsuccessful, or did it just not reach No. 1?
    • Clarified
  • "earned", not "earnt"
    • Changed
• Tables: These seem generally OK. One point of presentation you might consider is the centralisation of the numeric information, in the "Series" and "peak chart position" columns. This is boring to do - it means repetitively writing "align= center", but in terms of appearance it is well worth doing.

That's really all I can think of. It might be worth your while getting the opinion of an editor with direct experience of preparing pop lists. Good luck with the list, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. 03md 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 23:03 UTC)

---

[edit] James Nesbitt

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 June 2009.

This article failed FAC a couple of months ago, so I'd like to get some feedback on improvements before I renominate it. Thankies. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Looking at the FAC, the objections seemed to be mostly centered on images. I think this is pretty near FA, but the prose needs some polishing before another run at FA, so here are some minor suggestions for improvement.

• The lead sentence is very short - per WP:LEAD The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I am not sure the current sentence answers the notability question.
• This might be my ignorance, but "Northern Irish" sounds odd - if it is the standard adjective, then it is fine, but could it be linked? Could it also be "...is an actor from Northern Ireland..."?
• The lead seems to overuse he and his - the first paragraph has four sentences in a row that do not use his name (Nesbitt). I think alternating a bit more makes the prose more readable.
• I also assume that readers will sometimes skip to the section they are interested in and try to have the first sentence of each section use the proper name of the subject (not a pronoun) but at least two sections use he instead of Nesbitt in their first sentence. Is there an antecedent to a first sentence?
• I know it is difficult to refer to two different people with the same last name, but calling his father "Jim" seems a bit too familiar / folksy for an encyclopedia article. Could something like "his father" or "Nebitt's father" and "the senior Nesbitt" be used? Or could he be referred to as a teacher?
• I know this is very picky but it is "The Troubles" once and "the Troubles" elsewhere. Or do sisters really hyphenate their names differently Sonia Forbes-Adam versus Victoria Forbes Adam?
• In Personal life, should his charitable work be metnioned in the lead? it is half the section. Also should his affairs be mentioned in the lead?
• I would be consistent on films, so his debut feature film, Hear My Song (Peter Chelsom, 1991) gives the director and year in parnetheses but other films just give the year
• Quotations need to follow the logical quotation rules at MOS:QUOTE (punctuation outside the quote unless it is a full sentence being quoted)
• Are there free images of any important people or places in his life that could be added?

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 _><>°^° 04:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your comments, and none of them were too picky! I've fixed all of the little things like grammar, 'hes' and 'hims', hyphens, and adding "Nesbitt" to the head of each section.

• Regarding using his father's first name: I can't find the exact page with the discussion, but a similar question came up at the FACs for Ronald and Nancy Reagan. In those, it was decided that if two people in the article had the same last name, the subject of the article should be referred to by their surname and the other person/people by there first name. As for it being too informal, the sources I've used indicate his father was always "Jim" and never "James".
• I've added a short clause to the lead about his philanthropy but am hesitant to add anything about the affairs because a) it could be a BLP violation and b) it really is none of our business. The way I've structured the paragraph in the personal life section is to refer to the tabloid stories rather than their content. For some weird reason, the tabloid stories made their way in the actual news at the time, so they're too big not to mention, but I'd still rather keep it to a minimum.
• As far as I can see, all the films that need to be are followed by director and year. Some aren't because the director is mentioned in the preceding text (e.g. "...his first appearance in a production directed by Michael Winterbottom; he later appeared in Go Now (1995), Jude (1996) and Welcome to Sarajevo (1997)." compared to "Also in 2004, he filmed the roles of Ronnie Cunningham in Millions (Danny Boyle, 2004), and Detective Banner in Match Point (Woody Allen, 2005).")
• For the opening sentence, current consensus at WP:ACTOR is to avoid anything that might violate WP:NPOV ("James Nesbitt is a Northern Irish actor who has been nominated for a BAFTA award and four IFTA awards"/"John Smith is a film director whose films have grossed over $6bn worldwide") in favour of fleshing out who the person is in the lead itself.
• For "Northern Irish actor" vs "Northern Ireland actor", I'm not really sure about this. I've always known people to describe themselves as or be described as "Northern Irish". Personally, I reserve "a person from Northern Ireland" for articles where it isn't clear whether the subject considers themself Northern Irish, Irish or British. In this case, Nesbitt has often said he is "Northern Irish". However, I'll raise the point at WP:NIR to see if there is a "correct" terminology.

Thanks again for your help. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 21:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Crown Fountain

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a year since its last PR and it has since failed at FAC. The last FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3) has all kinds of arguments for and against the article and I would just like a review of the article in preparation for a new nomination.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – These are some thoughts on the prose etc., like would I would offer in an FAC.

• Delink dates in the references.
  • Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Don't need a link to the U.S. dollar in the lead.
  • I believe you are suppose to link the currency in its first use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concept and design: Grant Park doesn't need two links in as many sentences.
  • delinked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Artistic design: "The fountain is known for encouraging its visitors splash and slide in the reflecting pool". Should be "encouraging its visitors to...".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Video production: Remove comma from "Approximately, 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's course in public art for the project."
  • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Typo in here: "with a width far exceeding its heighth...".
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• "This was followed by the a section with the mouth open...". Another glitch.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• "but now no additial videos are planned." "additial" → "additional".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Construction and engineering: Comma needed in parenthetical "now part of Phillips Solid-State Lighting Solutions now called Phillips Color Kinetics".
  • Is that what you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• There's a new requirement for featured articles that images have alt text "where appropriate". It will take some time to include alt text for the many photos, but shouldn't be too difficult. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 04:58 UTC)

---

[edit] Strangers (thirtysomething)

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's IMHO close to GA status and I'd like some eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A short, somewhat slight article. Since the main notability of this episode was the controversy over two gay men in bed together, I would have expected the "Controversy" section to have rather more detail. For example, ABC withdrew the episode from the summer rerun schedule. But this was 1990: has the episode been aired since (I imagine it has)? If so, with what effect? Also, perhaps a bit more plot detail on the Peter and Russell story would be helpful. For instance, was the meeting at the advertising agency their first meeting? Are Peter and Russell in any way connected with the other circle of friends you describe in the plot summary?

Here are a few more specific points. I have also done a little punctuation and general tidying.

• WP:LEAD says: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Your first sentence fulfils the first of these requirements, but not the second. Indeed, it is not until the second paragraph of the lead that we learn why this episode was notable. I suggest some redrafting of the lead section.
• I suggest you delete the second "together" in the second paragraph, as too close a repetition
• "originally including hugging and kissing..." - "-ing", "-ing" and "-ing". Suggest reword as: "...and originally included hugging and kissing..."
• "There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired." Well, how could there be, before it was shown?
• "fear of", rather than "fear for", is the normal idiom.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 June 2009, 01:27 UTC)

---

[edit] List of The Inbetweeners episodes

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because myself and a number of other editors have spent time on this article and it would be great to see how far away FL status is for it, and what needs to be done in order to get it to the status.

Thank you,
Wisijane 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting and funny series, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I would add who the characters are in the image caption, which currently reads The Inbetweeners Series 1 DVD. This contains the 6 episodes from the first series that was broadcast. and change it to something like The Inbetweeners Series 1 DVD cover showing (left to right) Will, Simon, Jay, and Neil (or whatever the real order is)
• The last paragraph of the lead is only three short sentences and could perhaps either be combined with one of the other paragraphs or perhaps expanded. I would try to be consistent in information given - in the last two sentences why not give the number of episodes in season two? I am also not sure of the use of "between" - how would "during" or even "in" sound?The first series consisted of six episodes and ran until 29 May 2008. The second series ran between April and May 2009.[2]
• Watch overlinking and needless repetition - just in the lead we are twice told "Will (Simon Bird)" with a link to the actor's name each time. E4 is linked twice in the lead. Or there is an internal wikilink to the first episode, which seems odd to me (I assumed the episode was notable enough to have its own article - readers know to scroll down otherwise in a list of episodes to read about each one). See WP:OVERLINK
• Language is awkward in places and needs a copyedit - for example In order to impress his new-found friends, Will attempts to, illegally (because he is underage) purchase alcohol. could just be something like Trying to impress his new-found friends, the underage Will attempts to illegally purchase alcohol.
• There are a number of jargon terms which I was not familiar with - bunk off for one, or briefcase mong. I would link bunk off to truancy. Not sure about the other. See WP:JARGON
• There are also places where the language is not very encyclopedic - "winds up" in winds up Neil's dad about being gay for one. I would read WP:IN-U especially and the whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
• Current refs 3 and 4 are jusr bare links and need much more information - 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
• Current refs 1 and 5 are the same and should be combined with the ref name = feature (ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this)
• Refs 3 and 4 are to amazon.com - is this a reliable source?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, Ruhrfisch; it is highly appreciated. Managed to get a lot of the items done, and only need to go over the prose to work on the encyclopediac language and jargon terms. Thanks again, Wisijane 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

(Peer review added on Friday 19 June 2009, 22:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] Central Morocco Tamazight

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it get to Good Article status. I've contributed significantly to it, and listed it for GAR once, but I was advised to delist it and move it here. I was told that the main area of improvement is in the prose. Advice on how to make it flow better, or on information which should be included, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 13 July 2009, 05:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Will Eisner

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator of the Spirit, Eisner's contributions to the comics industry are highly important, and this article could easily be a GA or higher with some work. There are plenty of sourcing issues (see all the CN templates). Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review

GA concerns

• Write "fair use rationale"s for copyrighted images. IMO, an image of The Spirit, should be included with fair use rationale
• Most facts and figures are uncited in this article. All years, dates (numeric facts) need references. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Almost every sentence in "Awards and honors" needs a ref. "Early life and career" is already tagged
• "He is considered one of the most important contributors to the development of the medium and is known for the cartooning studio he founded; for his highly influential series The Spirit" The language here can be considered flowery. Such claims of importance need a reference
• In death, I see "Eisner was survived by his wife, Ann Weingarten Eisner, and their son, John." When did he marry? Have a son and a daughter
• "the son of Jewish immigrants" - names please.
• The main obstacle for a GA is lack of sufficient references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2009, 12:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Batman: The Dark Knight Returns

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because this graphic novel was a major storyline for Batman and Frank Miller as well, and I believe it has potential for at least a GA. I understand the lead needs expansion, and the article is way undersourced at the moment. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz

• The "Characters" has few opinions, then hard-core facts like "Superman is now simply a pawn for the US government.", "strongly suggested as a reaction to the death of the former Robin, Jason Todd.", "He is more sarcastic than ever" to name a few. These are interpretations (and border WP:OR), which need references.
• "Character appearances in other series" needs references
  • In Countdown: Arena, the Superman from The Dark Knight Returns. How does one know, he is from the novel not Superman in general?
• "a girl who resembles Carrie Kelly, called "Kelly",", "The Batman episode "Artifacts" is set in a possible future (2027) that resembles The Dark Knight Returns. " who says so? Borders OR. Needs references
• "Much of the dialogue in the segment is lifted directly from the pages of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" reference needed
• write about sales and include more reviews.
• See GA Batman: Anarky for ideas to expand. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 3 July 2009, 17:10 UTC)

---

[edit] 32 Battalion (Book)

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know where to improve it. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse 11:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review

• The first impression: The article is short.
• Expand on: Search articles on similar books on wikipedia (search WP:FA and WP:GA first) for more.
  • Structure of the book: Chapters and summary
  • Sales
  • Reviews
• The chapter headings of this book are very special. These are the names of songs traditionally sung by 32 Battalion, translated into English. These songs were sung on the eve of battle or on the parade ground. (reference needed)
• People who made a contribution to this book: who are they? friends of the author, army colleagues: seniors or juniors --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 3 July 2009, 11:28 UTC)

---

[edit] Bill Finger

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because as the co-creator of Batman, he has an important place in comics history, and has GA plus potential. There are a few sourcing issues, but nothing tremendous. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz

concerns about GA status

• Instead of File:Bill Finger by Jerry Robinson.jpg, can a photo of Finger be used?
• Main aspects of life not covered:
  • His life starts abruptly with 1938, what about his birth, early education and life between 1914 to 1938
  • Something about his personal life (parents, wives, children), death (cause of, buried at) is needed
• Something wrong with "Artist and credited Batman creator Bob Kane"
• Answer these questions in the text: Finger was not given credit for the works, then which works he was part of? How is it known? Who first disclosed that Batman was co-created by Finger and when?
• "Credit" needs references, as esaily can be challenged. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 July 2009, 12:06 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because in order to what parts from this list need to be fixed. I'm a bit concerned about the summaries' length and it would be good if someone can copy-edit this article.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Peer review regulations require articles to be free of major cleanup banners. This article has one, adting from December 2008, relating to prose and grammar. Efforts should be made to resolve these issues before the article is presented for review. Have you tried asking a friendly editor to copyedit? Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the summaries a lot of time before the peer review's start and I have been revising them prior to this. I don't if the summaries are still in a bad shape, so I did not remove the tag.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My only question is, why was the 2nd volume having a different cover? I don't see any information. Has Viz commented on it?陣内_Jinnai 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know they haven't.Tintor2 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2009, 16:33 UTC)

---

[edit] Star Trek

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… It has gone large changes since its last review, and because with some polishing it could be a good GA, or even FA.

