 | 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. | | 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 any 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. | | 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/December 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. |
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i feedback on how to improve it further and hopefully get it to GA standard in the future. I don't know which areas need the most work etc and wold like some comments. I have been a casual editor of this article for awhile. Thanks, Mark E (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 27 December 2009, 12:00 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed GAN a couple of months ago and would like to know from uninvolved editors if there are an glaring errors or omissions in it before I take it to FAC. Thanks, Bradley0110 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 26 December 2009, 22:54 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I post this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan collaboration team, which consists of Mick gold, Rlendog, Moisejp, Allreet, and myself. We have been all working hard on the article for the past few months, with the ultimate goal of FAC. I'm interested in hearing any feedback, be it praise or criticism, as any input will help. I'm hoping others from the collaboration team will also post here, expressing what they're specifically looking for in this peer review. Until then, anything helps, and we'll appreciate even the slightest input that any of you have on this. Many thanks, I.M.S. (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 20:48 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working very hard on this list, writing articles for all the songs included (with the exception of "La Bamba" and "Don't Wanna Lose You"). I want to take this list to the FL status, so I'm asking for all the feedback possible. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 09:10 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want another opinion about this article. It is about a new album by a Spanish songwriter named Bebe, that is why almost all the refs are in spanish language. I just created the article and I want all the feedback possible about it. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 08:27 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because, as a new user of Wiki, I'd like to know if this page is suitable to become a good article (or would its brief nature affect this?) Also, what needs to be changed/improved? Thanks, WossOccurring (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - I'll take a look. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is already a decent article. Looks like some good effort at researching and referencing.
- If you haven't already, take a look a look at the following:
- Comments on your article specifically:
- The prose is well-written in general.
- Some copyediting by a third party might help a little. E.g. "The programme was hosted by Holly Willoughby, featured a host of other performers and acted as a lead-in to the final of the sixth series of The X Factor, in which Cole is a judge." Somewhat awkward sentence.
- Since you asked about length, I'm not aware of a minimum size guideline for articles. My thinking in general is that you should either be able to say a lot about a topic or else perhaps the topic really isn't substantial enough to merit an article. I would encourage looking for more content although, as I say, there is no explicit requirement.
- The source for the Setlist section is not explicitly specified. I have seen articles get away with that but I wouldn't give an article GA if a whole section were missing a citation.
- I didn't see the show but if the interviews had significant content then it would be interesting to read about what was discussed.
- The Reception section feels a little cobbled together. It is certainly good that you are citing specific reviewers. Still, though it is tricky to do in a neutral way, it would be good to also give a more overall impression of the reception rather than just listing opinions.
- Be careful about using expressions like "Chezza" without explaining them. Granted it wouldn't be too hard for a reader to guess that this is a nickname for Cole but it is preferable to be more clear.
- One thing that might get questioned in a GA review is the notability of the topic. What reason is there to think that this show will be remembered or regarded as especially unique years from now? To tell the truth, though, I think you there are a lot of editors that would support an article on a TV special regardless.
- Be careful about expressions like "whilst". I don't know if WP has a specific policy but, for example, the Times style guide says to use "while" instead (see [1]).
- It's probably hard to do but more images would be nice.
- Take a peek at My Musical as an example of a GA article covering a TV episode.
- Hope that helps.
- --Mcorazao (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 20 December 2009, 00:54 UTC)
-
I've considerably expanded the article and would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article up to GA standards. I am especially interested in content issues but any suggestions are welcome. When complete, the article is going to get a thorough copy-edit for style and language. I am now going to work on the statistics section and will rewrite the lead section at the very last. All other sections are complete from my standpoint.bamse (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, bamse (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Åkebråke:
"National Treasure" has been used since 1897, though the term's pre-1950 and post-1950 significance is different." How are they different? A short summary at the beginning of the section. "During World War II many of the designated bulidings were camouflaged, water tanks and fire walls installed for protection. 206 designated buildings including Hiroshima Castle were destroyed from May to August 1945." So how many buildings were destroyed during the whole war? "This law was restricted to the ancient capitals Kamakura, Heijō-kyō (Nara), Heian-kyō (Kyoto), Asuka (present day Asuka), Fujiwara-kyō (Kashihara), Tenri, Sakurai and Ikaruga, places with a large number of national treasures." I think "Asuka (present day Asuka)" should be changed to "Asuka in Yamato (not Asuka in Nara)". Can the data in the statistics table be presented in another way? For me it does not look so good, it has too many -'s. Åkebråke (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - Thank you for your comments. I will add a short summary to explain the difference of pre/post-1950. I don't know how many buildings were destroyed during the whole war. The reference calls the time from May to August: "final phase of WW2." With the Americans getting closer to the mainland around May (Battle of Okinawa from April 1, to June 21, 1945), I would expect that this number is not too far off from the total number of destroyed national treasure buildings. (The earliest small-scale bombings were in April 1942, and bigger operations from China seem to have started in June 1944 from what I understand from the large number of "WW2 in Japan" related articles on wikipedia.) Changed "Asuka (present day Asuka)" to "Asuka, Yamato (present day Asuka, Nara)". Is this what you meant? What do you suggest instead of "-"? I could replace it with "0", but I think it is better for readability this way. (Compare the "0" in the "sum" columns which don't stand out as much, making it harder to see which prefectures have no national treasure. I got the idea with "-" from a FLC where it was suggested (or required, don't remember) to have "-" in empty cells. bamse (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I added: "...with the pre-1950 term assigned to a much larger number of cultural properties comparable to today's Important Cultural Properties and National Treasures taken together." to the short summary at the start of the history section.bamse (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- In my opinion the statistics table looks bad not since it has "-" instead of "0", but since it is a big table with many holes. The "Historical materials" column contains over 40 empty spaces and only two 1s. Is it nessesary? What is a "fine art and craft" that is not a ancient document, not a archaeological material, not a craft, not a painting, not a sculpture and not a writing? Åkebråke (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Though honestly, I like the look. The categories are made up by the Agency for Cultural Affairs so I can't do much about it (nor about the number of designated properties per category). An idea could be to merge some of the columns or even all columns such that only the "sum" columns are present (like it was before the expansion of the article). But I like the extra information that this extensive table contains. Actually I merged the two categories (pre/post Meiji) of residences which is kind of natural. "Historical materials" however contain documents, crafts, paintings and weapons, so there is no natural category to merge it in. PS: I am not sure I understood what you were hinting at with your last question ("What is a "fine art and craft" that is not a ancient document, not a archaeological material, not a craft, not a painting, not a sculpture and not a writing?"). Could you explain?bamse (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I had just a bit hard to imagine what a "fine art or craft" could be that did not fit into either category. Åkebråke (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, still not sure I understand the problem. There are two main categories: 1. "buildings and structures" and 2. "fine arts and crafts". Each of these is further divided into a number of subcategories. For instance "Fine arts and crafts" is divided in "paintings", "sculptures",... Did this help to imagine?bamse (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 13 December 2009, 11:54 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It only needs some copy-editing jobs and minor details to take care of. Thanks, ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- The last six refs are just bare urls, they need publishers, link titles, and last access dates at the very least.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected the bare url additions by other users and those sources are reliable. Thanks!!! -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are still bare references. The last two references are unreliable. Youtube is not allowed as a source for wiki. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking, I'll format them. If it is the official youtube of the organization/artist ( in the article, the youtube's are GMTV and Joe McElderry's), are they allowable? Liqudluck✽talk 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Con-nominator with Ipodnano05. If you decide to review this article, please note that the last section (Joe McElderry cover) is very new and constantly being edited (this will be sorted out before FA). It is also the source of the bare urls noted above. Please focus on the other sections. Thanks! Liqudluck✽talk 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks prett close to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement. - I agree this needs a copyedit - there are people who will do this listed at the bottom of WP:PR/V. I will try to point out some places that need a copyedit, but not an exhaustive list.
- I am not sure the first sentence meets WP:LEAD, specifically the part on first sentence: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" - since the Miley Cyrus version is the most well known, should that be mentioned in the first sentence too (though not all the details in the current second sentence)
- This article has seven images and one sound file, six of which are Fair use (or should be, see below). This seems to me to be a big potential problem at WP:FAC - see WP:NFCC. The images from the videos seem most "decorative" / least justified as fair use (especially the Joe McElderry video image - we already know what he looks like from the single artwork, what does the video clip add to the reader's understanding? Ditto for the Cyrus video image).
- The license for File:Miley Cyrus during American Idol rehearsals.jpg is almost certainly not correct - if this was filmed as a part of American Idol (even a reheasral), it is copyrighted and not fair use. The copyright almost certainly does not belong to the uploader and as a fair use image, I fail to see how it adds to the reader's understanding under WP:NFCC. I have nominated the image for speedy deletion on Commons
- Try to avoid needless repetition. For example in the lead, rewriting could avoid repeating US in The song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United States. In the United States, the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 and became the eighth best selling digital single of 2009. Five months after ... so perhaps song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United States. In the United States, the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 and became the eighth best selling digital single of 2009. Five months after its release, the single was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, and Norway.
- Problems with this. The first two sentences could be combined, the third sentence has a capital letter at the start of a phrase (should be lower case). The last sentence says "...was the first time the song had ever been heard." which seems to impy that somehow no one had ever heard the song ever before (when writing, performing, recording and producing it. I used strikes for thing to remove and [] for additions: The song's accompanying music video was directed by Matthew Rolston.
It [and] depicts scenes of Cyrus climbing a mountain or singing intercut with clips of Hannah Montana: The Movie. Cyrus promoted the song with several live performances; Her [her] first, at the Kids Inaugural: "We Are the Future" event on January 19, 2009, was the first time the song had ever been heard [in public]. Could also end as was the first time the song had ever been performed in public. - Would it mkae sense to rewrite this starting with "The Climb", so perhaps something like: "The Climb" was not written intentionally for the 2009 musical film Hannah Montana: The Movie, although the soundtrack's second single, "Hoedown Throwdown" was.
- Much of the material in the Background section is actually about the composition of the song. The Composition section seems more like it could be called Structure. Or perhaps the two sections could combined and called "Background and composition"?
- In general a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are at least 15 FAs on songs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
- It is spelled "MySpace", not "Myspace"
- Since the performances on the X Factor were also cover versions, it seems to me that the X Factor section should be a subsection of the Covers section, not its own section.
- Isn't it called a YouTube channel? The video premiered on McElderry's official YouTube the same day as the physical release.[89]
- Ref 45 needs an accessdate. Also is About.com really considered a WP:RS (I don't know, I don't write about music)
- All the information needed seems to be here and it is generally decently written and referenced. The structure seems a little odd to me (two separate chart performance sections) but there are two different versions by different artists, so I guess it is OK this way - do any of the other song FAs have a similar chart history (topping the chart twice by two different artists) and article structure?