Thanks, Oldag07 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Majoreditor's comments

For starters, the lead is under-developed. See WP:LEAD for details. With some work this can become a Good Article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai

• Considering their is enough information to have an entire article on it, there is only a breif paragraph on the cancelled Star Trek Phase II. The paragraph doesn't even contain the most basic plot info, which is generally a minimum.
• Also under parodies cultural impact, Star Ocean has been confirmed by its creators as heavily influenced by the series after commentary on their similarities.陣内_Jinnai 01:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This in an interesting article about a series I'm reasonably familiar with. I think it could become a good article with a little more work. Two places that need attention are the lead and the references. In addition, the lower sections contain some repetition of material in the upper sections and should probably be weeded a bit to eliminate redundancy. The prose is generally fine, but I noted a few exceptions and also many small deviations from guidelines in the Manual of Style (MOS). I doubt that I caught all of the MOS issues, but I fixed a few as I went, and I have listed others below.

Lead

• The lead, according to MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead, though well-written, is a bit on the skimpy side. If you can imagine a reader having to make do with the lead by itself, I think you can see why it's not a true summary. It doesn't, for example, contain any information about the who, what, where, when of the fiction. Outer space? Inner space? Green monsters? All set on Mars? Ninety-fifth century? From just reading the lead, a reader would have no clue.

Conception and setting

• Any reason for linking 1960? WP:UNLINKDATES advises against linking.
• "Although he publicly marketed it as a Western in outer space... " - Wikilink Western to Western genre?
• According to this universe's timeline, the first warp flight occurred on 5 April 2063." - Unlink the dates for consistency and to conform to WP:UNLINKDATES. Also, since this is (arguably) a U.S.-centric article, the format should be m-d-y; that is, April 5, 2063, unless the fiction itself consistently used d-m-y.

Beginnings

• A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to cite every paragraph at least once and to cite every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that is not common knowledge or that might reasonably be questioned. The last paragraph of this subsection is unsourced even though it includes claims like "Marketing personnel of the network complained to management that the series' cancellation was premature."
• "New techniques for profiling demographics of the viewing audience, would later find that the Star Trek audience was highly desirable for advertisers to the point where Star Trek was considered a highly profitable property." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "New techniques for profiling demographics of the viewing audience later showed that Star Trek had been highly profitable for advertisers."
• "Unfortunately, that revelation came too late to resume production of the series." - Delete "unfortunately" since that is an editorial comment not attributed to a reliable source?

Rebirth

• Three paragraphs are unsourced.
• "The show was, unusually, broadcast in first-run syndication rather than running on a major network, with Paramount and the local stations splitting advertising time between them." - "With" doesn't work very well as a conjunction. Suggestion: "The show was unusual in that it was broadcast as first-run syndication rather than on a major network. Paramount and the local stations split the advertising time."

Post Roddenberry

• "After" rather than "Post"? Alternatively "Post-Roddenberry"?
• "In response to the TNG's success, Paramount began production of a spin off Star Trek series... " - "Spin-off" gets a hyphen. Also, would it be useful to wikilink it, thus: spin-off?
• "Star Trek saturation hit a peak between 1994-1995." - Date ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: "1994–1995". This can be shortened to "1994–95", but my preference would be to say "between 1994 and 1995".
• "UPN announced the cancellation of Enterprise at the end of its fourth season, and its final episode would air on May 13, 2005." - "aired" rather than "would air" since this is all in the past?

Rebooting

• I shortened the subhead slightly to avoid the repetition of "franchise". Perhaps, though, it would be best to combine this short section with the "Franchise ownership" section under a single subhead, "Franchise" or something similar. The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. Two options are possible: expand or merge.
• The "citation needed" tag needs attention.

Franchise ownership

• This section, in addition to being extremely short, lacks sources. It also might be helpful to include the year that Paramount acquired Desilu.

The Original Series (1966–1969)

• The last two paragraphs lack sources.
• I'd leave out the internal note, "(See also Awards below.)" Since "you" is implied, this addresses the reader directly with an imperative, which Wikipedia doesn't usually do except in "See also" sections

The Animated Series (1973–1974)

• The first paragraph lacks a source.
• "Although it was originally sanctioned by Paramount (who became the owners of the... " - "which became the owner" rather than "who became the owners"?
• "Star Trek TAS briefly returned to television in the mid-1980s when it was rebroadcast on the children's cable network Nickelodeon per the request of Nickelodeon's Evan McGuire, who had greatly admired the show, even using its various creative components as inspiration for his short series called Piggly Wiggly Hears A Sound, which never aired (Nickelodeon parent Viacom would purchase Paramount in 1994)." - Too complex. Break into shorter sentences.

Feature films

• "The 2009 film is the highest-earning and best-reviewed of the series so far, even in inflation adjusted numbers[citation needed]." - The tag caught my attention. This sentence repeats the tagged sentence in an earlier section. I noticed some other repetitions or near-repetitions (like the Desilu-Paramount merger claim) before getting to this one. I'd suggest trying to hunt them down and to remove all but the most essential one. They are probably artifacts from many re-writes.

Books"

• Sources?

"Notes

• WP:MOSNUM says that the date formatting in the citations should be consistent. You are free to choose yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y for a U.S.-centric article but not a mixture of the two formats.
• Some of the citations are incomplete. If possible, citation data for on-line sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date.
• I'm not certain that all of the sources cited are reliable sources as described in WP:RS. The self-published essay in citation 3 is an example.
• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

References

• The items in the list should be arranged alphabetically by author's last name.

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) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 June 2009, 16:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Tom Swift

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because, although it recently passed GA, I think it still needs to be improved. I would appreciate any feedback.

Many thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton. Ricardiana (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am reading through the article with great interest. Because of multiple commitments, I have only managed the first half of the article so far, but hope to deal with the remainder in a day or two. It looks an impressive effort. From the edit history, I see that the article is overwhelmingly the work of one editor, and I wonder if it could benefit from some light copyediting from a fresh set of eyes? Here are some general comments:-

• Lead
  • The first line describes Tom Swift as "the central character", but it is evident that there is more than one "Tom Swift" across the generations, so shouldn't this be qualified by saying "the name of the central character"?

Agreed - changed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • We are told "five series", but it would help to know, approximately, the total number of books involved.

Added. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Is the pun business worth mentioning in the lead? It's a mite trivial, perhaps

Removed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Character and inventions
  • Despite its title, this section says almost nothing about Tom's character.

It's true. I was trying to follow the pattern of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys articles, but the sources don't talk much about any Tom's character. I've changed this to "Inventions." Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • First sentence: "Tom Swift, in all his various incarnations, is an inventive science-minded young protagonist, usually in his teens." I found the phrase "an inventive science-minded young protagonist" jarred a bit, and reformulated the sentence in my mind as: "In his various incarnations the protagonist Tom Swift, usually in his teens, is inventive and science-minded." For consideration. I'm unsure, though, about how the teen thing squares with his eventually being married, or with his best friend becoming the company's finance director.

Hmm, I don't remember writing that one. Regardless, it does sound clunky. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • As we are talking about machines, "assisting" rather than "engaging" would be more appropriate. I have slightly altered this sentence for clarity, but will leave you to make the main change.

Changed to "assisting." Still might need work, though. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Authorship
  • Watch a tendency towards excessive use of quotes. For example, unremarkable phrases such as "take advantage of the market for children's science adventure" could easily be paraphrased.

Yes, cutting down on quotations has been a real struggle for me on this article, for whatever reason. I've tried to cut down some more; I hope it's better now. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "The Syndicate's process for creating the Tom Swift books consisted of creating a detailed outline with all plot elements; drafting a manuscript; and editing the manuscript." The repetition of "creating" should be avoided. "Detailed outline" is an oxymoron. The sentence is also clumsily punctuated with semicolons. A simpler version might be: "The Syndicate's authors created the Tom Swift books by first preparing an outline with all the plot elements, followed by the drafting and editing of the detailed manuscript."

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "...to produce further series" (rather than future)

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Suggest reword final sentence: "Two such series were produced: one, published from 1991 to 1993, and the Tom Swift, Young Inventor series, begun in 2006." Also, for some reason you have not cited this information.

I don't actually have a source that meets WP:RS to which to cite this info - I didn't think this kind of information had to be cited. Suggestions?? Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Original series (1910-41)
  • Eight rather than 8

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "one commentator" - why not name her/him?

This was added by someone who was annoyed that the quotation (which I've paraphrased) said that the books were racist. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm a lttle confused: a teenage boy has a research team?

Yes - this is the kind of thing that makes the books great fun! Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "...but only with the help of a balloonist." Are the words "but only" really necessary?

Well, perhaps not, but they imply what the source implies, a denigration of the early Tom Swift's prowess. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • There are several instances of unattributed quotes in this section. Although they are all cited to sources, there are no indications in the text as to who said them. Examples: "somehow innate"; the sentence beginning "The early Tom Swift is more dependent on his father..."; the quote beginning "had no union". On this last one, I am again confused; they were prepared to work round the clock for Tom, a teenager?

I will complete the review as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your comments so far, Brianboulton - I really appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. (Please call me Brian) Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing

Sorry I've not been able to finish this review yet, but here is another chunk. Please note that these are all pretty minor points:-

• Second series
  • The point raised in the last section, about unattributed quotations applies here, too.
  • Suggest rephrase final part of first paragraph from "compared with the 14 million copies the first series sold" to: "compared with sales of 14 million copies during the first series."
  • Second para opening: suggest you say "earlier series" rather than "first series", to avoid repetition of the latter.
  • Comma required after "patriotism".
• Third series
  • Unattributed quotes again
  • I'm not sure of the meaning of the phrase "expressly Tom Jr". Does this mean: "who is referred to as Tom Jr"? Clarity is needed, with all these Tom Swifts about.
  • "lest fast-paced" would be neater as "slower-paced". I think you need to clarify: "slower-paced than the Tom Swift, Jr. adventures of the second series".
• Fourth series: only two comments here. First, the usual about unattributed quotes. Secondly, to avoid over-repetition of the name, I suggest you say "previous versions of the character" rather than "previous versions of the Tom Swift character".
• Fifth series: no particular comment.
• Books: This sentence is uninformative: "Tom Swift was also the hero of the Tom Swift, Jr. Adventures and three other series, including the most recent, Tom Swift, Young Inventor." It merely tells us what we have just read. The previous sentence tells us how many volumes were in the first series; can we have similar information for the subsequent series?

I will cover the last couple of sections tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

• Film and television: no problems, except that the final part is written in a way which will require updating, as this project develops.
• Cultural impact
  • Many unattributed quotes. Also, much of this quoted material would be better paraphrased. For example, the section could begin: "The Tom Swift books have been credited with laying the foundations for success of American SF."
  • "150,000 copies a year were sold" - suggest "were being sold"
  • "To date" is too vague. Suggest "Up to 2009..."
  • "...over 20[39] to 30 million copies worldwide" The "over" is redundant, and the [39] citation is very awkwardly placed.
  • Whose description is the term "adverb-heavy"?
  • "...Tom's drive to invent and harvest resources..." I'm not sure how this should be read. Is the meaning "to use his inventions for the harvesting of resources"?
  • "Some contend..." Who might these be? Likewise the "others", who disagree.
• General: This is potentially a very sound, high-quality article. I have mentioned the recurrent weakness: too much reliance on verbatim quotes, coupled with frequent failure to attribute these quotes. A couple of MOS points: page ranges in references should use ndashes not hyphens; non-breaking spaces should be used , for eample in "12 million" (there are other cases).

I hope you have found this review useful. If you have the time, might it be possible for you to look briefly at the opera article The Bartered Bride, which I have just nominated for peer review? Any comments there would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Brian - I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to respond properly to all of your helpful comments yet, but I plan to work on them this weekend. I will also read over The Bartered Bride, which I'm looking forward to. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 17:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Roy of the Rovers

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was made an FA three years ago, but in that time standards have changed. There are plenty of sourcing issues which need to be fixed to avoid getting delisted if someone were to put it up for FAR. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In October 2007 Setanta Sports.com started to feature strips from the archive, beginning with the storyline that saw Steve Norman and Gary Kemp from pop group Spandau Ballet join Melchester Rovers. They plan to showcase other strips that appeared in the comic. -- This will need updating re the situation at Setanta. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this would not pass FAC as is, but do not have any specific sources. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• User:ChrisTheDude is still active here and seems to have been a major contributor and might be able to help get this up to speed.
• Main problem as I see it is a lack of references throughout. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Many of the refs that are there are need to have more details. 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
• Refs also may need to be combined - there are at least three that seem to be links the official website that seem to be the same. If they are not the same, this is yet more proof that not enough info is given in the refs as is
• Another major concern is overuse of fair use images - see WP:NFCC. Many of the images seem more decorative than necessary
• Time references need "As of date" rather than more vague terms

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't think I was really a major contributor to the article, the vast majority was done by Seb Patrick and I just chipped in here and there. I'll have a look over the article and see what I can do, although most of the stuff I added was done from memory (back when I was comparatively new to WP and didn't understand the importance of sourcing) so I doubt I'd be able to bulk up the sourcing, which is clearly a major issue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 12:14 UTC)

---

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] 2004 World Series

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 July 2009.

I first found this article in this form and I nominated it for FA status a while back but withdrew it due to issues being raised that would take while to fix. I hope I've addressed these issues now, but I want to be sure before I consider re-nominating, see the FAC page here.

As I'm hoping to make this a FA, please review this as you would a FAC. BUC (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 July 2009, 08:42 UTC)

---

[edit] England and Scotland football rivalry

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is potentially a good article. I think it is fairly stable (England and Scotland don't play each other that often) and there is plenty of material there. Any thoughts to take the article forward would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

Generally speaking this is looking pretty good. It'd stand a very good chance of passing GA as is.

• Per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lead section should also be included in the body of the article. This leads onto a second point - the one thing I'd say is missing from the article is a section about attitudes of supporters and the media.
• Occasionally there is a run-on sentence, or a sentence implying a link which does not exist e.g. "The UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying play-off in 1999 is the most recent occasion upon which the two have played, and there have been no matches so far in the 21st century.", "This was the first time the match had taken place in Scotland for ten years, but England won the first game 2–0".
• SFA chief executive Gordon Smith has also raised the concern that the riots in Manchester on the day of the 2008 UEFA Cup Final may lead the FA to believe that there could be incidents of hooliganism connected to an England v Scotland fixture. - someone unfamiliar with last year's events wouldn't see the relevance of this without clicking on a link. Changing it to "riots by Rangers fans" might make it clearer.
• Players and managers section - this doesn't mention what I'd regard as the most significant migration, the Scotch Professors who were highly influential in the early days of the English professional game.
• During this time, Rangers had a higher turnover than Manchester United and could therefore offer wages that could compare with even the biggest English clubs. - there another reason Rangers rather than, say, Celtic, signed English players in the 1980s... How much the issue merits mention I'm not sure, as anything other than a very brief mention would be undue weight. But as the recent flurry of articles about the 20th anniversary of the Mo Johnston signing shows, it was still a significant issue at the time.
• The use of flags in the results list strikes me as unnecessary, and doesn't follow WP:MOSFLAG. The location column is completely redundant, since that is already covered by the venue column.
• Is it worth mentioning the Anglo-Scottish Cup, or the issues surrounding the idea of a United Kingdom national football team?
• I'm pretty sure that the Scotland have played England more times than any other opponent, and vice versa.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2009, 17:13 UTC)

---

[edit] Computer Bismarck

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 July 2009.

I recently expanded this article and would like an extra pair of eyes to catch mistakes I probably missed. Specifically in regard to the "Gameplay" section. I've never played the game and would appreciate it if someone who has gave it a look. I plan on nominating the article for DYK? very soon, and for GAN after the peer review. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2009, 20:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Lomana LuaLua

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that all it lacks is a good lead. I want to see if anyone can suggest any other improvements for this article bearing in mind that I haven't contributed to it yet.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 July 2009, 12:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Joey Hamilton

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because, recently I got it up to GA-status and would like to know what I'd have to do to make it FA quality. Thanks, Giants27 (c|s) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 July 2009, 17:47 UTC)

---

[edit] 2008 French 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 July 2009.

I have edited this article as part of Apterygial's Insane Idea userproject. The aim is to get this article to good article status. Fire away!

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Apterygial (talk · contribs)

We really are moving along now! I'll give my usual scattershot review, I won't be very busy for a bit so it shouldn't take as long as last time.

• I'd slam in a few of those pictures in the P+Q section, when you have as many pictures as we have here you might as well use them.
  • I've put in a few more pictures into the P+Q section. Is this what you meant, or were you suggesting moving a couple of the images already in the article into the P+Q section? Darth Newdar (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You got it right. Apterygial 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd seriously consider redlinking Fédération Française du Sport Automobile; it should have a page and when it is created the link will already be there.
• "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, although the sky was overcast. At the start of the race, weather forecasters were predicting rain near the end of the race." This could be combined for better flow into "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, although the sky was overcast; weather forecasters were predicting rain near the end of the race."
• The paragraph which explains qualifying was revised again for 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, and got comments at the FAC saying how good it was. You might want to change to that one.
• I've fixed it now, but note that quotes that are indented don't need quotation marks.
• Just run through and make sure refs are after punctuation marks (including commas). I found a couple which weren't.
• That third paragraph in the race section is bigger than Flavio Briatore's ego. I'd split it off somewhere. Apterygial 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't be that big. It would violate the fundamental physics of the universe. 4u1e (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Although if it was, it says wonders for Wikipedia's servers. Apterygial 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In the event, a race was held in 2008, but the race was dropped from the Formula One calendar for 2009." → "Despite this, the race was held in 2008, but the race was dropped from the Formula One calendar for 2009."
• "Renault driver Nelson Piquet, Jr., who was a rookie in 2008, and had endured a tough start to the season, said that he thought that the track suited him and the car much more than at previous races." I'd say he was in his first season rather than that he was a rookie.
  • The word "rookie" is also used in the post-race section; does it need to be changed there too? Darth Newdar (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say so. There's nothing wrong with term "rookie" per se, but when it's just as easy to clarify you may as well do so. Apterygial 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Make sure "Drivers' Championship" is always given capitals, it is a little inconsistent as it is.
• "Before the race, Ferrari had been just three points ahead of BMW; after the race, Ferrari moved into a comfortable 17 point advantage." In what?
• Could you add a bit about the different tyres after the sentence about constructors in the Background section (just copy the bit from 2008 Spanish Grand Prix and cite to Autocourse page 171)?
  • While editing, I noticed that ref #3 on the 2008 Spanish Grand Prix is wrong; it links to the results from the Bahrain Grand Prix, not the Spanish Grand Prix. Darth Newdar (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Apterygial 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Change 1-2 to one-two, link to [[List of motorsport terminology#O|one-two]].
• "One of their drivers, Felipe Massa, said that it was important not to discount McLaren and BMW..." you probably don't need to reintroduce Massa.
• Sentences such as "At the previous race in Canada", "On lap 13", and the like (there are a few other examples) need commas after the first noun group (if that makes sense; I did linguistics in first year uni and only got 51%, so I don't really know the technical way of saying it).
  • I changed the two that you have mentioned, but I only found one other example of this; really useless, I know, but where are the others? Darth Newdar (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In technical developments, BMW Sauber,[14] Ferrari,[15] McLaren,[16] and Toyota[17] all revised their front wing." Not really sure, but I think that sentence would be better off with the cites together at the end of the sentence.
  • I know it's a slightly unusual way of putting the cites, but I think it looks neater like that (rather than having four cites at the end of one sentence), and it is easier to see which cite relates to which development. Why would having the cites at the end of the sentence be better? Darth Newdar (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I just think it helps flow not to have those big numbers everywhere in the middle of sentence. For me, it's a question of readability versus accessibility. Apterygial 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have now changed it. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Ferrari's wing changes aimed at improving the performance of the car's nose hole." You may want on expand on what exactly Ferrari were doing with a hole in their car's nose (when it was introduced, for example). It obviously didn't catch on.
• "At the previous race, Red Bull modified their Red Bull RB4's bridge wing to prevent it from flexing, to comply with the latest FIA rule clarifications."
• "The hot weather condition posed several problems for the drivers, many of them sliding through the gravel or across the asphalt." The cars slid through the gravel presumably, not the drivers.
• "On lap 13 Hamilton was given a drive-through penalty for missing the apex of Turn Seven on lap one, and gaining an advantage." He didn't get the penalty because he missed the apex, he got it because he cut the corner.
• "On lap 16, Räikkönen set the fastest lap of the race, stretching his lead over his team-mate." You could add the exact time in.
• "Button, after his pit stop, was lapped by many of the drivers, and retired on lap 17." Due to the damage on the car? I know you elaborate later, but you should have a short bit here as well?
• "The following lap, leader Räikkönen pitted, coming out second, behind his team-mate. Massa pitted the following lap, emerging second, behind Räikkönen." You may disagree, but I reckon the bit about Räikkönen emerging behind Massa is redundant if the position changed straight back the next lap.
• "On the same lap, Kubica pitted from fourth, adventing the next round of pit stops." Don't think "adventing" is a word.
  • Well this is called the insane idea... it's obviously turning me insane :) Darth Newdar (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Red Bull's director said that their problems lay in the bad starts their drivers had made." Christian Horner is notable.
• If you don't mind, I'd like to do a thorough copyedit on the article in a few days' time, as there are a few clumsy sections.
  • Please do. A copyedit did wonders for the German and Turkish Grand Prix articles. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. If you disagree with anything I've done, feel free to revert it or ask me why I made the change. Three things: the bit about the cars testing the safety device after one of the practice sessions (I'll be honest here) clearly plagiarised the source article. Take a look at the old version and the autosport article and you'll see. I hope that isn't representative of the rest of the article. Secondly, I think you rely far too much of quotes in the background and post-race sections. You should really be using your own prose to explain things, not relying on the drivers' opinions (see WP:PRIMARY). Third, and there isn't a lot you can do about this now you've written the article, but a more coherent "story" to a race is better than a "blow-by-blow" commentary. The commentaries we use for sources are not ideal templates to write the article, if I could recommend Autocourse I would, the writing there is excellent (the best 25 quid you'll ever spend). One unanswered point about Ferrari's nose hole (nostril?) and we're done. But all round, pretty solid. Good luck at GAN. Apterygial 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the plagiarism; accidental. And no, the rest of the article isn't like that. With the quotes, do you mean that I should explain the quotes in my own words more, or that there are just too many quotes (or even both!). Darth Newdar (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Both really. For me, when you have "After the race, Räikkönen said," and then have a four line quote from him, it's not an objective commentary. There are huge amounts of secondary sources out there that interpret what they say. The other thing is, and I don't know if anyone else thinks this, but I always feel I can predict almost exactly what drivers will say at press conferences before they do (thank the team, few tyre issues but nothing too major, good to get the points, looking ahead to the next round/title fight). Where quotes are useful is where they say something that you want to know, for example the last paragraph of P-r in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix is excellent, because it has DC saying something interesting (he chose to change strategy), and it uses direct quotes sparingly; most of the analysis is done in conventional text. I'm quite proud of the penultimate P-r paragraph in 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix (not to blow my own trumpet) because it summarises that Alonso-Hamilton incident from both perspectives, and only uses two (short) quotes. Anyway, the Ferrari nostril thing? Apterygial 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, the Ferrari nose things has been adressed. Thanks for your PR and coypedit. Shall I now take the article to GAN? Darth Newdar (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Apterygial 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Apterygial. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2009, 19:08 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Tour de France winners

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of good work was done on it about a year ago and then it was left. I'd like to push it to be a featured list so I'm requesting some comments from the community to see what needs to be done.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• There isn't room for the images to the right of the table I'm afraid. You have to widen the browser to around 1489 pixels before the images stop overlapping the table, which is unreasonable as many people will view at a lower resolution than that (I tested on Chrome and Firefox btw). The images would have to be moved (or removed) or the table narrowed considerably.