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you to both Ealdgyth and Ruhrfisch for your reviews. Liqudluck✽talk 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 22:59 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has FA potential. It's also an important and interesting article. You'll see that it was nominated for GA, and failed, but I believe that at this point, it fulfills the criteria, anyway. (If any reviewer would like to pass it in the process of this review, that would be helpful.) Thanks, --Christine (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - I haven't read it, but looks attractive at a quick glance. The image captions should be shortened per Wikipedia:Captions, and the standalone quotes reduced and/or integrated into the text body per Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork *YES! 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hate starting out a review with contraryness, but I think I'll wait on addressing this issue until others have weighed in about the use of captions and quoteboxes. --Christine (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long on this review. I learned a lot reading this article, but feel it needs a fair amount of polish before it would pass at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement. - And sorry it's taken me so long to address these comments.
- I would be careful with statements like this from the lead: By its 40th anniversary in 2009, even the U.S. government recognized Sesame Street as "the most widely viewed children's television show in the world",[1] with twenty independent international versions and broadcasts in over 120 countries.[1] First off, the ref cited is from 2006, so it really does not back up the "in 2009" aspect of the claim. Second, I think one ouse of the ref per sentence is sufficient. Third, the "even the US Government" part smacks a bit to me of POV.
- Addressed by removing the quote and restructuring what was left. --Christine (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the lead goes into too much detail on the dinner party and not enough on some other parts of the article. This is partly a WP:WEIGHT issue, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- One of my weaknesses as a WP editor is my leads. I find them so difficult to write. Addressed the above by removing the reference to the dinner party and restructuring the paragraph a bit. --Christine (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:HEAD says not to use "The" in headers if at all possible. So could The 1970s just be 1970s (etc.?
- Done.
- Please read WP:NFCC carefully - there are five fair use images in the article now, which may be too much. The title card seems standard for TV shows, and the image of Oscar with Gordon and Susan also seems fine. Mr Hooper's death is discussed at length, so that is probably OK too. My guess is that the Elmo's World image could be OK if the text discussed why showing his legs is an innovation. Much as I like Bert and Ernie, the image of them seems most decorative and least likely to pass NFCC.
- The EW's image is there because it depicts Elmo in the segment, not because it demonstrates the puppetry. I chose it simply because I liked it. There are other screen shots I could've used, like one with Elmo standing in his crayon-house. Would you suggest that we use a different image? Regarding the B&E image: should we swap that out, too? Emilio Delgado (Luis) and Roscow Orman (Gordon)'s images are free; we could even use Ray Charles and The Carpenters, since they recorded SS songs.--Christine (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Christine (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are many places where the language needs to be tightened and a few where things either make no sense or should be moved. Here are some examples, but not a complete list:
- In the 1980s section (death of Mr Hooper) this seems needlessly repetitive and the second sentence does not make sense to me: Parents in the study were encouraged to watch it with their children to help explain it. Following the broadcast, parent viewers were also encouraged to watch the episode with their children. After the broadcast of the show, they told parents to watch the show (which had just aired) with their children??
-
- I see your point. I solved this problem by deleting the first sentence, which meant that I had to reword the following couple of sentences. --Christine (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- What is this sentence doing in the 2000's section? Entertainment Weekly reported in 1991 that the show's music had been honored with eight Grammys.[120]
-
- There are two reasons. First, it's an artifact of earlier in this article's development, before the 90s and 2000s were separated into two sections. Second, I was lumping the discussion of the show's awards together. I moved it into the 90s section. --Christine (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- The song Rubber Duckie being on the charts for 7 weeks is in there twice in two different sections. In the 1970s section it says this was in 1971, so it does not belong in the Premiere and first season (1969-1970) section if that is true.
-
- More structuring issues, done to keep the discussion of the show's first accolades together. I deleted the phrase about the song in the premiere and first season section. --Christine (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- What does this mean Roscoe Orman succeeded Matt Robinson, the original Gordon, and Hal Miller, in 1975.[76] I think it means that Roscoe was the third actor to play Gordon, but it is far from clear.
-
- You're right--he was, and it is very unclear. So I reworded the sentence thusly: In 1975, Roscoe Orman became the third actor to play Gordon, succeeding Hal Miller, who had briefly replaced Matt Robinson.[76] --Christine (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- In the 1990s section there is a long list of people who died, but not much else on them - I would provide context to the reader and give a brief description of each.
-
- Each were discussed earlier in the article, but I added a description of each and unlinked them. --Christine (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Also the pictiue caption for Michael Jeter is the only mention of him in the article. If he is important enough to be pictured, shouldn't he also be mentioned in the article itself?
-
- I've changed the caption to better reflect the article, but without mentioning Jeter himself. Let me know if you think it's enough. I think it's okay to keep him because he is an important part of "Elmo's World", and regular viewers will enjoy seeing him out of costume. Personally, I think an image of Kevin Clash would be more appropriate, but I may be able to go grab another non-free screen capture. What do you think?
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Thanks for the review. Yes, it's very helpful. --Christine (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs) - I think the weakest part of the article is the lead. It does not seem to be a good summary of the article. For example, it is missing information on the development and conception of the show, the decision to mix humans and Muppets, the types of changes made in the 1980s, the ratings drop and funding changes in the 1990s, details on the introduction of Elmo, and the impact of the recent recession.
- The first sentence needs to indicate that Sesame Street is a children's television show.
- Responses included adulatory reviews, some controversy, and high ratings. - I would suggest expanding this sentence to include a bit more detail about the controversy - what was it about?
- The show's inception started in 1966 with initial idea by television producer Joan Ganz Cooney to create a children's television show. The idea arose during discussions with - Wordy
- The creativity and effectiveness of the show in reaching millions of children solidified in the 1970s. - Doesn't quite make sense
- By the middle of the decade, Sesame Street was in "full flower", and by the end of the decade it was "an American institution" - Sentence doesn't actually convey much substance
- Up until the late 1960s, television was widely criticized for being little more than cartoons that depicted violence and reflected commercial values. - All of television or just children's television?
- Palmer and his team utilized concepts in the field of formative research, or "research conducted to inform the process of production". - This is a bit vague.
- Can you say any more about This Way to sesame Street? Right now, that paragraph doesn't seem all that necessary.
- New York Times Magazine later reported that Sesame Street endured criticism of its fast pacing, which was said to cause epilepsy in its preschool audience - I'm curious is there is any truth to this accusation or if it was just a smear campaign.
- What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the "Rubber-Ducky" song?
- What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the Mr. Hoooper death episode instead of the still image? It is the most famous episode by far.
I hope these comments are helpful! Sorry it took me so long to review the article. :( Awadewit (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 14:46 UTC)
[edit] Language and literature -
I've listed this article for peer review in advance of a featured article candidacy. It was listed as a good article last month, and I have made a few changes since. This includes the redistribution of content from a stubby section to other larger sections. I would appreciate a copyedit as I have reached my limit of good writing. Thanks, Arsonal (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 28 December 2009, 20:08 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because this is an extremely notable work of fiction that deserves to be great article. I think the editors working on it so far have got some great content to build on. So with improving the article in mind, let's have your views! Thank you for your time and opinions. Davémon (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Preliminary comments by Finetooth: This happens to be a novel that I love, and the article looks interesting at first glance. Before wading in seriously, I can mention a few things for starters, and I'll add more no later than tomorrow (Dec. 26). - All of the "citation needed" tags will need to be addressed.
- Although much of the article looks well-sourced at first glance, some whole paragraphs lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every direct quotation.
- The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is now an FA requirement and is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details.
- The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
- The link checker tool finds a couple of dead urls in citations.
- Many of the citations are incomplete. For example, citations to Internet sources typically need author, title, url, publisher, date of publication, and most recent date of access, if all of these are known or can be found.
Further Finetooth comments: Rather than doing a line-by-line review, I've noted several fairly large-scale things that need attention. - If I were trying to improve this article for another shot at FA, I'd expand the "Reception" and "Themes" section by undertaking a more comprehensive survey of the literary criticism of the novel. The sources for most of the claims in these two sections are periodicals, and that's fine as far as it goes, but they seem to deal mainly with the popularity of the book rather than the book's structure, themes, meanings, moral implications, characters, use of history, or relationship to other literature. Reading a survey or two of the criticism might uncover important themes that are not yet mentioned in the article. I'd start with Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism, edited by Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaccs (2004) and Reading The Lord of the Rings: New Writings on Tolkien's Classic, edited by Robert Eaglestone (2006), and see where they led me. A section of the Eaglestone book is titled "Gender, sexuality, and class", for example. The "Themes" section of this Wikipedia article mentions race and class but says nothing about gender or sexuality; perhaps it should.
- Many parts of the article are unsourced or incompletely sourced. The entire Music section is unsourced. The "Posthumous publication of drafts" section is unsourced. Individual claims such as "Tolkien's frequent use of alternative spellings for the plurals of elf and dwarf (elves and dwarves, instead of elfs and dwarfs), which had been abandoned in modern English, have caused them to return to common usage" need sources. Another example is the claim that "The enormous popularity of Tolkien's epic saga greatly expanded the demand for fantasy fiction. Largely thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the genre flowered throughout the 1960s." This may be true, but what reliable source says so? The paragraph that begins "The book has been adapted for radio four times" is another example.
- "As for the magic Ring around which the story revolves, it seems quite likely it was inspired in large part by "The Testament of Solomon," in which King Solomon controls a cadre of demons and commands them to build the Second Temple.[2]" - This claim in the "Influences" section should not be sourced directly to an external web site. Also, it's doubtful that the source qualifies as reliable as defined by WP:RS. Citation 52 links to a site "maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings". It's hard to see how it could be considered a reliable source. All the sources should be checked to make sure they meet the RS guidelines.
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) 06:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 17 December 2009, 21:09 UTC)
-
Put a lot of work into the article, I'd like to get a little insight and input before I take it to GA. The theme and reception sections need a little polish, but I'll get to them soon enough. Source check would also be appreciated. One issue is the length of the plot section, I can't find ways to trim it myself, not without earning the scrutiny (and reverts) of other edits. It's a very long and complicated book and series, hard to keep out of universe too, any advice on trimming would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Rehevkor ✉ 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - 'is the title of' srsly?
- No very quick sketch of Sanderson?
- 'Rand/Egwene' sentence repeated in summary section
- Synopsis in general assumes you already know what Arad Doman etc are. (I do because I'm a fan, but otherwise it is impenetrable.)