• "held since 1903 over a current period of three weeks" sounds quite clunky, needs rephrasing. Also needs the word "annually" or "annual" adding here.

• The jerseys listed in the table are not definitive, for example there used to be a red jersey for the rider who won the most in-stage sprints and a multi-coloured jersey for the rider who was most consistent in all the other jersey competitions. While I wouldn't advocate adding these lesser jerseys to the table (which is already wide enough) perhaps add a footnote or some text in the lead so that it is clear that there are/were other jerseys besides those four.

• "He would have won the young rider title as well had it existed at the time." - woulda coulda shoulda? It didn't, so he didn't. Do we really need to say this?

• I'm not entirely convinced about numbering the rows - is the Tour de France numbered like the Super Bowl? I'd have thought people are far more likely to refer to the 2008 Tour de France than the 95th Tour de France, though I could be wrong and I wouldn't object if this was kept.

• There is a Tour de France navbox at the bottom of the page but this list does not appear within it as far as I can see. It is part of the topic so I think it should be added.

• This only occurred to me at the end, but regarding the list criteria... doesn't "List of Tour de France winners" strongly suggest that the list is all about the yellow jersey and not the other jerseys? You could scrap the other jerseys entirely (not to say that couldn't have their own lists of course) and just add information pertinent to the race winner. How many stages did he win that year? What team did he ride for? What was his margin of victory over the second-placed rider? Maybe include the second and third placed riders if there is room. Just a few thoughts.

--Jameboy (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment All the links to the individual TdFs at the end of the article (http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/TDF/2008/us/annee.html?RaceYear=2008 etc) are broken. Cherian Nair (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 July 2009, 15:29 UTC)

---

[edit] 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a prospective WP:FAC article in need of fine tuning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 June 2009, 14:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Joel Selwood

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to help take this article to FAC.

Thanks, Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

An interesting article. I have been through the lead and Early life sections, and have identified numerous mainly minor points that need attention. I think it would save time if the rest of the article was copyedited before being reviewed. I am happy to do this copyedit over the next day or two, if you are agreeable (if you'd rather someone with more knowledge of Rules football did it, I won't be offended!) Anyway, here are my comments thus far:-

• Lead
  • "A midfielder at 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) and 86 kilograms (190 lb)..." His height and weight are independent from his being a midfielder, so I would rephrase: "A midfielder, 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) tall and weighing 86 kilograms (190 lb),..."
  • "As" not required at start of second paragraph. I would also delete "from Bendigo", as this has no bearing on his athletic or footballing abilities. Suggested rephrase: "A standout junior track and field athlete and footballer, Selwood entered..."
  • Awkward phrasing: "Selwood was selected with Geelong's first selection," - I don't know enough about the sport to suggest a rewording, but the repetition jars.
  • "...awarded the Michael Tuck Medal during Geelong's 2009 NAB Cup victory" - he was awarded a medal during the match? Or am I misunderstanding?
  • "Selwood currently holds the highest winning percentage record of any player in VFL/AFL history, a period during which he has helped the club reach successive AFL Grand Finals." What does "a period during which" refer to in this sentence?
• Early life
  • Third sentence: "while" should be "and"

  Does it matter there's already "and" earlier in the sentence? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The next sentence doesn't need to begin with "However". Also, 2-year-old" should be "two-year-old". (MOS)
  • "...in one year" - why not give the year? (MOS)
  • "record at" rather "record of"?
  • "eight years old" not "8-years old""
  • "...he had played his first competitive game of football, against children four years his senior, and proceeded to kick three goals as a half forward." There is a disjunction of tenses with "he had played" and "proceeded to kick". Suggest rephrase: "he had played his first competitive game of football, against children four years his senior, and had kicked three goals as a half forward"
  • "until he was chosen to play for the Bendigo Pioneers in the TAC Cup competition at age 17." It would help if you gave the year or season in which this happened, particulaly as you say later "during the year"."
  • "under-18s", not "under 18s"
  • "recognised by the AFL Player's Association early," better as "recognised early by the AFL Player's Association,"
  • "However, a knee injury caused only six rounds into the competition..." - "caused" is the wrong word here. Suggest "However, a knee injury, incurred only six rounds into the competition..."

Let me know what you decide. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, a note on my talkpage is the quickest way of getting my intention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: can you look at the following points, arising from my copyediting:-

• It would help non-Rules people, e.g. me, if you could explain the significance of some of the trophies you mention. Examples: the Brownlow Medal, the Norm Smith Medal, the Carji Greeves Medal."
• In the 2009 section you refer to the "player adjudged best afield". Is there a way in which this can be made more generally comprehensible?
• In the 2009 section you say: "During the season, Selwood made his 50th senior appearance and set a new VFL/AFL record in the process." Can you clarify what was the record he set?"
• I notice some inconsistency in using no-break spaces. I suggest that when the copyedit is over you go through and pick up the missing ones.

I should finish the remaining sections tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

'Later still: I have finished my copyediting, although I have not touched the final two short paragraphs in the "Personal" section. Most of this information seems to border on trivia and I wonder how much is necessary. Anyway, I think the prose is a bit tidier now. When you have finished responding to the points I've raised, give my talkpage a buzz and I'll do a final redathrough. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 June 2009, 23:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Food waste in the United Kingdom

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to shortly submit it for FAC. In the recent weeks I have added substantial content, much of which has not received the same rigorous prose treatment as some of the older stuff. Mostly the article requires some minor copyediting, but I'm looking also for some advice on where to include major sources (WRAPs report on food waste) since I have already notes and references.

Thanks in advance! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, this seems fairly close to ready for FAC, but does need some wotrk. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead image needs a fair use rational for this article (it has one, but for another article).

I found finding images for the lead to this article to be a big problem. Currently I wish to use the Love Food, Hate Waste logo for both its own article and this, although the template seems to only allow for one fair-use rationale.

Use the template twice (once per article the image is used in) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

✓ Done

• Please read MOS:QUOTE and WP:ITALIC - the quotation marks used should all be double quotes " but the article mixes these with single quotes ' (single quotes are used for a quote within a quote). It seems to me that the number of things in quotation marks could be cut down considerably. Do terms like sell by and best before really need to be in quotes, for example?

No I entirely agree on consideration.✓ Done

• The direct quote in the lead does need a ref, and I do not think it needs the ellipses (...)

✓ Done

• I also felt the lead did not really summarize the whole article - it seemed to mostly summarize the first part (History). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way

I tried to do that as well, but my speciality is certainly not leads! I'll try to balance the information from each header in the coming days.

• When abbreviations like WI for Women's Institutes are used, they have to appear after the first use of the full name in parentheses

Oh yes, I had done this for other cases but appeared to miss this one. ✓ Done

• The direct quote at the end of the History section repeats some things needlessly (the name and organization). MOSQUOTE says block quotes should be at least 4 lines long - this is 1.5 on my monitor. Also the first sentence of the blockquote about cutting edge technology has already been quoted before and seems repetitive in both places.

Didn't know the policy on block quotes specifically, so that has been changed.✓ Done

• Per the MOS, % should be spelled out "per cent"

Agreed. However as per the same style I have kept % for tables and images.✓ Done

• When making comparisons of statistics it is useful to give the actual number - for example I am really not sure what this sentence means exactly Families with children (under the age of 16) on a per individual per week basis, are shown to waste the least food by weight, but the most per capita.[17] If the amount wasted by weight and per capita were given in the text of the sentence, I think it would make it clearer.

That statement was particularly confusing I agree. In fact its information did not make sense, so it has been entirey changed.✓ Done

• Refs seem OK but there are a few places without refs that need then for FAC. For example, it has been featured in almost every major UK newspaper, invariably discussed alongside other prominent issues such as Climate change and famine in African nations. As a way of reducing the impact of the aforementioned, food waste is among the primary topics of discussion at International Summits. Food waste was debated at length during the 34th G8 summit in Hokkaidō, Japan, as part of the discussion on the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. needs a ref or two. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

The statement has been referenced and I will try to cover every uncited statement as per your rule of thumb.✓ Done

• Several of the notes also seem to need refs.

I assume this is directed at the first couple? I'm not so sure; by referencing them I would simply be directing them to the same source that appears alongside the notes themselves (in the table).

Yes - if you think the source us clear then this is probably ok Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Refs should be in numerical order

Is that not the case? I can't find anywhere this isn't the case (without multi-use sources of course).

Here's one Consumers can reduce food wastage during purchasing and at home by several methods:[33][25] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both metric and English system untis should be used throughout (I assume metric first since they are official in the UK). This is done in some places, but needs to be done consistently - {{convert}} helps.

{{convert}} has been used a number of times, but if there are any omissions (that aren't tonnes (myself and OhanaUnited had a discussion over this)) I will apply this.

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 _><>°^° 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Your comments were very useful and I would be happy to peer review another article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, after making the final changes as you suggest I will probably do a few more of my own and then submit for FAC and the next phase of editorial torture! But it's all for a good cause, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 June 2009, 18:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Abismo Negro

This peer review has been closed

After two rounds of very helpful input i nominated it for Good Article, thank you to everyone that has participated. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on getting it ready for Feature Article nomination. I've put it up for Peer Review before and had a lot of really really helpful comments, but I had to close the Review prematurely as I went on vacation. Now I am back, I've worked in the last comments from the last Peer Review and now I'm ready to bring it all the way home. I also listed it again because there is an overabundance of professional wrestling GACs and I don't want to overload the process, I figured I could work on improvements while the backlog clears up a bit.

Thanks in advance for everyone who's kind enough to help out, MPJ-DK (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NiciVampireHeart's comments

I reviewed it the first time around, so I'm not sure how much help I'll bre, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

• Lead
  • Is there any source for his real name?
    • Loads of articles after his death confirmed it, so yes it's an easy addition :) MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You have his ring name Winners in quotation marks as "Winners", but not his others. Consistency is key.
    • I've dropped the quotation marks in general, I hope I did not miss any. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph I don't see the point of saying Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), when you've already explained the abbreviation in the previous paragraph.
    • Fixed
  • You say he worked for WWF first, and then say AAA had a talent exchange program with WWE. Which is right or did he work for both the WWF and WWE?
    • Only WWF, force of habit and fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Change "found dead, in a river near El Rosario, Sinaloa, the official cause of death was listed as drowning." --> "found dead, in a river near El Rosario, Sinaloa, and the official cause of death was listed as drowning."
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Professional wrestling career
  • Again "El Noruego" is quotation marks, but Alex Dinamo isn't. Any resaon for this?
• Winners
  • "a fan favorite (called a "Técnico" in Mexico) wrestler who's almost entirely silver outfit made him visibly very striking." seems very awkward to me. Could you reword it slightly?
    • Is what I put better?MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Winners participated in Relevos Suicidas tag team match" --> "Winners participated in a Relevos Suicidas tag team match"
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Abismo Negro
  • In the Winners section ,you have Técnico is quotation marks, but you don't have Rudo in quotation marks in this section. Again consistency is needed.
    • Indeed, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, you have linked Rudo to Heel (professional wrestling) in this section, but you linked fan favorite to Face (professional wrestling) in the previous section, not Técnico. Either link rudo and técnico or link fan favorite and bad guy.
    • Linked "bad guy". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "preshow for 1997 Royal Rumble." --> "preshow for the 1997 Royal Rumble."
    • Fixed, MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Negro became one the driving forces in" --> "Negro became one of the driving forces in"
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't need to use his full name Abismo Negro, when you've just been saying Negro ("caused storyline problems between LLL's leader Cibernético and Abismo Negro").
    • I think my tendency to use the full name comes from the fact that it's not a "first name, last name" kinda name but a title, but you're right it breaks up the pattern a bit. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Return to AAA
  • Is the correct spelling technico (as in this section) or técnico (as in Winners section)? Again, consistency needed.
    • Técnico!! I should be slapped for the anglization. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Later in the year, he finally turned face" - no mention of face before this point. You say either fan favorite or tecnico. Change Face to one of the other two.
    • Good catch, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Black Abyss
  • "the "Martinete"(Tombstone piledriver)" - should be a space between "the "Martinete"" and the parentheses (i.e. "the "Martinete" (Tombstone piledriver)").
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Death
  • "memorial was held in Mexico City on March 24 for friends and family of Palomeque, many of whom showed up without their masks on, to keep the focus of the event on González". Eh, who is González? Do you mean Palomeque?
    • I do indeed, I originally used González as I thought that was his proper last name but was told that Palomeque is more appropriate and didn't catch that one on the change. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• In wrestling
  • Have you a source for the managers? And why aren't they mentioned in the main text?
    • Removed them, Roldan was nothing permanent and Peña was for Team Mexico in AAA which I added to the text instead, removing the entry makes the section less "listy". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Championships and accomplishments'
  • Source for his PWI ranking?
    • Found one, used one that was acceptable in a Featured Article, should work here too. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's it, I think. Good job! Much improved from the last one. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• And thank you for your input, everything caught now makes the GA review that much better so I do appreciate you taking the time to do this. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Ok, my last few comments:

Lead

• You use "Gonzalez" instead of Palomeque.
• No need to say "Andrés Palomeque", just Palmeque will do.

Winners

• "a fan favorite (called a Técnico in Mexico) characters who wore a silver bodysuit and mask that gave him a very unique look.."
  • a) yes, makes a lot more sense now.
  • b) should be character, not characters
  • c) you have two full stops at the end of the sentence.

Abismo Negro

• "a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order intent on taking over AAA" change this to "a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order, which was intent on taking over AAA" for clarofocation and ease of reading.
• "but only held on to the title for two months before losing them" - you use both singular and plural here (italics mine), only one should be used.
• "Negro feuded with the top Technicós" - spelled with a "h". Assuming that's a mis-spelling.

Return to AAA

• "técnico" - in all the previous sections, you've spelt both Técnico and Rudo with capital letters at the start. Consistency needed.

Black Abysee

• "called Black Abyss, the gimmick featured" --> "called Black Abyss; the gimmick featured" - i.e. change the comma (,) to a semi-colon (;)

Championships and accomplishments

• I fixed a ref for you [7]

That's it. Looks good. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I fixed all that and thank you for the assist. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. Happy to help. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GaryColemanFan's comments

The article is looking very good. I went through and made some minor changes (mostly punctuation). There were a few things that stood out that could use some attention:

[edit] GaryColemanFan's comments The article is looking very good. I went through and made some minor changes (mostly punctuation). There were a few things that stood out that could use some attention:

• Thank you for the copyedit, much appriciated. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Palomeque was one of the young guys who took a chance..." - "guys" is pretty informal. Perhaps "competitors" or something similar? ~

• Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"in which the losing team would have to face each other with their mask on the line" - I found this confusing. Perhaps "in which the members of the losing team would later face each other in a singles match and the loser would be forced to remove his mask"? (a little wordy, but I think makes the stipulation a little more clear)

• Reworded, I think what I came up with works.

"as he lost his mask to Super Caló and was forced to unmask after the match was over" - this seems repetitive. Did you mean to say that he lost his match to Super Caló?

• Yes I did, Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"a group inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order, which was intent on taking over AAA" - this implies that the NWO was intent on taking over AAA. Perhaps "a group intent on taking over AAA that was inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order"?

• You're right that was not very clear, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"the team of Hator and the Pather" - the online reference gives the spellings as "Haytor" and "The Panther" - the next time they are referred to in the prose, the names are spelled "Hator" and "The Panther", so I am assuming that at least "The Pather" needs to be changed.

• Haytor is the most common spelling i could find and Panther natch. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"backburner" - I believe that this is two separate words.

• I believe you, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"In 2000, Negro was one of the AAA wrestlers that participated in an AAA tour of Japan and participated in TripleMania VIII" - repetition of "participated in"; could one be changed to "competed at"?

• Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the following weeks, Negro went undefeated in matches against Elix Skipper, the team of Jerry Lynn and Sonjay Dutt and finally all of Team USA." - Did he defeat them all by himself? Did he face them individually or all at once?

• Clarified it - Negro was undefeated but team AAA was not so I made a subtle change. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Los Vipers left La Legión due to their "Anti-Mexican" philosophy and began fighting La Legión and their imports." - the "their" is fairly ambiguous. I assume it refers to La Legion, but it really isn't clear. In addition, "imports" could use some clarification.

• "and La Legión's imported wrestlers" MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

almost panicked" - it sounds to me like he did panic.

• I think it qualifies as panicked yes. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also left with a couple of overall questions. The first is why he is referred to as Palomeque instead of Gonzalez if his full name is Andrés Alejandro Palomeque González.

• I was informed that in Mexico people have both their father's and mother's last name but is generally only referred to by one of them, the "second to last" name, I originally had González, but was informed that was inproper. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also curious because of the infobox picture. It states that he had a trademark flamethrower display, but this isn't mentioned in the article.

• Yes I need to mention that around the start of the "Abismo Negro" section I think. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all that I can see for now. Great job expanding this article. I think it's definitely ready for a GA nomination. If you ever have a chance to find some of those page numbers in your Wrestling Title Histories book that I mentioned on your talk page, I would really appreciate it. Best wishes with this article's GA review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Holy s#£@ I totally forgot, I'll get the book out after dinner tonight. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• All addressed but the flamethrower, thank you for your input - hopefully GA will be smooth sailing. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 22 June 2009, 11:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] Christian Conventions

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… After a lot of effort led by one extremely determined editor, the Christian Conventions article looks about ready for a Good Article nomination. Before we start this process, I'd very much appreciate comments from other editors. Thanks, Nemonoman (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2009, 21:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Ásatrúarfélagið

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 July 2009.

I've listed my article about this neopagan group for peer review because I'd like to have feedback from people less close to the subject. I'm a member of the organization so a third party check for neutrality issues and navel-gazing would be most helpful. If you want any of the sources I used to write the article (some of them are in English or have English summaries) I may be able to help.

Thank you, Haukur (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review

• IMO, this article is very close to WP:GA status, certainly not a stub any more.
• I see many references are non-English. Specify the language of the reference. I could not check the RS value of references, due to the language barrier

  True enough. Still, four of the seven references in the bibliography are in English. One is in Icelandic, one is in German and one is in Swedish (with a summary in English). The minor sources are mostly newspaper articles in Icelandic. I'll see about identifying the language in each case. Haukur (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• In certain places, I see bare reference links like http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?issId=189406&pageId=2477329&lang=en, http://www.asatru.is/PFD/vor_sidur_2tbl_2009.pdf : while others use {{cite web}}. I suggest use cite templates throughout for uniformity

  Agreed, I need to tidy this up.

• "Pétur Pétursson. 1985. "Island" in Religiös förändring i Norden 1930-1980. Pp. 111-153. Page 147." why is p. 147 listed separately?

  Because the article as a whole is on pages 111-153 but the page with the relevant information is p. 147. What setup would you use?

Just state p. 147. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is Ásatrúarfélagið part of the Church? : "collect a share of the church tax." The priest wears a cross-like thing???

  Ah, glad you stumbled over that - some of this is so familiar to me that I forget to explain it. The cross-like pendant is a Mjöllnir symbol (actually, it's a copy of an old talisman the interpretation of which is not universally agreed upon - some think it actually was a Christian cross, others that it was a Thor's hammer, or perhaps that it was deliberately ambiguous). A better word for "church tax" might be "congregation tax", that corresponds more closely to the Icelandic word (sóknargjöld). Ásatrúarfélagið is not a part of the Church but you could regard it to a degree as a part of the state - there is a sort of integration of state and religion in Iceland.

• "Ásatrúarfélagið (Icelandic The Ásatrú Association)": you mean to say that the literal translation of Ásatrúarfélagið is : "The Ásatrú Association", right? Instead I suggest: "Ásatrúarfélagið, (literally "The Ásatrú Association" in Icelandic), "

  That is indeed what I mean to say, let me think about how best to represent that. I also mean to add a sound file with a reading of the word.

• "The pagan organization was formed on the First Day of Summer 1972" Calender date?

  Good point, I'll add it.

• There is lot of jargon like allsherjargoði. To simplify that, I suggest: write the English of words in brackets: allsherjargoði (high priest). What is "Third Reic" ? "into goðorð, led by individual goðar"

  Yeah, maybe I should just switch to using "high priest" for allsherjargoði throughout - and maybe priest for "goði" as well - the Icelandic words can be included in brackets on first mention. That ought to make the article more readable.

If allsherjargoði is an important term, it must be stated at least once to tackle opposition from an expert. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Quotes need references. Tagged a few.

  I'll tidy up the references to those you tagged. I hope all others are adequately presented.

• Too many blockquotes in "Beliefs and theology". Turn some into prose

  Hmm, maybe. I'll think about it - but I'm wary of WP:SYNTH.

See Wikipedia:Quotations too, When not to use quotations: the article (section) is beginning to look like Wikiquote. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any specific deities "Ásatrúarfélagið"s worship? like Thor, Odin, Loki etc.

  Good point, another thing that seemed so obvious to me that I never mentioned it. Mostly Odin, Thor, Freyja, Freyr and the Earth. Not Loki. I should add a bit about this.

• An image of a blot can be added in "Blót and other rituals"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm working on obtaining some images from earlier times that should make a nice fit there.

An image of a painting of an original Norse Blót, may work.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a very helpful review in just the ways I was hoping for. Thank you very much indeed! Haukur (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article, as I love to read about legend and religion. I have not checked the grammar as that is not my forte. Please ask someone else to check it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 July 2009, 19:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Iravan

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 July 2009.

The article has been a GA since 5th June. The article is about a character from the Hindu epic Mahabharata, who is worshipped as a South-Indian village god and has prominence among Indian eunuchs and transvestites. I would like to hear comments considering FA criteria. I would also like to hear any excessive use of jargon, which is hindering readability. Any more information needed for comprehensiveness.

Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have read through the article, and left detailed comments on the first few sections. This looks like an important article, but I wonder if it could be made a little more user-friendly to to those unfamiliar with Hindu deities and their associated myths? Parts of the article are rather over-detailed, and a full copyedit would certainly be beneficial. Here are my detailed comments on the opening sections:-

• Lead
  • It is not clear from the first sentence that Iravan/Aravan is a mythic figure; this might confuse readers unfamiliar with Hindu deities.

What do you sugeest? The epic Mahabharata is the Illiad of Hinduism. It discusses proto-historic figures. the Hindu epic Mahabharata, was supposed to imply Hindu mythology.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "Aravan is worshipped in this form of his severed head..." Should "this" be "the"?

Since the severed head is introduced before ("The severed head of Aravan is a common motif..."), I felt "this form" was OK.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Etymology and other names
  • The first two paragraphs give two apparently different origins of the Sanskrit name "Iravan". Can these explanations be reconciled? Also, each paragraph begins "According to...", which looks repetitive.

In Sanskrit, a word can mean many things. So the difference of opinion. iḍā is the connector between the paras and the wird with different meanings.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Unnecssary colon in final sentence

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Origins of the legend
  • "The tale it is later retold by Villiputuralvar..." Has an extra "it" crept in here?

Done --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • There is a habit, particularly prevalent in this section, of making paranthetical asides. This interferes with the prose flow, and should be avoided. For example, the sentence "The tale it is later retold by Villiputuralvar in his Makaparatam (14th century) and by Nallapillai (18th century)" should be rewritten: "The tale is later retold by Villiputuralvar in his 14th century Makaparatam and by Nallapillai in the 18th century."

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "...who is suited as a sacrifice" - what does "suited" mean in this context?

the candidate that suits the requirements of the sacrifice. Explained in detail in Legends. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "...in various forms of Koothu." I offer this as an example of an incomprehensible phrase (to Western eyes).

Reworded. Any other jargon, you notice. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "On the 18th day of the festival (April-May), it is celebrated in Karambai to please Draupadi, the stepmother of Aravan and wife of Arjuna." I presume that "it" is the ceremony referred to in the preceding sentence, so the sentence should read: " It is celebrated in Karambai on the 18th day of the festival (April-May), to please Draupadi, the stepmother of Aravan and wife of Arjuna." But again we have those intrusive parentheses.

Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mahabharata
  • "rebirth _ should this be "reincarnation"?

In Hinduism, "rebirth" is used for non-deities. Reincarnation or incarnation used for avatars of deities. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "Arjuna requested his assistance him in Kurukshetra War": Should be "Arjuna requested his assistance in the Kurukshetra War"

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Not clear what this phrase means: "versed in illusion"

See Maya for the Indian concept of illusion. It is supposed to mean: not only did Iravan use his weapon-skills to defeat the enemy, he also used tricks a illusionist will use like change into a snake, create illusionary snakes etc. Should I make it "Skilled in illusion". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ndashes rather than hyphens should be used.

I never understood the dashes, please give me an example.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments are useful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 July 2009, 13:09 UTC)

---

[edit] Social sciences and society

[edit] Amador Valley High School

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm bringing this article through the GAN process and potentially preparing this article for FAC. Looking for comments from editors to see what I can do to pass GAN and possibly even FAC Is the article comprehensive enough? What details are missing? There have been some concerns about NPOV in the article, are there still some remains of non-NPOV statements (especially in the Math Team and Speech and Debate sections)? Transitions are a bit rough - I would appreciate some suggestions on how to make the prose of the article flow better. Is the last paragraph of the lead an appropriate summary of the article's content? I would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing this article and judging how far away it is from Good Article and Featured Article Criteria. Thanks for your time, Deltawk (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 July 2009, 06:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Parliament of the Cook Islands

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 July 2009.

Thanks. There's already a "politics of the Cook islands" infobox, and the final sections have been reordered.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking general feedback on it. What's missing? What needs to be expanded? Are there any formatting issues?

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. The subject appears to be well covered. --Lholden (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 July 2009, 13:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Murder of Huang Na

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 July 2009.

This is about a high-profile murder case that occured in Singapore five years ago. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about the lead, prose issues, cultural issues and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 July 2009, 07:55 UTC)

---

[edit] City of London School

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 July 2009.

I would like to help in significantly improving this article so it can gain at least good article status and possibly even featured article status. I have read the criteria for good article status but I would like opinions from other users of what this article needs in order for it to achieve at least good article status. I would like to thank in advance all the volunteer users who decide to provide their opinions.

Thanks, Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and get back with some comments over the weekend. Just at first glance, it seems like a decent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• As I said, not a bad effort. But it needs considerable work in my opinion.

Overall:

• Prose seems to run in very short paragraph, two to three sentences. These should be expanded as much as possible, to the extent you can.
• Too much reliance on lists. If you must have them, advise putting them at the end, but please convert as much to text, and source all that you can there. How do we know these were old boys? Galleries are also generally not favoured.
• Referencing needs work. Some are sourced to books, but don't have page numbers. Additionally, many of the references are what we call "bare", that is, just a URL and sometimes a name. Suggest you look up citation style or cite style and choose one of them, and format the references either way.

Lede:

• Too short, for one thing. Check WP:LEAD, it should more or less summarize the article, with the information in the lede found also later in the article. For that reason, it is usually not necessary to put footnotes in the lede. However, your lede has information not found elsewhere, such as the fact that the Head is going to be, er, head of his conference this coming year.

History sections:

• Why so short? Judging by the refs, there are at least two books on this school. Two refs should be enough to merrily go to town and write a reasonably detailed (without losing the reader's interest) history of the school, and possibly including some of the names that are listed, for example, as old boys. Can't you get access to the books?
• You desperately need references for what is asserted in the first paragraph of the "Move to Blackfriars" section. Y Done
• It is certainly possible to find out what 100k pounds is in modern terms. Try [8]. If you want to know how to cite that, I use that site in two FA's, Woodes Rogers and Matthew Boulton. Y Done
• "apparently nodding". Says who? I suggest that all five statue subjects are sufficiently well known that no particular explanation is needed. Y Done
• "a range of buildings at right angles along the whole of John Carpenter Street" That doesn't seem clear to me. You might want to mention, if true, that these buildings were purpose built for the school (I imagine changing rooms, outdoor storage, that kind of thing to service the athletics and recreational activities). Also, you mention three streets, and then call it an island site. you might want to mention, in passing, what was on the fourth side.
• choral scholarships: When did this happen? Y Done
• Current premises: Can you say anything else about it? Does it have computer labs, athletic fields, playgrounds, you get the idea, what facilities does it have? Surely this is on the school web site as they try to sell prospective parents.
• School life: Same thing, surely there is more on the school web site. Also, the House namesakes, where they have their own articles and haven't yet been mentioned, do a pipe. For Carpenter and Abbott, I imagine they are the same as have been mentioned, so say so.
• Curriculum: I hate external links in text. Unless there is something the reader really needs to see, do not use them. Also, I'm not sure the subjects not offered is notable in the article, unless the reason why they are not offered relates, say, to the mission of the school. Y Done
• School uniforms: Nice description. I guess a picture would be dicey in this day and age (what are you taking photos of those kids for?). Incidentally, the John Carpenter Club, you might want to explain a bit more about it. I gather from the other reference to it that it applies to students who represent England or Britain in sports competition. Would it apply to non-sport competition? What about if the kid is Scottish and is on the under-18 (or whatever) Scottish sport team? Doing... - Im not quite sure whether the rewrite has addressed the issue here so I will welcome opinions from other users.
• Do you know, you have never mentioned if this is a boarding school, day school, or both?Y Done
• Anyway, some really good work in there, but it needs to be expanded and you got to work on those refs to have a chance at GA. I'll keep the article watchlisted and offer additional comments as necessary, here or on talk page. Happy to discuss or answer questions about my comments. As I said, good work, just needs expansion and finetuning!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed section by section review. As this article has been written by a number of users over the past few years, I will post a note on the talk page so that collaboration can take place if any other users wish to help or provide their input. Once again, thanks for the review. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I have posted a few notes at Talk:City of London School#Article improvement drive. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They look good. Thanks for being responsive. I should note that there seem to be two books on this school. Why not contact the school? When I do research, I mention I'm doing it for Wikipedia and I find people are very helpful and interested. They might be willing to send you a photocopy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 July 2009, 14:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Living River Siam

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 July 2009.

I'm looking to see what can be done to improve this article to featured status. What kind of images would you suggest, given the resources available on the LRS/SEARIN website? Is the organization too loose?

Thanks, Shii (tock) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For a start, I would suggest that this article needs more images in order to illustrate the article. Perhaps some images of the dam projects they have worked on. You can have a look on wikimedia commons to see if they have any or flickr. There are also quite a few red links in the article and these should be eliminated. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 July 2009, 21:23 UTC)

---

[edit] University Village, New York

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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is rather comprehensive and covers an interesting topic.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some prominent redlinks here - sounds like Nesjar deserves a stub of his own, and betograve definitely needs either an article or an appositive description. (Googling it turns up mostly results pertaining to this same scuplture.) Do you know how Sylvette Davis was chosen as the model, if she had any particular relationship to NYU, etc.?

Why did one tower become a co-op (still owned by NYU, it sounds like)? Was there some reason NYU as a landlord needed to place units into the Mitchell-Lama program?

Similar question; why did the landmark designation - which seems to have encompassed a smaller area than was requested - prevent the construction of a fourth tower? You could also add more information about the specifics of the preservation group's argument in favor of preserving the larger area, and/or NYU's arguments in opposition, if applicable.

If grad students live there, they have almost certainly complained about it in some public forum. Is there any information on the towers' current place in the NYU community?

Footnote 12's title refers to the towers as 'controversial, but it's only used to reference a statement about apartment size. I don't have access to that old of an article from here, but information about controversy that existed when the towers were built would be a good addition to the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 July 2009, 20:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Jonestown

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 June 2009.

My immediate goal is to bring this article to GA standards. Any criticism furthering this goal would be appreciated. I'm also interested in how much emphasis should be placed on the classified documents and conspiracy theories related to the topic.

Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm noticing some interesting issues with the citations. For example, the article says "Another note, found 25 years later, was buried among reams of unrelated paperwork. The document ... was attributed most likely to Richard Tropp" but the citation for that sentence says that the providence of the letter is unknown. Also, obviously, two sources are very heavily relied upon. Shii (tock) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: The rules for nominating for Peer Review require articles to be clear of major cleanup banners. This article has such a banner, dated June 2009, relating to the reliability of its sources. This issue should be addressed by editors before peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 June 2009, 03:37 UTC)

---

[edit] Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve the page. Is there any important information that you can't find? Can you think of any better way to organize the page? How about the references: do you think they should be formatted differently? Should I include more information about the judgement?

Do you agree with my decision to include the intro's from Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, and English Libel Law? Do you agree with my decision to link the footnotes to the articles rather than reproducing them in full? Personally, I feel that a certain amount of knowledge of the above three topics (with the possible exception of the last) are crucial to understanding the case. Should the sections be rewritten to better suit the article?

Do I have a shot at getting this to FA? The topic seems rich enough to be able to make a featured article of it. What would I have to do to get it there?

Are there any WikiProjects which would be interested in this article?

And: if you can think of a better hook, or if you just want to support my DYK nomination, here is a link (you may have to scroll down)

Thanks, TachyonJack (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an important and interesting subject, well worth an article of its own. I have so far looked at the article in a fairly general way, and have attempted to answer some of the questions you have asked above:-

• The subsections entitled "The Holocaust", "Holocaust denial" and "English Libel Law" are word-for-word transpositions from other Wikipedia articles. There are questions of plagiarism here - you were not the author of any of the articles in question, and do not seem to have attributed these sections, as required in Copying within Wikipedia. In any event I believe that whole sections should not be transposed in this way. You should redraft each of these sections in your own words.
• The references in these sections are simply links to other Wikipedia articles. This does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CITE
• The "English Libel Law" subsection is completely without citations. Some other sections are very light on citations, with a number of unreferenced paragraphs
• Infobox: What is the reason for including so much case opinion in the infobox rather than in the article itself? Are these quotations from Mr Justice Gray's judgement? This should be made plain, as should the meaning of the numbers, e.g. (13.98) that begin each paragraph, but I do not believe that infoboxes are the place for such details.
• Please look at the MOS requirements relating to the style of section and subsection headings, in particular relating to the use of capitals. Thus "English Libel Law" should be "English libel law", "Libel Suit" should be "Libel suit", etc.
• Bolding should not be used in text for emphasis (another MOS point)

Aside for these principal issues, I have looked at the lead section in some detail:-

• "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a significant case in English law, noted for its ruling that the claim that Holocaust denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous." This opening sentence is rather long, and tortuously expressed. I suggest a few changes:-
  • Delete "significant", as this rather undermines neutrality.
  • Split the sentence for clarity.
  • Thus: "David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law, relating to Holocaust denial. It ruled that a claim that such denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libelous."
• Second paragraph, second line. The close repetition of "Irving" could be avoided by referring to him as "the writer", second time.
• It is inappropriate to spell out the word "Mister" as part of a judge's title. English judges are known as "Mr Justice ...", an honorific similar, in the USA, to "Mr President", "Mr Ambassador", etc.

I think you should deal with the major issues I have mentioned, before I make a general review of the main text. As I cannot watch all my peer reviews, please leave a note on my talkpage when you think that these matters have been addressed.

(Peer review added on Friday 26 June 2009, 20:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon)

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review to further advance its standing, receive much-needed feedback, and fix any errors.

Really, any and all feedback would be much appreciated. As I am quite new to Wikipedia, and this is the first article I wrote, I'm not entirely sure how to concretely interpret the article guidelines. I've sourced everything in the article thoroughly but would like to know if I've done so correctly. Bottom Line: I'd like to see an example of a correct Lebanese Political Party article so I can go on and write some of the others, which all suffer criminally from POV, unencyclopedic tone, and unsourced claims.