- Might want to split synopsis section into Rand and Egwene and maybe Others section.
- first 2 paragraphs in intro might make more sense elsewhere. Do all readers immediately need to know 'first we was all it's gonna be one big book and then the publishers were all nuh-uh and so we were all well alright then 3 books it is'? Especially since most is repeated there.
- Reception and theme are way too small. It ought to be a urgent topic of interest after 3 screens of material on Jordan's death & Sanderson's publishing to know how well he did, yet... Themes is also intrinsically some of the most interesting material to cover - it's literary analysis - but also some of the hardest and most evanescent & hard to research later material. So this is probably the most important thing to do.
--Gwern (contribs) 00:18 26 December 2009 (GMT) Quick Ruhrfisch comment I know the requirements for GAN are looser than FAC, but I read the lead on this and saw lots of places where it could use a copyedit to tighten things up. Just the first paragraph could be The Gathering Storm is the title of the 12th book of the The Wheel of Time fantasy series. It was incomplete at the time of the death of [when] its author, Robert Jordan, who died on September 16, 2007 from cardiac amyloidosis[,] having written 50,000 words. His widow Harriet McDougal and publisher Tom Doherty chose [Brandon Sanderson] to continue the book posthumously. Brandon Sanderson was then chosen to finish writing the book. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 01:01 UTC)
-
Something I made recently, has been featured on DYK, and I've exhausted my sources. I wondering what this takes to get to GA, whether it be prose, content, more sources, whatever. I'm working on getting a free picture. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Brianboulton comments: - The article is very short (350 words), and you should be looking to expand it. I will make suggestions where I can.
- Biographical articles nearly always have infoboxes. I don't like them myself, but it seems to be the convention. In this case it might add some weight to the article to have one, even minus a picture.
- Lead:
- There probably isn't much more to be said, but it could certainly be said more smoothly than it is with these four jerky sentences. **"Future" plays? I think you mean either "later" or "subsequent", not "future".
- Also, "two more are being written" is only true for the time being. You need a more general way of referring to her future plans.
- Early life:
- Do we know where she went to school?
- Do we know when she went to Washington University?
- Do we know what she studied there?
- Do we know who put her in touch with the Steppenwolf?
- A brief description of this institution and its work would be helpful.
- Career:
- Do we know what Wegrzyn did between leaving Washington University in 2003 and the premiere of The Barber of Baraboo?
- The critics and/or journals that gave the various reviews should be identified in the text.
- Wasserstein Prize
- Phrasing: "Wergzyn won third annual the Wasserstein Prize..."
- Do we have any more writing history for Hickorydickory than the year it was started?
- "never-produced" is a clumsy and contrived adjective. Suggest you rephrase, indicating that the play had not been performed up to that time.
- Explanation required for the Second Stage Theatre, e.g. what is it, where is it etc.
That's all I can come up with. I hope this helps. There needs to be a link to this PR page on the article's talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 December 2009, 01:05 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved B-class and I would like to know how it can be further improved. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Intriguing title and subject...must go and read it...anyway, back to some notes: - The name and plot outline suggest a strong influence of Gormenghast. Surely this has been mentioned in some source or other? The Development could be expanded if material is available and para 2 looks like it should be mentioned somewhere in para 1 (i.e. earlier in the page)
- When M. Alice LeGrow is mentioned, a few words about her nationality and occupation would be helpful.
- Multiple books based on Bizenghast have been released. - just state the number here, if known.
More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Thank you for taking the time to look over the article.
- I haven't seen Gormenghast listed as an influence so far, but it seems possible, especially since the titles are so similar. Not sure what to do with para 2 in Development, since Ms. LeGrow hasn't exactly decided what to do with the series after the 7th volume. Sadly.
- She's an American writer/mangaka (manga author)
- Done.
- Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 23:48 UTC)
-
Hello, I listed this article for peer review for GA-class as I think that an important piece of art such as this should get to superior quality. I would like to know what could be done for the article to get to this class. Thank you. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga/archive1.
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 01:43 UTC)
[edit] Everyday life -
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs one for featured topic retention—I'm going to add another one too, but I promise I'll do some reviews to balance it out! :) There's not much content here (the press information flood doesn't come out until video gaming magazines hit the stands in January), but any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Comments - No dabs or dead external links—good.
- I added alt text for the image; check that it matches reality. :)
- Ref date are ISO style after some edits.
If you want to review a non-Halo game article, there's a sexy witch that needs attention. --an odd name 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 27 December 2009, 20:24 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because need to gain input in comparison to other Guitar Hero articles as this is a slightly different beast. Thanks, MASEM (t) 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's my input:
- Infobox needs ratings from OFLC, BBFC and PEGI, with citations. You should try and fill out as many fields in the Infobox as possible.
- Lead section does not broadly summarize the entire article. Need to mention critical response and commercial success here.
- Gameplay section is good.
- File:DJ Hero spread out.jpg should probably go somewhere else. You probably might need to open a "Promotion" sub-section under Development and move the image there.
- The Development section might need some better organization.
- There are six references after the following sentence in the Soundtrack section: "The individual songs themselves have been pulled from a large number of music genres, including pop, grunge, soul, R&B, techno, hip hop, and house." Realistically, there should only be about three there at the absolute most.
- The Reviews sub-section is going to need a makeover because it's not broad enough in its coverage. I don't think I need to elaborate as it's fairly obvious what needs to happen with the Reception section.
- The Pre-release sub-section is pretty small and way too choppy. Consider expanding it, or merging it somewhere else.
- References 31 and 50 need proper formatting. Reference 38 is from YouTube, and should probably be removed as there are already two other citations before it.
Hope this helps. CR4ZE (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 27 December 2009, 04:37 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I'm less anxious to go to FAC this time. I welcome any possible comments how this article might not yet satisfy the FA criteria. It had undergone substantial copyediting since the previous PR and FAC, so now's a good time for another one. Thanks, Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 26 December 2009, 07:06 UTC)
-
This article has something for everyone: monsters and clothing made out of hair, the creator of Devil May Cry, a much-criticized port between consoles, bullet time, browser themes, lollipops, and a glasses-wearing witch with a nice ass who apparently looks like Sarah Palin and can shoot from guns on all four of her limbs before transforming into a panther. I'll appreciate any and all comments and improvements, except I don't want advice on improving the plot—I might want to get and play this game unspoiled some day, so please make any desired changes there yourself. Thanks, an odd name 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Torsodog review
- First off, let me say that this will be my first real peer review, so wish me luck on this thing. Secondly, I have never played a DMC game, nor do I plan on playing this game, so you'll get a very fresh, unbiased pair of eyes on this article. Aaaaaaaaaaaand here we go...
- General
- I think it is customary to put the "Gameplay" section before the "Plot" section. Is there any particular reason it is switched here?
- I'll need to fix Gameplay for context later (e.g. who is the player controlling, and who is Bayonetta?), but it doesn't seem as dependent on Plot as I once thought. Moved. --an odd name 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Lead
- Plot
- Yikes, this puppy is beefy. Honestly, I'm going to glaze over this section for the moment. It obviously needs to be cut down quite a bit, and having never played the game or having any idea what it is really all about, I'm certainly not the one to decide what is or is not important. Give me a shout if you ever get a chance to edit this section after you play the game!
- Gameplay
- "Combat in Bayonetta, a single-player action game, resembles that in Hideki Kamiya's prior Devil May Cry." - Seems a bit convoluted and abrupt for an opening sentence to me. Maybe "Bayonetta is a single-player action game. The game's combat is similar to director Hideki Kamiya's previous title, Devil May Cry."?
- Changed, with slight edits because I don't like the repeated "game". --an odd name 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The player is encouraged to explore ways to dispatch enemies with as much flair as possible through the use of both melee and long ranged attacks, complex combo strings, and multiple weapons." - I would switch these around, eg: Using both melee and long ranged attacks, complex combo strings, and multiple weapons, the player is encouraged to explore ways to dispatch enemies with as much flair as possible."
- Changed, and combined with a brief explanation of what Bayonetta and her enemies actually are. --an odd name 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Such devices range from guillotines to iron maidens." - Link guillotines
- Linked. I expect one or two complaints about overlink if it ever reaches FAC, but whatever. I think more people know what a guillo looks like than its name (or at least that's the order I learned of them thanks to Saturday morning cartoons and such). --an odd name 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The player can perform many standard action game moves—"double jump, lock onto enemies, rotate the [third-person view] camera, backflip to avoid attacks, swap between weapons on the fly, break apart background objects ... and break through doors"—and can unlock the ability to transform Bayonetta into a panther or one of various other living creatures to enhance her abilities." - I would lose the dash here and break this into two sentences. I would also try to lose the quote if possible.
- Dash gone. I want to change the quote, but will leave it until I can think of a less paraphrasy way. --an odd name 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This is just a start for now. I'll be back for more ASAP. --TorsodogTalk 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 24 December 2009, 15:46 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an insane idea to promote 2008 Formula One season to Featured Topic status. Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - You might want to use the full constructor names of the teams in the first paragraph of Background from 2008 Monaco Grand Prix.
- Got a better way of saying "were next up"?
- I'm wondering whether it is really worth detailing the tests at Jerez. If they were at the Hungaroring, fair enough, but the influence on this race tests in Spain could have are potentially quite small. Would we be better served having that paragraph at 2008 Formula One season?
- I think I've pared it down as far I can from how I first found it. I personally prefer a bit of context in the background section.--Midgrid(talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Ferrari used the F60 in 2009, not 2008.
- You may want to go through the article and link some of the more technical words.
- Done, I think, althought I'm not sure exactly where "brake duct" and "hydraulics" should go.--Midgrid(talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- For standard 2008 practice, you should combine P&Q.
- Do the practice sessions need so much detail? I can understand that they can be quite interesting, but it may give undue weight to something which has no direct bearing on the race result.
- I've tried to keep them as brief as possible, with only one short paragraph per session. Qualifying and the race are covered in proportionately greater detail.--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do the tyre names deserve proper noun status (i.e., Soft and Super Soft)? I've never seen them referred to as such before. Same with corner names.
- That's strange, because in my experience I usually see them with capital letters! Both Autocourse and Autosport, my two principal sources, both habitually treat them as proper nouns. In any case, I think using capitals for the tyre compounds is a good idea, as it reduces confusion (especially because commentators, pundits etc. usually describe the two compounds as "soft" and "hard", whatever Bridgestone's official designations are).--Midgrid(talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note why you are using the first part of qualifying to describe the spread (it is mentioned before, but once more can't hurt).
- Per MOS:IMAGES, people in images should generally face the text. There are a few you can swap in this article to achieve this (Glock, and Kovalainen, for example). In addition, the images need alt text.
- "sandwiched" seems a little informal.
- "Trulli finished seventh, ahead of a very disappointed Kubica, who was very disappointed with the uncompetitive performance of his car at the Grand Prix closest to his home country of Poland." Bit of repetition.
- "The podium finishers were overshadowed by the ill fortune of both the weekend's pace-setters, Hamilton and Massa." Who facilitated the overshadowing? The media?
- "Regarding Hamilton's puncture, Hirohide Hamashima of Bridgestone said that it was impossible to identify its cause definitively due to the damage the tyre had sustained, but that the failure was caused by debris." May need rewording to highlight that the ambiguity was caused by not knowing what type of debris caused the puncture, not whether it was debris or not.
Apart from those largely minor points, it should be said that this is a very well written article. I would seriously consider taking it to FAC when this PR is done, as GA would seem to be a waste of time with this one. Apterygial 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) - Many thanks for the review! I'll address the remaining points later on.--Midgrid(talk) 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- All done! Thanks again for the review!--Midgrid(talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 21:23 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe this is looking to be around Good Article standard. However, there are no similar high-quality articles to compare it to (apart from something like 2007 UEFA Champions League Final). As this is somewhat of a first for athletics articles, I want to make sure that it is done correctly. Specifically: - Is the tone and focus understandable and interesting for the non-specialist reader?
- Are there any obvious omissions in terms of content?
- Is the order and presentation of the content cohesive and logical in progression?
Also, any feedback on the infobox would be helpful as I've just created it in the middle of expanding this article. (The number of pictures shown is largely due to the generosity of Erik van Leeuwen!) Thanks, Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 19 December 2009, 18:29 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it must be close to at least GA standard, because it is very similar to the Margate F.C. and Leek Town F.C. featured articles. So just looking for general comments and improvements that could be made to nominate the article for GA. Thanks, -- BigDom 14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 18 December 2009, 14:49 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this article to FAC early next year. Did you know that Ricky Ponting is Australia's leading international cricket run-scorer? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 17 December 2009, 07:15 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on bringing it to featured quality and, with a month of winter break upcoming, I'd like to finish the job. The article has been modeled off of 2004 World Series and, to a lesser extent, 1926 World Series. I know the Aftermath section is in need of work, that's one big area for improvement. Beyond that, there was serious debate at the FAC for 2004 World Series (so much it was restarted) over the use of the fair use logo. What type of image would you use there? Thanks, Staxringold talkcontribs 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Guess what?... You're gonna get a review from me. It will take some time, and I'll go piece by piece, but as always, we work well together. Lol. Doing... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comments from KV5
- Series results that are written out are parenthetical and should be separated from the rest of the sentence by commas. Examples from the lead include: "The two franchises had previously met in the 1950 World Series in which the Yankees swept the Phillies, four games to none" and "The Yankees defeated the Phillies in 2009, four games to two, to win the franchise's 27th World Series championship".
-
- I think it's unnecessary detail to have the Phillies' three previous opponents in the lead. The fact itself is notable, but the other teams aren't. I would move this to a footnote. Same with the Yankees.
-
- Done. Should I source this to the B-Ref pages for those WS in that note?
- Reference 4 does not verify the fact it's sourcing.
-
- Yeah, deleted. That was a left-over source about the "Turnpike Series" thing that you rightfully removed. As with above, should I source this with B-Ref pages?
- "and the series winning Game 6" - series-winning
-
- "as a result of their 4–3 win" - since this refers to the American League, it should be singular, of its 4-3 win"
-
- "only the third
one ever" -
- "During the regular season, the Phillies led the National League East for most of the season" - I would say most of the year to avoid redundancy
-
- The Phillies did not have the best regular-season record in the National League. They were the #2 seed, but faced the Rockies due to the rule disallowing first-round intradivisional matchups.
-
- Yeah... I have no idea where that sentence snuck in. This is the annoying thing about these large, constantly updated articles when you come in midstream. There are bits like this and the POV Game 1 summary that are just silly. Fixed.
- "The Phillies won that series ... They won that series by a series score" - redundant, reword
-
- "Carl Pavano[17]," - move ref
-
- "Notable free agent acquisitions ... Another major acquisition" - redundant, re-word
-
- "CC Sabathia had a strong season winning 19 games," - comma after season
-
- "the Yankees all-time leader" - Yankees'
-
- You use ALDS and ALCS without explicit definition. Same above with NLCS.
-
- Done. Left abbreviations even if they aren't reused for the infobox.
-
- "The World Series crew had included at least one umpire who had never worked the World Series in 24 of the past 25 series, but following several mistakes by umpires in earlier rounds of the playoffs this crew did not" - there are some comma issues here, but adding commas in all the places they belong would turn this into a big run-on sentence, so I suggest the following: The World Series crew had included at least one umpire who had never worked the World Series in 24 of the past 25 series; however, following several mistakes by umpires in earlier rounds of the playoffs, this crew did not.
-
- "Citizen's Bank Park" - no apostrophe
-
- "1 p.m." - I think this needs to have a non-breaking space; it's broken on my monitor
- You have some times as above ("1 p.m.") and others like so ("7:00 p.m."). Consistent format.
-
- "Prior to the game First Lady Michelle Obama" - comma after game
-
- Done. Also for the Jay Z and Mary J Blige events.
- "home-run" - no hyphen, and link
-
-
- "seven Yankees' batters" - remove apostrophe, this isn't possessive
-
- Done, but that's not possessive? I guess being a member of a team isn't really being a possession, but they do own their contracts.
- "two homeruns" - home runs
-
- "The stellar pitching" - POV unless it's referenced
-
-
- "was relieved by David Robertson who walked Jayson Werth" - comma after Robertson
-
- "The star of the game was Phillies starter Cliff Lee who, after giving up an unearned run in the ninth, finished with a complete game only allowing just the one run on six hits and striking out ten batters, not walking any of the hitters he faced, and making some notable fielding plays." - several issues:
-
- "star of the game" is POV unless sourced
- "giving up", which is used a lot, is a bit jargony
- "
only allowing just the one run" - "notable fielding plays" needs a ref.
-
- Fixed. I can't find any real sourcing on the fielding. He made that one impressive grab where he nonchalantly lobbed the ball to first, but that's the only thing I can even find a mention of.
- In the "Game 2" section, I've encountered the first of a lot of severe overlinking. I noticed this before during the series but nothing was done about it since that time. I'm not going to go through player by player and find them all; I'll leave that task to you. Suffice it to say, however, that players shouldn't be linked more than once in the "Series" section, and that, after their first mention, using last names is probably enough, since I don't think there are any players between the teams who have the same surname.
-
- Shouldn't they be linked once per game, not just once in the Series section overall? That's how I'd been trying to format it on purpose. That way the individual games are readable. Doesn't seem like overlinking to me.
- "and a part of the two teams' long standing rivalry" - I don't think "rivalry" needs to be linked again.
-
- "With
Melky Cabrera at second base and Posada at first, Johnny Damon hit" -
- "first base umpire" - first-base is a compound adjective here, so it should be hyphenated
-
- "Ultimately Rivera threw 39 pitches" - comma after "Ultimately"
-
My review is complete through Game 2; I'll return for further issues later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC) - Is aftermath the best title for the heading? Aftermath makes me think of a tragic event, which may be true in the eyes of the Phillies fans. Suggest a better title, perhaps follow up? I am not sure, not a big deal either way. Dincher (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Remarks from Nosleep
-
- Added the alt text to those 2 images. The handedness I can try to add (certainly for pitchers throwing), but I dunno about approx age. Basically for everyone you'd say roughly 30 years old and be within 5 years, and getting any more precise would be a lie in trying to read those pics.
-
- the Philadelphia Phillies, champions of the National League (NL) and the defending world champions Suggest defending World Series champions as it's often a point of contention, major or minor, that the World Series really is the "world championship" of baseball, given that much of the world plays it and only two countries are eligible for representation in the World Series.
-
- Fair nuff. I would think the same kind of rules about color/colour for example would control here (from the viewpoint of the World Series and those involved it's a World Championship, even if the Japanese/Latin American leagues would disagree).
- Is it necessary to enumerate the teams' previous World Series opponents? Especially in the lead, which seems a bit bloated as is.
-
- That got trimmed down above. I think it's worth noting the hefty connection to each others respective divisions in recent past, and their immediately previous opponents just makes good sense IMO.
- They finished the season with a record of 93–69 (.574), six games above the second-place Florida Marlins. Presumably this is covered by an existing source, but my general rule of thumb is every statistic needs a conspicuous citation.
-
- Covered by the source right before, but I'll duplicate it.
- The Phillies won that series 3–1 and went on to play the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS This acronym is not used or spelled out previously.
-
- They won that series by a series score of 4–1 Score? Potentially confusing, as individual games obviously have scores, but does the series? I wouldn't say so.
-
- Is the whole of the third paragraph under heading 1.1 covered by citation 12?
-
- I hate that stupid sentence SO MUCH. It is such absolutely crufty, meaningless garbage. Deleting again.
- Also, added some sourcing for the rest of the other paragraph.
- position players Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira both had 30 or more home runs and 100 or more runs batted in (RBI). This sounds awkwardly inexact when dealing with only two people. Suggest more than 30 home runs (or over 30) and more than 100 runs batted in.
-
- The problem is ARod had exactly 30 home runs and 100 RBI. And that's notable because those are 2 pretty common cut-offs for a good season (20-25-30 HR, 100 runs, 100 RBI, etc are common benchmarks).
-
- Then how about the exact totals for both? position players Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira had strong seasons offensively, Rodriguez with 30 home runs and 100 runs batted in (RBI) and Teixiera with 72 and 250. (since I don't know Teixiera's numbers offhand)
- 39 and 122 (quite good, though RBIs annoy me), and done.
- The Yankees defeated the Minnesota Twins in three games in the 2009 ALDS and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in six games in the 2009 ALCS Acronyms not used above
-
- The third paragraph in heading 1.2 lacks any citations.
-
- The Phillies won the previous season's World Series against the Tampa Bay Rays, the franchise's second championship. The Yankees lost their last World Series appearance to the Florida Marlins in 2003 and had not won since 2000 against the New York Mets. The teams had previously met in the 1950 World Series, which the Yankees swept in four games. Uncited
- Joe West, Dana DeMuth, Gerry Davis, Brian Gorman, Jeff Nelson, and Mike Everitt served as umpires for the series. Umpire links to a glorified disambiguation page.