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A few initial comments

• First, apologies for the delay in reaching your article, but the Peer Review process is currently suffering from a heavy backlog arising from a chronic shortage of reviewers. I have only skimmed the article up to now, but thought I would leave these initial comments in the hope that they will prove helpful.
• There are numerous Wikipedia articles on political parties, none of which are currently featured articles. This could be due to the point you raise above about POV. There are 14 Good Articles on political parties and movements, among which is Hezbollah, a long article which you have presumably looked at. I haven't read it, but its GA status was reconfirmed after review in June 2008, so it must be in reasonably neutral. Is it in any way a helpful model? You could look at the other 13 GAs - go to WP:GA and scroll through until you reach the "Politics" subheading.
• In your own article, you need a better understanding of the function of the lead section, which is to act as a general summary of the whole article, not just an outline of the subject. All significant information in the article must at least be touched on in the lead. In this case important events, such as the assassinations, are not mentioned in the lead. Take a look at WP:LEAD, a MoS article which has useful information about how to construct a lead.

That's all I can do at the moment. I will try and come back with a more detailed review in a few days, but I am a bit occupied at the moment, what with the backlog and my own work so I can't say exactly when this will be. Feel free to leave a reminder on my talkpage if I leave it too long. Good luck, Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll be sure include in the lead an overview of all content mentioned. While the Hezbollah article is helpful to an extent, it is limited by the reality that Hezbollah is much more than just a political party. It is as much a socioreligious organization, a charity, a paramilitary force, and effectively a quasi-state as it is a political institution. Mnation2 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 June 2009, 21:22 UTC)

---

[edit] List of United States district and territorial courts

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because MZM and I have worked on it for a bit and think it is nearly ready for FL, but need more feedback.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A helpful article. It may be even more helpful to list the districts alphabetically by state, as you have done, but with the state name first, e.g.: Alabama, Northern District of, etc.. This would assist the sorting process in the table. Comments by Sctechlaw (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hint: You can use {{sort}} to alphabetize the entries by state. For example: {{sort | Alabama, Northern District | [[Northern District of Alabama]]}} Jafeluv (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

• The formal naming convention for the courts to precede them with "United States District Court for." – There's something wrong with the grammar here.
• Article III or Article Three? Be consistent.
• The largest court courts by number of judges is a tie between are Central District of California and the Southern District of New York, each with 28 judgeships. – It's not a competition, and "each with x judgeships" already makes it clear that they have the same number of judges, so "tie between..." is redundant. (This also applies to the following sentence.)
• The lead should not contain more than four paragraphs (see here). Many of the paragraphs are very short and could be merged together.

Images:

• The image captions should be wikilinked where appropriate.

Active courts:

• Court of appeals doesn't sort right (10th before the 1st, etc). See my hint above. The chief judges could also be sorted by surname, but that's not a big deal really.

Notes:

• This doesn't need its own section. It could well be under Defunct courts, where it belongs.

In general I think the article is very informative and without any major issues. I like the placement of images, and it looks all images are free use, as they should be. The lead is the part that requires the most work for FL in my opinion. I think it has too many short sentences and too short paragraphs, which breaks the flow. It might require some rewriting. This guide might help with that, if you aren't familiar with it yet. You may also want to make stubs for the redlinks if their targets are notable, or if not remove the links. Good luck with the article. Jafeluv (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 June 2009, 21:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Arthur Eve

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 June 2009.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeerReviewBot (talk • contribs) 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the peer review, but we have no images to add and I believe ndashes in section title date ranges are an acceptable type of special character.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because it has now failed at WP:GAC twice. I could use any some assistance in getting it over the hump.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've never heard of this guy before. Sounds as if he is quite a character.

• Lead
  • It might be worth engineering a link on "Deputy Speaker" to illustrate the relative importance of this office.
    • It is not such an important position that it should be linked. I don't think any of the other 49 states have articles for such an office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The long redlink is a bit obtrusive - how necessary is it here?
    • Delinked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Might it be possible to summarise Eve's advocacies in a succinct phrase, rather than listing them all?
    • I added a summary phrase, but don't think it suffices as a replacement. Opinion welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Personal: It is surely usual in biographical articles to give some indication where the subject came from. All we have here is: "Eve arrived in Buffalo in February 1953 following his graduation from West Virginia State College." Why did he "arrive" in Buffalo?
  • I have just placed a hold on the Politicians for the People book from the Chicago Public Library. It should have some information according to the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have been informed that the library will have to do an interlibrary loan, which could take 2-6 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Political career: we require information about how this political career began. When/how was he elected, etc. I can't believe that this information is not in the public domain. It is unacceptable to jump straight to his activities as an assemblyman without any indication of how he got to be one.
  • See response above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Assemblyman: the fourth paragraph should be under a subsection heading, since it deals with his shot at the Buffalo mayoralty, not his activities as an assemblyman.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Deputy Speaker
  • "an important year for the Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus..." is a personal comment. Reword to remove POV.
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This sentence: "The Democratic majority had fallen from 90–60 to 86–64 while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16, which meant that for the first time the caucus had more than enough votes to withhold legislation, resulting in a shift in the balance of power." Too long, too much information, needs splitting. Thus: "The Democratic majority had fallen from 90–60 to 86–64, while the caucus' Assembly membership had grown from 15 to 16. This meant that for the first time the caucus had enough votes to withhold legislation, which brought about a shift in the balance of power."
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarify that Griffin and Koch were considering running together for Governor and Lieutenant Governor
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Following Cuomo's election victory..." what election did he win?
    • clarified.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Third and fourth paragraphs: so many names, so many elections, so much confusion. Seriously, it is very hard for someone who doesn't have an ear for New York state politics to have any clear idea of what is going on.
  • Who was Harriet Tubman? I know I could use the link, but such information should be available in the article, via a brief description.
    • Is it sufficient now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Retirement
  • "By 2004, Eve's foundation was approved to provide afterschool tutoring" Approved by whom?
    • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "He became an evangelist." Too curt; more information should be provided.
    • I don't have any additional sourcing. As stated in the GAC nom, I could mention my personal knowledge of his involvement in helping to get a new church financed. I think I recall him mention having helped his new church finance a new building. I have gone to church with him since his retirement. However, this is all WP:OR. The text barely mentions his evangelism and we have no other sourcing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think "runningmate" is a single word, even in Am Eng.
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Images: While there may be no PD photographs of Eve, would it be possible to enliven the text with a few related pics?

I hope these points give you some ideas about the further development of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 June 2009, 06:21 UTC)

---

[edit] Courts and Legal Services Act 1990

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it to G/FA, and I'm looking for some reviews of its current status and suggested tweaks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by Ruslik.

1. As a result of this and similar controversies, Alf Dubs introduced a private member's bill Can the date be specified when the bill was introduced.
2. The paper (Legal Services: A Framework for the Future) was published in July 1989,[19] and had a different tone to that of the Green Papers, referring more to the requirement of legal services to be responsive to the needs of the client rather than the discipline of the market and problems with competition between branches of the legal profession. This sentence is too long and difficult to understand and should be split.
3. The monopoly on starting and conducting litigation would also be removed, allowing any recognised legal authority to certify its members as fit to work as an advocate. Who had had this monopoly before? It is not clear (solicitors, barristers ?).
4. From subsections 'Conveyancing' and 'Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board' is not clear if solicitors are required to obtain authorization from the above board or not? What is the role of the Legal Society in the regulation of solicitors who act as conveyancers?
5. What is the difference between an authorised conveyancing practitioner and a licensed conveyancer? This whole section is confusing. For instance: The Practitioners board assumes that banks, insurance companies and building societies are by definition fit to undertake such work, while other individuals and bodies undergo a more detailed vetting process. Does this mean that everbody including solicitors and licensed conveyancers must obtain additional permission from this board?
6. The Act also modifies the functions of the Director General of Fair Trading by requiring any applications from a body to be allowed to certify advocates and any rules and regulations proposed by the Lord Chancellor in relation to conveyancing to be submitted to the Director, who then advises the Lord Chancellor as to the viability of the documents. This sentence is very difficult to understand.
7. Among other things this opens up judicial offices in the Supreme Court of England and Wales to solicitors rather than just barristers. What judical offices? The jugges had been appointed by invitation until 2005.

   Indeed, but previously judges had only been barristers. By publishing a series of requirements for each post that didn't include a call to the Bar, the field was opened for solicitors as well. I'll do the rest later on (I'm at work, in a firm of solicitors appropriately). Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

8. The Act inserts a new clause into the Solicitors Act 1974 which expands the definition of what a solicitor requiring a practising certificate is to include any solicitor who works for a firm in a way related to legal services and is employed by: I do not understand what this means. The sentence is too complicated.
9. This can be in relation to on what terms the pupillage/tenancy is offered, the arrangements made for who should be offered the pupillage/tenancy or the benefits, services and facilities which are "afforded or denied". This sentence is also difficult to understand.
10. Section 101 of the Act amends the Arbitration Act 1950 to allow the High Court to appoint arbitrators to panels of 3 arbitrators where one has not been selected within a reasonable time. Please, clarify what 'the panel of 3 arbitrators' is. By the way numbers less then 10 should be spelled out.
11. The last sentence is the article reads At the same time the clause on recovery of costs in civil cases came into force with the SI ", and is obviously incomplete.
12. I think that short subsections near the end of the article (especially in 'Part IV: solicitors' section) should be consolidated.
13. I also noticed that 'also' is used too often in the article.
14. In 'References'. I think LEGAL UPDATE (and other such titles) should not be written in capital letters.

Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 June 2009, 03:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Jeff Habay

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded tenfold (2,410 to 27,662 bytes). This is a difficult subject, with a complex litigation history spread over two administrative hearings and two trials. I would also like to make sure that WP:BLP is being followed. I am prepared to do what it takes to make this a GA and FA. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and seems fairly close to GA to me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be expanded, probably to about three paragraphs for the article length (at least two). 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 but being 28 when first elected seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the two trials are not explicitly in the lead.
• Since the title of the article is "Jeff Habay" I would have the first sentence read something like "Jeffrey Earl Habay (commonly known as Jeff Habay) is a former Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, ..."Y Done
• I would add Allegheny County and some reference to the greater Pittsburgh area to the lead as well - I know Pennsylvania pretty well and had to click on the link to make sure where Shaler Tonwship is - see WP:PCR
• I would also link "deputy whip" to Whip (politics) in the lead (it is linked later in the body of the article)Y Done
• In Early life... I would add his father and mother's names if known and also mention any siblings early on. Also when did he meet / marry his wife and when was their son born?

• Archives of Habay's profile show his listed as "Single" as of November 2002 and "Married to Nubia" on February 2003. That implies that they were married at some time between those two dates, but it is possible that the profile was simply updated for the new legislative session that time, so I don't think that's a rock-solid assumption. I found a 1998 Post Gazette reference to a Habay volunteer named "Nubia Hager," but that doesn't mean that they met because she was volunteering for him. It also doesn't mean that they were even in a relationship at that time.

• Language is generally decent but could use a copyedit to polish things. Try printing this out and reading it out loud slowly. One example: He then returned to the Western Pennsylvania and to work as a career and admissions counselor for the Pittsburgh Technical Institute.[3] (and "western" should not be capitalized)Y Done
• I would make clearer that his brother was elected a twonship supervisor, and that this was also in Allegheny County. Also be consistent on capitalization - "supervisor" is not capitalized, but "Treasurer" is?{[done}}
• Watch out for unclear antecedents for pronouns - the subject of the sentence before In 1991, he ran for his first elective office, winning a position as Treasurer of O'Hara Township, Pennsylvania.[3] is his brother, so the he seems to refer to the brother and not Jeff Habay.
• I would make clear he failed to defeat the sherriff in the general election

Is there a better way to note this than "he unsuccessfully tried to unseat..."?

• The WP:MOS says to spell out numbers ten and less, so spot the problem in ...thereby helping his party secure a 1 seat majority in House for the first time in 12 years.[8][9]
• I would mention any re-election campaigns he had for the PA House before the trial
• I would also mention Santorum (and link him) before Habay's statement blaming Santorum

I'm not sure how to work that in. I can't find any previous reference to any Habay/Santroum rivalry or dispute. Maybe a footnote noting that Santorum was a fellow Pittsburgh-area Republican politician?