- Two different orthographies for "home run" in section 2.1 (two-out solo home-run by Chase Utley and he first left-handed hitter to hit two homeruns) which I'm pretty sure are both wrong.
- The stellar pitching by Lee and Yankees starter CC Sabathia POV?
- The star of the game was Phillies starter Cliff Lee Lee has already been referred to earlier in the paragraph, plus "star" seems a bit POV.
- Why Pedro Martínez but Alex Rodriguez (the diacritic)?
- With Melky Cabrera at second base and Posada at first Johnny Damon hit a low line drive Cabrera is referred to in the previous sentence, no need to give his full name again.
- The Phillies scored first with Jayson Werth's lead-off solo homer followed by a bases-loaded walk and a sacrifice fly to make it 3–0 in the bottom of the second inning. Suggest solo home run, which was followed by for additional clarity.
- He walked Johnny Damon who then stole second base. Needs a comma
- Alex Rodriguez was hit by a pitch and Damon scored on a single by Jorge Posada. Rodriguez is already referred to in this section. Also suggest a transitional word, like was then hit by a pitch, which then needs a comma following it.
Will finish later. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 14 December 2009, 17:33 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed GA twice and I am getting nowhere, the cycle counties. To get this to GA i deiced that peer review would be the best. Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home - As pointed out in the GA review, there are many book sources that are usable. In a very short time I found several good sources which spoke about all kinds of things in the league from arena conditions, to african american players in the league, to behind the scene conflicts, to how the league used players from the NBL to help bolster it and keep it alive. All of that is very useful information in improving the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- To get to GA, the article must be expanded to include most if not all info provided by the available sources.—Chris!c/t 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I agree that it seems somewhat incomplete. Here are some suggestions for improvement. - Dab finder finds one disambiguation link
- The lead is only one paragraph and should be expanded per WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- 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 the NHL / NFL / MLB stuff seems to only be in the lead.
- My general impression reading this is that it is not detailed enough - since almost all of the refs are online, I would look at n=more books and see what else can be found. For example, how did the ice rinks deal with basketball games (were there scheduling problems)? Or where did they get the teams / players from? Were most from other basketball leagues or from colleges or what? Surely more than one paragraph can be written on the second and third seasons?
- Article needs a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but noticed However, these arenas where often empty. (should be were, not where), and The best three teams from each division advance to the playoffs. (surely this should be in past tense)
- Avoid the use of words like "currently" as these can become out of date. So Currently known as the Detroit Pistons could be Known as the Detroit Pistons since 1957
- Is the league logo available for fair use as an image? How about images of some of the players?
- The second GAN has some useful comments on sources / books.
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 13 December 2009, 15:30 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
Just needs a few fresh eyes for copyediting before FA submission. Thanks, ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - I only made a quick perusal of certain sections in the middle of the article but the impression I was left with was that the article assumes a certain degree of familiarity with the subject from the reader. Someone completely unfamiliar with the series might be left floundering out at sea. The character section for example might benefit from a brief introductory paragraph just to enumerate who the characters in the series are before going into detail. Not sure if the article would benefit from a list of villains but the article does not seem to reflect the idea behind the comment "comparing Quest without Zin to 'James Bond without S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'". Dr. Zin is barely mentioned although I must admit that perhaps that might be appropriate for this incarnation of the series. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I read the comments from the earlier reviews and decided to focus on copyediting and proofing issues. I made quite a few small changes as I went, and I list many more below. This article certainly seems comprehensive and even a bit overwhelming in the Marketing and Critical reception sections. It might not hurt to remove some of the least important material from these sections. I found reviewer fatigue setting in as I neared the end. Lead - "The creators staged the show around Dr. Quest's investigations... ". - Who is Dr. Quest? Is this another name for Jonny? This is explained in the main text, but it would be useful to add something like "Jonny's father" here.
Development and history - "Hanna-Barbera (H-B) created The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest in the early 1990s as part of Turner Entertainment's plan to revive old brands.[13][3]" - Standard practice in Wikipedia articles is to arrange the footnotes in ascending order; i.e., [3][13] rather than [13][3]. Ditto for other sequences like this throughout the article.
- "as part of Turner Entertainment's plan to revive old brands" - Would it be good to say how old? When and how did Jonny Quest begin in the first place? Was Jonny originally an H-B creation, or did he have an earlier existence in a book or comic book? The article later mentions a "classic" version and the 1960s. It would be good to include that here.
- "Combined with a substantial marketing campaign, the project would be their largest corporate initiative undertaken since Turner acquired Hanna-Barbera." - It would be good to make clear here whether "their" refers to Turner or to H-B. In either case, shouldn't "their" be "it" since a corporation is an "it"?
- "Turner executives regarded Real Adventures as the linchpin of the Quest revival, considering the planned live-action movie a reinforcement of the animated series." - The modifying clause is disconnected from the thing it modifies. Suggestion: "Turner executives, who considered the planned live-action movie a reinforcement of the animated series, regarded Real Adventures as the linchpin of the Quest revival."
- "Takashi designed Jonny to be edgy and handsome—"rather than the cute kid he used to be", and rendered characters in the style of Japanese animation to differentiate from prevailing American superhero cartoons." - Delete the em dash? It doesn't seem to have a purpose in this sentence.
- "A Turner executive claimed that Quest was developed for both boys and girls—"Traditionally, action adventure animation may be stronger with boys, but in this case, storylines are being developed to draw girls in...we're really hoping for a wide berth of viewership." - I think the em dash is being misused here too. I'd be inclined to use ""A Turner executive who claimed that Quest was developed for both boys and girls said, "Traditionally... ". Also, the ellipsis looks strange. If "girls in" is the end of a sentence in the quote, and "we're" starts a new sentence but something else appears between these two sentences, then the sequence would look like this: "girls in... We're really hoping... ". This makes the quote scan normally instead of reading as a run-on sentence.
- "Hanna-Barbera axed Lawrence and Takashi in 1996... " - I'd suggest "fired" rather than the slangy "axed".
- "Turner insisted on a prompt completion, but the work was exhaustive because some sequences needed heavy revisions." - "Exhausting" rather than "exhaustive"? Or perhaps "slow" or "time-consuming"? Or "but the work proceeded slowly because"?
Animation and Music - "Producers contracted seven studios to animate the first season... " - I'm not sure "contracted" is a real word in the sense intended here. Would "hired" be better or "signed contracts with"?
- "Producers applied the process in excess of twenty hours per episode... " - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that it took at least 20 hours per episode to digitally ink and paint each episode?
- The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotes and suggests that blockquotes be used for quotations of four lines or more. I'd suggest changing the long quote in this section to a blockquote and rendering the short quote in ordinary quotation marks as part of the main text. WP:MOSQUOTE has details. Ditto for similar quotations later in the article.
- "We can re-cut the show—effectively ADR the show... ". - The Manual of Style advises against linking anything inside a direct quote. A solution here would be to render this part of the quotation as "effectively ADR [replace the dialogue through an automated process] the show... ". The brackets indicate that the explanation is not part of the original quote. This is a bit clumsy, so you might think of a better solution.
- "Producers originally intended to air the teaser... " - Briefly explain "teaser"? Does it mean "preview" or "overview"?
- "Bodie Chandler directed music for Quest, while several composers wrote incidental music and cues—including Gary Lionelli, Thomas Chase, Stephen Rucker, Lawrence H. Brown, Guy Moon, Kevin Kiner, Christophe Beck, and Mark Koval." - Suggestion: "Bodie Chandler directed music for Quest, while several composers—including Gary Lionelli, Thomas Chase, Stephen Rucker, Lawrence H. Brown, Guy Moon, Kevin Kiner, Christophe Beck, and Mark Koval—wrote incidental music and cues."
- "Stephen Rucker attributed the invention of MIDI to greater ease in scoring Real Adventures." - Something illogical here. Suggestion: "Stephen Rucker attributed the greater ease of scoring Real Adventures to the invention of MIDI." You might also consider spelling out Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI).
"QuestWorld" - "Amateur employees struggled with lighting and synchronizing jerky motion capture from the House of Moves in Venice Beach, of which Quest was the first capture production order." - The "of which" clause seems to modify "Venice Beach", which makes no sense. I'm unsure of the intended meaning.
International promotion and network run - "Slated to begin production in mid-1995, filming was delayed until 1996 and ultimately never began." - Since the filming wasn't slated to begin production, this sentence needs to be re-cast.
- "Called "dive-in theaters" and staged in major US cities, the events... " - The events weren't called "dive-in theaters". Please re-cast.
- "To build viral support... ". - "Broad" rather than "viral"?
Creative direction - dojo and gym for Race - Wikilink dojo?
Marketing - "the posters were awarded in Converting in 1997" - I'm not sure what this mean. Do you mean "published"?
- "expected to make $60 million of profit a year" - I fixed quite a few of these, but here's another, and I might have missed some. Constructions like $60 million require an nbsp code between "$60" and "million" to hold the parts together on line-break. WP:NBSP has details.
- "Editor Phil Amara assured fans that the comics would tribute the classic Jonny Quest as well." - "Pay tribute to" rather than "tribute"?
Other promotions - "50,000 children with a median age of ten" - If you start a sentence with a number, it needs to be in words rather than digits.
- "and hosted barbecues, reggae concerts" - Wikilink reggae?
Critical reception - "Billboard magazine conversely welcomed the change to the all-male cast." - "From" rather than "to"?
References - The date formatting needs to be made consistent, either all yyyy-mm-dd or all m-d-y.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 22:34 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it must be fairly close to Good Article standard, so just looking for any general comments and improvements that people might have to get it to GA. Thanks, -- BigDom 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - One quick drive-by comment - "As of 2009, Carlisle lives in Ripponden with his wife, Gemma, and his two children" Stating "his children" as opposed to "their children" could be read as implying that they are his children but not his wife's (i.e. they are from another relationship). Can you confirm either way.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, changed to make it clearer. -- BigDom 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Pretty well done. Most of my points involve relatively small fixes. The main thing to watch is to be sure that the article makes good sense to readers who don't have a large knowledge of English football. Thus, be careful about using team nicknames, or too much association of clubs with their grounds. It is also necessary to have some clarity on the structure of English league football and the various name changes for the league divisions. - alt text missing from second image
- Lead:
-
- General point: perhaps the lead is overdetailed. It needs to summarise Carlisle's career, but it isn't necessary, for example, to quote each transfer fee, the number of appearances for each club, etc. This information belongs in the body of the article rather than in the lead.
- Taken out some details
- "He attained 10 A-grades at GCSE..." As the last person mentioned was the father, "He" needs to specified as "Carlisle"
- Changed
- New paragraphs should always specify the subject rather than beginnin "He...", as do the second and third paragraphs. To achieve some variety of expression you could rephrase the opening of the third paragraph: "In August 2005 Carlisle signed for Football League Championship side Watford, for a sum of £100,000."
- Done
- On the question of fees, does "before moving to Queens Park Rangers for a fee of £250,000" mean that Carlisle received £250,000 as his fee for moving? Similar query with regard to other fees mentioned in the text.
- No, it means the new club paid his old club £250,000. I didn't really see the problem, do you have any ideas about how to make it clearer in the article?
- Football club nicknames ("Seasiders", "Hornets") are known only to the football fraternity and give a tone of sports journalism to what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article. I suggest that you don't use these nicknames or, if you do, initially identify the clubs which they are associated, and theresfter always use the more formal name ("Blackpool", "Watford" etc).
- All chnaged to formal names
- "While at Loftus Road" requires a link to make sense and it is unnecessary detail in the lead. Why not begin the sentence: "Here, Carlisle won three caps..."
- Changed it
- The number of games he missed for "the club" - would that be England under-21 or QPR?
- Changed to Queens Park Rangers
- "thanks to an alcohol problem" is inappropriate. "because of an alcohol-related problem" would be OK
- Changed
- Done
- Give dates for his first Watford season, presumably 2005-06
- Done
-
- "From an early age, he was encouraged to follow Christianity by his parents" This sentence is not followed up anywhere else. Assuming he adopted these beliefs, are they in any way relevant to his football career?
- Added a bit more
- "He is an ambassador for the Kick It Out scheme, which campaigns for inclusion and equality in football,[1] and he is currently on the Management Committee of the Professional Footballers' Association." These are interesting facts which indicate some personal breadth of character yet are only mentioned this one brief time, with no further details. There should be at least some indication of what his work for the PFA involves (and, indeed, an explanation of what the PFA is). I don't think that "Personal Life" is the appropriate section for this information.
- Split an "Outside football" section into "Personal life" and "Other work"
- Youth career and Blackpool
-
- Explain what "Bloomfield Road" is, likewise "red card". Links should not generally be used as a substitute for basic prose identifications.
- I think I've done this
- (From this point I am saving time by doing minor fixes myself)
-
- "The following season was riddled with personal problems for Carlisle, who had developed an alcohol problem, but continued to play for a number of months." Needs redrafting to avoid repetition (problems/problem) and better flow: "In the following season Carlisle developed personal problems, including an alcohol addiction, although he continued to play for a number of months."
- Changed
- A footnote or similsr should explain the renaming of divisions in te Football League, or readers won't know what to make of Football League Championship.
- Added a couple of footnotes
-
- "...but was sent off..." Explain what this means – previously you referred to the red card.
- Changed
- Elland Road: I emphasise that it is not a good idea to refer to football clubs by their grounds, as this information is only known to those knowledgeable about British football.
- Changed it
-
- "...did not book Carlisle during the match..." "book" needs explaining
- Explained
- "but despite a man-of-the-match performance..." Needs clarifying if this is a formal award, and whether it refers to Carlisle,
-
- Clarified it
-
- Why three citations to support his signing for Burnley?
- Removed one
- Multi-clause sentence: "He stayed out of the team for the whole of February 2009, making his return to action on 3 March 2009, starting in the centre of defence in the 1–0 win over his old team, Blackpool, at Bloomfield Road." Needs splitting
- Edited
- International career: Suggestion - there isn't really a "career" here. "International appearances" would be more apt.
-
- Fair point, changed
I have done various minor copyedits which you can check out from the article history. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment (and anyway I'm away from 20th to 27th) but if you want to raise anything with me, raise it on my talk page. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks a lot for the comments, very helpful. -- BigDom 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 21:14 UTC)
-
The latest in my (unofficial) quest to bring every article related to Calgary hockey to FA status. As always, prose quality is something I am looking for feedback on, as well as an outside opinion on whether I've given all aspects of Fleury's life and career fair treatment. It's a complicated article, dealing with not only a standout hockey career, but also sexual abuse, substance abuse, attempted suicide and redemption. As such, thoughts on how well I've balanced the human story and the hockey story would be appreciated. Thanks, Resolute 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This interesting article is about ready for FAC. The mix of sports and autobiography seems about right; the article appears to be comprehensive, stable, neutral, and verifiable, and I think the images are sufficient. I made a fair number of small proofing changes, and I have other suggestions, mostly about prose and style. Lead - "a brawl that saw Canada and the Soviet Union disqualified from the 1987 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships" - Since brawls don't literally see, perhaps "a brawl that led to the disqualification of Canada and the Soviet Union..."?
- "He battled drug and alcohol addictions throughout his career, which ultimately forced him out of the NHL in 2003." - To get the modifier and thing modified together in this sentence, perhaps "Throughout his career he battled drug and alcohol addictions that ultimately forced..."?
Early life - "Fleury was born on June 29, 1968, in Oxbow, Saskatchewan, Canada, the first of Wally and Donna Fleury's three sons." - I think it's generally better to juxtapose the modifier and the thing modified. I'd incline toward "Fleury, the first of Wally and Donna Fleury's three sons, was born on June 29, 1968, in Oxbow, Saskatchewan, Canada." Otherwise it reads as though Canada was the first of three sons.
- "He attended mass from age six to 12, serving as an altar boy until the church's priest died of a heart attack, depriving Fleury of one of his earliest positive influences." - Numbers smaller than 10 are usually written as words; however, WP:MOS#Numbers says in part, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Since you've used "12" for the older age, I'd suggest using "6" rather than "six". It would be good to go through the whole article looking for similar situations.
- "who was working as a scout for the Winnipeg Warriors of the Western Hockey League" - Give the abbreviation (WHL) here too? I believe it's the first use.
Junior - "In 1984–85 he moved onto the Moose Jaw Warriors" - Maybe just "to" rather than "onto"? Otherwise it sounds as if he climbed on top of the Warriors.
- "Despite scoring 129 points for the Warriors in 1986–87,[11] Fleury's small stature led many teams to doubt... ". - Since his small stature did not score 129 points, perhaps "Although he scored 129 points for the Warriors in 1986–87, his small stature led many teams... "?
Calgary Flames - "He missed much of the pre-season with a stomach ailment, joined the team for the season opener." - Missing word? Perhaps "and joined the team"?
- "The Flames, who had been struggling financially and unable to sign Fleury to a new contract, chose to trade Fleury less than two weeks... " - Missing word? Perhaps "who had been struggling financially and were unable to sign"?
Autobiography - "It is the second book about Fleury's life, following Fury, released in 1997, and which hid a lot of the problems he was facing at the time." - Delete "and"?
General - Each book ref needs a place of publication.
Images - Image:Theoren Fleury Vipers.JPG is licensed as "own work", but 39 kilobytes is awfully small for a self-made photograph. You might consider adding camera details or other information to the licensing page to explain the small size.
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) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 16:56 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take the poor pony to FAC at some point, but would like to make sure it's not full of horseperson's jargon or glaring ommissions that make it difficult to comprehend for the non-specialist. I'd also like feedback on any and all prose issues. Thanks! Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This reads well and is interesting to this reader, who knows little about horses but is learning. To be considered comprehensive, the article might need a few more details about Pollard and Parker as well as quarter horses in general. The link to American Quarter Horse is helpful, but it might also be nice, for example, to learn without clicking that these horses excel at sprinting. I wondered if that quality (rapid acceleration and short bursts of high speed) makes them good at roping or whether Lightning Bar was simply unusually versatile. If you take this to FAC, the shortness of the article and its small number of references is sure to raise questions, and adding more sourced background for the general reader might be one way to address this. Lead - Should Lightning Bar's life span appear in parentheses in the first sentence?
-
-
- I don't think it's a big issue, but it might be nice to include. I was thinking of human biographical articles, and I've seen the life-span pattern in horse bios like Twenty Grand (not an FA). Just a thought. Finetooth (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Bred and owned his entire life by Art Pollard, Lightning Bar's sire, or father, was a Thoroughbred, and his dam, or mother was originally from Louisiana." - The "Louisiana" part of this strikes me as a little odd because it's not parallel to "Thoroughbred". Would it make more sense to say "a daughter of a Thoroughbred stallion, Doc Horn"?
- Clarified in the body and the lead that Louisiana was known for producing short distance racehorses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "he only sired eight crops of foals" - Wikilink foal?
- "American Quarter Horse Association's" - Add the abbreviation here on first use; i.e., "American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA)'s"?
Early life - "but injuries and bouts of illnesses kept him from racing past his two-year-old year" - Could this be altered to "past the age of two" or would this change the meaning? My thought is to avoid the repetition of "year".
- Nope, it doesn't change the meaning and I've changed it.
- Would it be helpful to include a bit more information about Art Pollard and Dink Parker. Most readers will have no idea of who they were. I'm guessing that both owned ranches in Arizona and that both had significant experience with horse racing, breeding, and related matters.
- It would if there was much available on them. They aren't in the HoF, so I don't really have much on them beyond that they owned ranches and raised horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "He was a sorrel colored horse." - I think this needs a hyphen; i.e., "sorrel-colored", or you might recast it as "His color was sorrel."
Racing and show career - "His total earnings on the track were $1,491 ($11,880 as of 2009).[4][2]" - The footnote order is usually ascending; i.e., [2][4]. Ditto for other instances in the article.
- "His highest speed index, or compartive rating of his speed, was AAA." - Was AAA the top rating?
- "He did equal one track record for two-year-olds at Pomona Racetrack... ". - Perhaps include the location of the track; i.e., Pomona, California?
- Did one better, mentioned that its during the county fair! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Breeding career - "or the fee charged to breed a mare to him, was $250 ($1,982 as of 2009) but only nine mares were bred to him" - To avoid repetition, could other words be substituted for either "to breed a mare to him" or "nine mares were bred to him"?
- I could say "but only nine mares were in his book." but that'd be jargony. Any suggestions that wouldn't be horse jargon? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- That's a toughie. The best I can come up with is "only involved nine mares". Finetooth (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)'
- I can't think of one either, and Roget was no help either. I think we're just going to have to have the repetition. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "108 of his foals started races" - If you start a sentence with a number, it should be written out as words.
- Changed to "Of his foals, 108 started races.." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "His offspring earned $1,163.32" - Rounding to the nearest whole dollar would be OK and would make this easier to read.
- I'm loathe to, every penny counts in cutting, and it's expected to see the whole amount, out to cents. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Death and legacy - "Two stakes races were run in his memory" - I wasn't sure whether "his" meant Lightning Bar or Doc Bar.
- Wikilink Los Alamitos Race Course and add "in California"?