• Was the first trial a jury trial or was it decided by a judge?
• In the first trial identify the jusge by name early on and do not capitalize "the Judge"
• In the second trial I would make it clearer that Habay was accused of planting the white powder and apparently found guilty of doing so.
• Last paragraph of second trial needs dates for context - when did he do these appeals
• The article just ends very abruptly - is he still in jail? Has he been released? If there is an editorial or commentary on him from a local paper, a quote from it might make a nice closing sentence or two.
• How about an image of the PA state house, perhaps File:PAState Capitol Back a Bit.JPG

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 _><>°^° 03:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will work to incorporate them.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 June 2009, 22:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Shojo Beat

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on what else needs to be done to the article to prepare it for a Featured Article candidacy. It is currently a good article and I believe it pulls together all currently available reliable sources regarding the magazine's inception, run, demise, and reception.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see why it's currently GA, and I don't think it needs much work. I did notice a few grammatical issues, and also some confusion over tense, which I imagine came from the cancellation being quite recent. I'm of the school that prefers such things are done rather then spend longer writing them up, so I've made the changes to the article itself. I don't claim to be a copyeditor, so you may not agree with it all! i think the article is ready to be a FAC. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those (and doing :) ) and good to hear. It also reminded me to update the editor-in-chief after checking to see if they ever did name a new one :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the series that were running in the magazine as of its closing need to be highlighted? --Malkinann (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. That's a hold over from when it was still running, but it could just as easily be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is good but still not FA quality. Perhaps the most difficult of the FA criteria involves the quality of the prose. I made a small number of minor copyedits to the article, and most of my comments below make specific suggestions about prose or issues related to the Manual of Style. In addition, the reference section needs a bit of repair, as noted below.

Lead

• "becoming the first English anthology to use the two-color tone pages" - Suggestion: "becoming the first English anthology to use the two color tones common to Japanese manga anthologies... "
• "Half of its circulation comes from subscriptions... " - "came" rather than "comes"?
• "In May 2009, the magazine was discontinued, with the July 2009 issue being its last." - "With" is a relatively weak connector in a construction like this. Suggestion: "In May 2009, the magazine was discontinued, and the July 2009 issue was its last."
• "Fans were disappointed, though many also noted they were not subscribers." - "many of them noted that" rather than "many also noted" since "many" might otherwise mean "observers" or some other group.

History

• "The first issue was released in June 2005, featuring Nana Komatsu of NANA on its July-dated cover." - Suggestion: tighten slightly to "The first issue, released in June 2005, featured Nana Komatsu of NANA on its July-dated cover."
• "In the June 2009 issue, publisher Hyoe Narita began being listed as having the dual role of publisher and editor-in-chief." - Suggestion: "Starting with the June 2009 issue, Hyoe Narita, the publisher, was listed as editor-in-chief."
• "The magazine's panda mascot, Moko... " Wikilink panda?
• "Shojo Beat switched to using cyan and magenta ink tones for the manga pages" - Wikilink cyan and magenta? What colors did it use in the earlier issues?
• "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts... " - Wikilink font?
• "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts and a new "Girl Hero" column to spotlight women Viz felt were charitable and selfless to inspire the readers." - Suggestion: "The new design included more vivid color schemes and fonts and a new "Girl Hero" column to spotlight women Viz felt were charitable and selfless and who would inspire the readers."
• "In the March 2008 issue, a third mascot, a star named Hoshiko, was introduced as a friend for Moko." - It's not clear whether this means a star in the sky or a star in the sense of famous person or creature.
• "In May 2009, the magazine stopped accepting new subscriptions and ceased publication with the release of the July 2009 issue." - Delete the second "2009"?
• "Subscribers will reportedly receive a copy of the August 2009 issue of Shonen Jump, with options to transfer their subscription or request a refund for the remaining portion." - If publication ceased with the July issue, how can there be an August issue? I think this needs to be explained more clearly. Also, to avoid having to fix the verb tenses in September, you might say something like "Viz offered subscribers a copy of the August 2009 issue of Shonen Jump and the option of transferring their subscriptions or requesting partial refunds."

Features

• "a preview chapter from another Viz manga title being published under their "Shojo Beat" label" - Maybe "the" rather than "their" to avoid calling Viz a "their" rather than an "it".
• "The end of the magazine featured fan related sections" - Maybe instead of "end", which is a bit ambiguous in this context, this might be better: "Sections toward the back of the magazine featured fan-related material, including... "

Series

• "During its run, the magazine featured fourteen series total, with seven ending their runs to be replaced with other series." - Suggestion: "During its run, the magazine featured fourteen series, of which seven ended their runs and were replaced by other series."
• "Only four of those remained in the magazine until all of their chapters had been published." - Does this mean four of the seven replacements? If so, maybe "Only four of those replacement series remained... "?
• "Viz noted that they periodically removed series... " - "it" rather than "they"?
• "removed series from the magazine that have not been completed yet... " - "that had not been completed"? Also, delete "yet"? These are actions that took place in the past.
• "It does not include single chapter previews of titles." - I'm not sure what "previews" means in this context. Would it be better to say, "It does not include titles of single chapters"?

Imprints

• With the launch of the Shojo Beat magazine, Viz Media also created new imprints for its manga and fiction lines, with the "Shojo Beat" label including both series featured in the magazine and other shōjo manga titles licensed by Viz since the magazine's conception." - Suggestion: "With the launch of the Shojo Beat magazine, Viz Media created new imprints for its manga and fiction lines. The "Shojo Beat" label included series featured in the magazine as well as other shōjo manga titles licensed by Viz after the magazine's conception."
• "Published under the "Shojo Beat Fiction" imprint, Viz began releasing a few Japanese light novels that relate to its "Shojo Beat" manga titles." - Viz wasn't published. Suggestion: "Viz began releasing a few Japanese light novels under a "Shojo Beat Fiction" imprint related to its "Shojo Beat" manga titles."
• "In February 2006, Viz launched the "Shojo Beat Home Video" line to release anime titles targeted towards the female audience." - "anime titles for young women"?
• "the same titled manga already being released by Viz Media... " - Delete "being"?

Circulation and audience

• "In 2006, its average circulation had increased to 35,000, with 41% of copies distributed through subscriptions, and the rest sold in newsstands and stores." - "With" doesn't work well as a conjunction. Suggestion: "In 2006, its average circulation had increased to 35,000 copies, of which 41% were distributed through subscriptions and the rest sold in newsstands and stores."
• "In 2007, the circulation grew to 38,000, with subscription distribution growing to 51% of copies." - Suggestion: "In 2007, the circulation grew to 38,000, and subscriptions increased to 51%."
• "Targeted towards "young women", over half of the Shojo Beat audience was between the ages of 13 and 19, and over 84% of readers were at least 16 years old." - Suggestion: "More than half of the Shojo Beat audience, which was targeted towards "young women", was between the ages of 13 and 19, and more than 84% of readers were at least 16 years old."
• "After its cancellation, Publishers Weekly's Heidi MacDonald reported that the common response that they saw among fans was that "everyone liked it but nobody paid for it", due to many fans expressing sorrow over the magazine's demise, but also noting they were not subscribers to it." - It's unclear who "they" refers to in this sentence. MacDonald is a "she", and Publishers Weekly is an "it". Also, the sentence might be a bit too complicated and would work better as two sentences. The second might say, "She noted that many fans who expressed sorrow over the magazine's demise were not subscribers."
• "Katherine Dacey, the former Senior Manga Editor... " - Lowercase "senior manga editor"?
• "Staff member Brigid Alverson felt Shojo Beat was a great overall package that "featured intelligent articles that allowed the reader to be enthusiastic about Japanese pop culture without being geeky" making it distinct from other magazines for girls that were normally "filled with brainless celebrity stories or service articles tied to commercial products". - Since this includes direct quotes, it needs an inline citation.

References

• Citation 2 is incomplete and its url is dead.
• Citation 3 has a dead link.
• Citation 19 is incomplete and dead.
• I don't have time to check all of the citations. I just picked these three because they looked suspicious. You should check the whole set. A link checker tool can be run on any article.

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) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! I will get to work on addressing all of these issues and fix those refs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro all fixed. History fixed. The August issue is for the other publication, Shonen Jump, which will be continuing. I reworded that to attempt to clarify things more. I didn't change it to "offered" though because Viz has yet to actually follow through with it, so don't want to presume they really will. Should find out in a few more days, though, if Shonen Jump ships on the same schedule as Shojo Beat. :) Features fix. Series fixed (for the last question, it was referring to the preview chapters noted in the features, I reworded to try to make clearer). Imprints, circulation, and reception also all fixed. I've also fixed all the references (they were broken when I was fixing the date formats as my script falsely changed the ANN links too because they use ISO dates *doh*). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not updated the Shonen Jump subscription transfer section as I got the copy (with the letter) today confirming it was done. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 June 2009, 15:28 UTC)

---

[edit] History

[edit] History of Florida State University

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 July 2009.

Hello...I have been working on the History of Florida State University for some time and I think it is ready for peer review. While clearly additional work needs to be done, I now need the critical eye, suggestions and contributions of other Wikipedians to make the article better, hopefully culminating in GA or FA status.

Thank you in advance for any help with this work!

Sirberus (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 July 2009, 00:17 UTC)

---

[edit] Col. William Munroe

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it and I know it is in major need of help. It hasn't gone through the NPP because I started it on a user page, and I just want to make sure it is up to snuff for prime time. Feel free to ask questions on my user talk page, linked below.

Thanks, Gosox5555 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is for questions and comments on articles, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think the article name is incorrect and that this should be moved to something like William Munroe (American soldier) - see the dab at William Munroe, as well as William Munroe (pencil maker) (my guess is he is the son of this man) and William Munroe (Scottish soldier), an ancestor of this man.
• This needs many more references. 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
• This needs to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. The lead does not make it clear when he lived, can birth and death dates be added? Or the state and country for those not familiar with Lexington and Concord.
• Any chance for an image of him? Is there a statue of him or portrait somewhere?
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the article on the pencil maker is adecent model 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 _><>°^° 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 June 2009, 22:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Noah's Ark

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because it used to be a Featured Article but is not any more. And I think we should work on it.

Thanks, Arlen22 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's review

• Searches for Noah's Ark deserves a brief para
• Historicity of Noah and the Deluge, should also be discussed in brief
• A section on "Artistic depictions" can be created
• Narrative should include
  • Dimensions of Ark as in the Bible
  • only Noah and those with him on the Ark. Who?
  • Building material as in the Bible
  • After the deluge, what did they do with the Ark?
• "In Christian tradition" should include any retelling (if any) and difference with the Bible
• "In Rabbinic tradition" needs more references for interpreattions like "Noah's failure to warn others of the coming flood was widely seen as casting doubt on his righteousness—was he perhaps only righteous by the lights of his own evil generation?"

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 June 2009, 13:01 UTC)

---

[edit] White Night riots

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 June 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have brought it up from a Start-class (with multiple maintenance templates) to GA, and I have improved the article more. My goal is to take it to FAC, but before I do that I would like input to ensure that it meets the FA criteria. If there is anything that can reasonably be done to improve it, then I will do so before taking it to FAC.

Thanks, Firestorm ^Talk 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

• I would like to encourage you to take this to FAC, and I intend to be encouraging in these comments, so please take it that way.
• I hope you noted what I added yesterday. I can add more because I have the sources to do it. Now, however, the background section is longer than the actual riots section. This creates several problems as it solves some. It solves the issues with the prose borrowed from the Stonewall riots article from sources you may not be familiar with, but then it also replaces those problems.
• I cannot stress enough that if you bring this article to FAC you need to be intimately familiar with all the sources, at least cited in the article, and you should be familiar with ones not used. You will be challenged on why you decided to use what you did, and why you did not use something different. If you don't believe me, I invite you to read the archives of the Harvey Milk talk pages (start at #7) and the thorough dressing down and insult I received on the Stonewall riots talk page as it appeared on the main page last week. You'll be challenged by people who know and people who don't know. So, it is imperative that you must know what you're talking about.
• It also solves the problem that the article was not comprehensive when it passed GA because much of the background involving the gay history of San Francisco was not included. I don't think it was ready for GA, but there are inherent faults in the GA system that have to be tolerated and worked around.
• So you either need to cut some of the background or expand the section on the riots. In order to cut some of the background, you need to decide what issues are the greatest that bear on why the riots occurred and who was involved, and to do that, you need to know how the sources treat the issues mentioned in the article. I was surprised that Harvey Milk seemed to be a minor issue in the article. I added a tiny bit, but more could probably be added. Milk was a symbol as much as he was a man.
• If you expand the riots section, you'll probably have to go t