- Wikilink Ruidoso Downs?
Note - Should the title be plural, "Notes", since there are two notes?
Citations and References - Citation 4 uses yyyy-mm-dd format for its date, but the first reference uses m-d-y. Pouncers will pounce at FAC and require one or the other but not both.
- Template issue and it's known at FAC, so it won't get me problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "North Pomfret, VT" - I think the state names should be spelled out for foreign readers.
- Hm. I usually use the official abbreviations, hasn't been an issue at FAC yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The image needs alt text.
- "Distemper" links to a disambiguation page.
-
-
- I've added a bit about roping needing sprinting speed in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 00:24 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see improvements in the articles prose, with an intention of taking to FAC. Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Italicise newspaper titles in your references.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, did the only one. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that the language needs work, and that there are some other issues that would be problematic at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, but I would find someone to copyedit this to get things in order before FAC. I also have to say that I know very little about cricket, despite a few attempts by others to explain it to me. - The automated tips tool finds some contractions and {{fact}} tags that need to be fixed.
- The alt text tool also finds several images that lack alt text - see WP:ALT
- The link tool finds that four links have gone dead and need to be fixed
- I am not sure of the Cricket article conventions, but I found it odd that in the Infobox it was Australia on the left and Bangladesh on the right, but in all the tables except one (3rd ODI) it was the reverse. If there is some good reason for doing this, fine, but if not I would make them all consistent.
- Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example All-rounder is not linked in the lead, but such a link would help for those who do not know or understand the term. See WP:PCR
- Watch imprecise language The series marked the first time a Test match had been played outside an Australian state capital city;... makes it sound as if every Test match in world history had been played in an Australian state capital city until now.
- This sentence is out of place in the lead Former Australian batsman David Hookes, indicated that Australia could win either Test within a day and Bangladesh did not deserve Test status. First off the article makes it clear that he said this before the test matches began, but in the lead it is the last sentence, making it seem as if he said it afterwards. I also think that the Pakistani reaction to his statement, as well as that of other Australians, should be given. Comprehensiveness is an FAC criterion.
- I think it might help to add a few sentences on Test matches to the Background section to provide context.
- Is "spiner" correct in Australia defeated India in the final, despite losing leg-spiner Shane Warne. Should it be "spinner"?
- I realize if you undertand cricket, this probably makes perfect sense, but again adding wikilinks and trying to avoid jargon where possible would help a lot. On a slow and low drop-in pitch airlifted from Melbourne a month before the match, Australia won the toss and elected to field.[5] Bangladesh collapsed and were bowled out for 97 within three hours,... For example cricket pitch could linked
- Direct quotes need a ref at the end of the sentence per WP:MOSQUOTE, so this needs a ref: According to Wisden, " ... Rain had had left question marks about the quality of the pitch, which looked green and enticing for the Australian fast bowlers."
- Is there any sort of analysis or reaction to the matches? What did the press in both nations say about the matches / sweep?
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Excellent, thanks Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 06:07 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to send this article to FAC sometime in the future. The last time I sent this article there, it needed some copyediting. Now, with the ongoing Flag of Singapore FAC, the standards of FAC have changed. This includes the alt text, which is something I am working on. The image sourcing is being taken care of and I think all of the dates have been delinked. If you have anything else, just let me know. Thanks, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by an odd name—just curious. - No dabs or dead external links (after some small edits)—good.
- The alt text for File:Flag of JSDF.svg, however, is confusing, if not wrong. It says "A red sun with eight rays on a white background. On each side of the flag is an inverted golden triangle." Are you using "side" in the polygonal sense? Either way, the eight golden triangles I see on the flag don't seem inverted to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
- Ref dates are consistent ISO style, and most (if not all) text dates are Month Day, Year—good.
If featured, it would be only the third current FA on an Asian flag—fourth if counting Singapore. --an odd name 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - And that will be two that are crafted from my hands. I will fix the alt text now for that image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I believe an archiving mixup has occurred. I reviewed this article on December 5, 2009, but the review has been archived as WP:Peer_review/Flag_of_Japan/archive1. Possibly I posted my comments to the wrong place; I'm not sure. The bottom line is that perhaps you did not see this review. It should probably become part of Archive 3. Would you like me to move it here via copy and paste? Finetooth (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Yes, but keep in mind that a lot of the things you have suggested have been just completed now or I fixed at the suggestion of other users. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- OK. I'm moving it now. I left it in Archive 1 as well because I'm reluctant to remove anything from an archive. This is a messy solution, but at least the review will not be lost. I don't always watch my peer reviews closely after I've finished them, and I often don't know if any particular bit of advice I've given has been taken or not. I don't keep score, in other words. I just hope my reviews are useful. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Any little bit is useful. I managed to make all the changes last night, along with adding a few more citations. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-written. It seems comprehensive, stable, neutral, verifiable, and it's well-illustrated. I made a few minor proofing changes, and I have suggestions related mainly to prose, Manual of Style, and technical issues. - The alt viewer here finds several images that need alt text. It is meant to help readers who can't see the images, including the flags. WP:ALT has details.
- The link checker here finds six dead urls in the citations.
- Image:服喪の町並み.jpg has a problem on its licensing page. The clickable source link goes to the image itself rather than to a web site with information a fact-checker will need in order to verify the license.
Lead - Unlink "flag" and "Sun" since they are well-known to most English speakers?
Before 1945 - "Nichiren gave a sun banner to the shogun to carry into battle... " - Wikilink shogun on first use?
- "The earliest recorded flags in Japan date from the unification period." - It might be helpful to say what years the unification period refers to.
Postwar period - "The Hinomaru was the de facto albeit not de jure flag throughout World War II and the occupation period." - It might be helpful to link or briefly explain in parentheses the two Latin phrases.
- "Despite what has been claimed, however, this was never used as a national flag for Japan during this time period." - Needs a source. Who made this claim, and who denied it?
- Overlinking: World War II needs to be linked no more than twice (once in the lead and once on first use in this section).
- "At a Democratic Party of Japan rally on August 8... " - Abbreviate here as well as spell out; i.e,, "At a Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rally on August 8". The abbreviation by itself is OK on subsequent use.
- "a photograph was taken of a banner that was hanging down from a ceiling" - Tighten by deleting "down"?
- "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party and party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, saying this act by the DPJ was not forgivable." - Suggestion: "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, who said that this act by the DPJ was not forgivable."
Design - "the total size of the hoist length" - Explain or link "hoist length"?
- "The disc is decreed to be in the center, but is usually placed one-hundredth (1/100) of the flag width towards the hoist." - Why this very precise number? Is it significant in some way?
- "The overall ratio of the flag was changed to two units length by three units width (2:3)." - Earlier you use height and width but here length and width. It would be easier to compare them if you used the same words (probably height and width). From what you've said, the ratio changed from 7:10 to 2:3, if I'm understanding this correctly.
Present-day perception - "In China and South Korea, both occupied by Japan during Empire of Japan, Japanese flags were burnt during protests against Japan's foreign policies or if a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo." - Verb-tense disagreement. Shouldn't it be "visited" rather than "visits"? Also, the sentence implies that the Chinese or Koreans burn the Japanese flag when a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine, but in those cases aren't the flag-burners Japanese?
Use and customs - "The flag is used as a good luck charm and also as a prayer to wish the soldier back safely from battle. One term for this kind... " - Should the be in parentheses" with a space afterwards? And again "the Kyushu Railway Company has displayed Japan's flag on 330 manned stations.[38] " here?
- Image:Tokyu Bus 7707.jpg overlaps two sections. The Manual of Style recommends keeping images entirely inside of a single section.
Protocol - "When flying the Japanese flag with that of another country, the Japanese flag takes the position of honor and the flag of the guest country flies to its right at the same height." - Misplaced modifier. The Japanese flag doesn't fly the Japanese flag. Perhaps "When people fly the Japanese flag... "?
- "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is preferred to burn the flag in private." - Suggestion: "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is customarily burned in private."
- "It said that the sphere finial of the pole... " Wikilink or explain "sphere finial".
- "the black cloth that extends to the width of the fly of the flag... " - Wikilink or explain "the fly of the flag"?
Military - "This is the only branch of service whose emblem does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard." - A branch of service is a "which" rather than a "who". Suggestion: "This is the only branch of service with an emblem that does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard."
- "However, the branch does have an ensign to fly on bases and during parades." - Wikilink or explain "ensign"?
- "The ensign was created in 1972, which was the third used by the JASDF since their creation." - Since "its" creation?
Imperial - "The standard of the Japanese emperor" - Wikilink or explain "standard" in the caption?
- Was there any particular reason for the choice of a chrysanthemum?
References - Citation 64 should link to the source page rather than to a .jpg image by itself.
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) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 20:03 UTC)
[edit] Philosophy and religion [edit] Social sciences and society - Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a significant amount of work on this article since the last Peer Review (including reorganizing the article and removing some extraneous material). Are there any more steps that need to be taken before this article becomes FA quality? Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 27 December 2009, 14:42 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what I still need to do to improve it to GA. I started working on this about a week and a half ago (from when I requested this review) because I saw that several other presidential libraries are good articles and that it seemed like a future candidate for a good topic. This particular one was rather short, and I've expanded it and tried to find sources for every statement. Any suggestions on what to do next would be appreciated greatly, I'm trying to find information about the exhibits at present. Thanks, fetchcomms☛ 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC) - Comment - So far the article is looking great, well referenced, good structure, and it covers the topic fairly well. I've upgraded it to B-class for now. Thanks for your work on it Fetchcomms. -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The article, as Coffee gave it, is probably B class worthy. To get it to GA, I strongly suggest adding more content. Some of the sections are really slim. For example, the Anniversary and Environmental impact sections are only a few sentences in total. Adding more content would add needed depth for a GA. It's on the right track though. No problems I can see from a brief skimming over with the referencing and citations, which is good. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your input. I'll try and find more information to add! fetchcomms☛ 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also, are all of the external links necessary? It's nice to keep them to a minimum, and I can't tell if they all apply. Just a thought. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've listed only the official sites of each major part of the library, but I'll remove the store link because that's not really as important. fetchcomms☛ 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 24 December 2009, 04:40 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this at WP:FAC in the near future. Thanks, obentomusubi 01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC) - I think the article slowly morphs into a version of Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii. One could think about a up-merger. Hekerui (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 24 December 2009, 01:57 UTC)
-
This article is a companion piece or daughter article of Jack the Ripper. This article aims to focus on the actual murders that were considered as part of the original Victorian investigation into the series of murders that occurred in London in 1888–91. The other article is intended to focus on the development and characterisation of the "Jack the Ripper" persona. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 18 December 2009, 18:29 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to Featured List status and I wanted some input before I put it up for review there. Thanks, Remember (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 18 December 2009, 14:20 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because the underlying formula given for calculating the premium paid to the writer(seller) of a puts contract is severely flawed, undermining the entire article. See comment under Error heading on discussion page. Thanks, SamISmyth (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: I know little about puts and selling short, but I do know this article has some very serious issues before it even begins to follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement. - Biggest probelm is a complete lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Once they are added, per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- Without references there is no way to verify the information included in the article. I assume SamISmyth knows what s/he is talking about and that there is an error - if so, please fix the error in the article and add references to reliable sources to back up the material. I assume some sort of finance textbook would be a good ref.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should not be longer than 4 paragraphs - this now has 7 paragraphs in the Lead.
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
- The two graphs are confusing to me - they need to be better explained and need alt text per WP:ALT
- I am not sure the one external link meets WP:EL
- Article is very oddly formatted and large sections of it are not even in standard type (because of spaces before the text)
- Headers do not follow WP:HEAD (repeat the name of the article)
- Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined wiht others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 17 December 2009, 06:36 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I've considerably expanded the article and would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article up to GA standards. Thanks, Vaughanchris (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Comments by doncram First, it seems to me that the article should be moved to "School for Creative and Performing Arts (Cincinnati, Ohio)", to add the disambiguating and clarifying parenthetical phrase. Google search turns up similarly named schools in San Diego and Pittsburgh; the San Diego one uses "of" rather than "for". The current title "School for Creative and Performing Arts" seems like a non-unique name, and it seems possibly a tad Ohio-centric to assert, implicitly, that the use of the preposition "for" is to be understood by the world to mean the Cincinnati school. I notice also that School of Creative and Performing Arts is currently a redirect to this page; it could/should be made into a disambiguation page listing all instead. Or, is this SCPA that famous, nation- or world-wide, that it is really an obvious primary use for the phrase? Second, the article seems perhaps more detailed than necessary, and perhaps more promotional in tone. For example, that "The college-preparatory curriculum includes language arts, foreign language, mathematics, science, and social studies" seems unsurprising and not different than what most high U.S. high schools cover. That "Advanced Placement courses are available in many of these subjects. The school serves students will all academic needs, including those with special needs." seems to be relevant for a school brochure for prospective students and their parents, but not necessary for a wikipedia article. I notice one sentence needing clarification: "SCPA has historically been among the highest-scoring public schools, second only to Walnut Hills High School, the selective public college preparatory magnet.[5]" Among the highest-scoring out of what set, schools in Ohio, the nation, the world? Hope these quick comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Addendum: Actually maybe the school is that famous, and should stay at the current article title. I am just not familiar with it. Also, i did start a disambiguation page at School of Creative and Performing Arts.
- I wonder about another claim, that this is "the first and only school to combine a full range of arts studies with a rigorous academic program for elementary through high school". The only school in the world? I am sure that depends on how you define "a full range" and "rigorous". I'd be more comfortable if a broad claim like that was presented as a quotation from a source. If it's the school's own assertion, it can still be given, but it should be identified clearly as being their own claim. doncram (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Further about the disambiguation issues, i developed the disambiguation page further and just found School for the Creative and Performing Arts about a Kentucky school, whose wikipedia article started in 2006. I note a discussion section at the Cleveland school's talk page on the issue, previously, too. I'll open a requested move about renaming both of these two school wikipedia pages, to address that. About other matters in this article, perhaps someone else will give more comments. I may not comment further myself, esp. in the absence of some response about my comments so far though. doncram (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review and comments. I've made additional edits per your suggestions, and I agree they improve the article. Regarding the renaming question, I think it is a valid discussion and I have commented on the talk page. Vaughanchris (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 21:18 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i've used a lot of time on it, and want it to reach GA status. The most important for me is, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status? --TIAYN (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with GA in mind. - 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 the voter turnout in the previous election is only in the lead, for example. I think the voter turnout for this election is more important for inclusion in the lead.
- As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There are eight sections on the campaigns of different parties, but not all of the parties themselves are even mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- In the infobox, I would leave the "Leader since" fields blank rather than use "?". The field will not show up that way, which looks better than three question marks (plus once you find out the dates, they can be added)
- Avoid unnecessary repetition - for example in the Proportional representation system section, both paragraphs mention the 19 counties as electoral districts.
- I would also try to provide context to the reader more. For example, I would briefly discuss the political situation before the election - explain the ruling Red-Green coalition, etc. Another place where context could be added is the Red-Green coalition government would face the same problems as Kjell Magne Bondevik's second coalition government. I would add the years for this for those not familiar with Norwegian politics (yes, it is linked).
- The article needs a copyedit - for example the second sentence here The party managed to gather 949,060 votes, which was 35.4% of the popular vote. An increase of 2.7% and additional 3 new seats in parliament. is a fragment (it has no verb). This could be fixed as something like ...35.4% of the popular vote, which was an increase of 2.7% and resulted in an additional 3 new seats in parliament.
- I would put this later in the article - does a sentence about polls done two months after the election really belong in the campaign section (for Labour)? In an opinion poll done for November, two months after the election, all parties continued to decrease, leading many to speculate that the Red-Green Coalition is "slipping".[22]
- While it generally seems very well referenced, the ref for the table at the end needs to be clearer.
- Since there are sections for the top eight parties in terms of votes received, could there also be one section for all the other parties that stood in the election? Even if it was just "X, Y and Z were in a national election for the first time and each received less than 200 votes" I think it would be helpful.
- Otherwise I think this look pretty good and fairly close to ready for GAN.
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Thanks for your feedback. --TIAYN (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:05 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because Climate Change "opinions" are a Social Science topic: - WP:STRUCTURE and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as necessary to balance the article with other sources and sections.
- Wikipedia:OC#OPINION and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as applies to changing article title because its a single category of "opinion" and doesn't include other reliability sourced categories, from newspapers, religions or organizational members.
- WP:HATNOTES as being used to WP:OWN and enforce the single category of opinion.
Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - There appears to be a discussion on the article talk page indicating that Peer Review may not be the most appropriate place for this - a Request For Comment may be more appropriate. Also, I am having trouble understanding your request. Perhaps other involved editors could co-operate to either edit this peer review request for clarity, or suggest to ZuluPapa that it be removed from here and taken to RFC? Just a suggestion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I will be honest - I do not understand what Zulu Papa 5 is talking about here either. Looking at the article, it is not stable and seems to be prone to edit wars. I am not an expert on climate change, nor do I intend to get involved here beyond this peer review. Peer review is also not a place to resolve conflicts / disagreements among editors - RfC would be better there. Still, there are several issues in the article where it does not follow the WP:MOS and could, so here are some suggestions for improvement. - The External links tool finds at least 13 dead links and several others that are problematic. These need to be fixed if at all possible.
- References are incomplete in the information they provide. 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
- The article is a series of statements, followed by extended direct quotations. This is not how WIkipedia articles are supposed to be written. First off the large number of long direct quotes is almost certainly a violation of WP:NFCC, especially 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
- I think it also violates WP:MOSQUOTE on the use of block quotes in multiple places (supposed to be at least 4 lines long, or more than one paragraph).
- The article is extremely listy and does not flow well - there is really not much of an article there beyond the "quote farm" aspect of it.
- It seems to me that a history section might be useful, outlining how opinion has changed over time (this is done to a small extent in places, such as the Surveys of scientists and scientific literature section.
- This uses almost all primary sources - the statements of various organizations and surveys. Has anyone written articles on the topic looking at this from an outside point of view (secondary sources)?
- Could some images be added?
- I realize this is difficult to do, especially when there is an edit war ongoing or threatened, but I would try to write summaries, backed up by the refs cited and the judicious use of selected quotations, using secondary sources where possible. As an example of what I am talking about, please this from Science Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). It merely states that these organizations agree without quoting their statements. Get the idea?
Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 13 December 2009, 20:14 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems really good in places but is only a C class. Where can it be improve by NPOV and sources. Thanks, LizzieHarrison 12:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Comment: The article seems to have been abandoned by its main contributors, so it's not clear who would respond to the detailed points that would arise from a peer review. Maybe it needs a little TLC before a review? What about it, Lizzie? Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with Brian, but it is the oldest article on the backlog and so I will make some general comments / suggestions for improvement. - For me the biggest problem is focus - how is this article different from the article on United Kingdom – United States relations? What are the criteria for including material here vs the other more general article?
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article but the current lead is too short per WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- Needs a ref Their troops had been fighting side by side—sometimes spontaneously—in skirmishes overseas since 1859, and the two democracies shared a common bond of sacrifice in World War I.
- The whole thing is a bit muddled - the section CHurchillian creation starts with the fact that the special relation was recognized in the 19th century (so did he really create it?), then points out that he first used the term in 1945, but with reference to both the US and Canada. Then the next section says no it all started in 1941. This is just confusing. What is the special relationship? Is it it just the unusually close relatiuon between the two countries since the early stages of WWII (although I would say if that is the case, Lend-Lease might be seen as an earlier start than the joint chiefs.
- Now I see Lend-Lease is not even in the article!
- In the Personal relationships section, I would add a Churchill and Roosevelt header - otherwise the Table of COntents looks very odd.
- Dab finder finds several diambiuguation links that need to be fixed
- External link checker finds several dead or problem linksthat need to be looked at more closely and repaired if possible.
- This reads like a disjointed collection of incidents and facts and does not flow smoothly in many places. The Public opinion section is especially choppy - polls from 1942 to 2008, then a 1967 letter to The Times with no attempt made to tie these two sections together, then the Friendly Fire section on the first Gulf War but it also includes the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then a section on that.
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 13 December 2009, 12:21 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on my article, and a good assessment of the quality/importance for the Africa Project Thanks, PowerkeysPowerkeys (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Comments by Dana boomer
Hello Powerkeys. First, quality/importance are rated by individual projects, not by the peer review process. I would suggest posting on the WikiProject Africa discussion page (or on a designated assessment page if there is one) in order to get an assessment completed. Second, although I'm not really sure where you want to take the article (i.e. simple improvement, GA, FA, etc), I have quite a few suggestions. It looks like a nice start, but there is a lot of work that is needed for, for example, GA status. Here are my suggestions: - A lead is needed, see WP:Lead for more information. Basically, a lead summarizes the article, without introducing new information. It provides an overview of the article for readers, and the information presented is then re-presented (in different wording) and expanded upon in the body of the article.
- In-line references are needed to back up statistics and potentially controversial information. At the moment, this article seems to focus on the ongoing conflict, which means that the information is very likely to be challenged at some point and needs in line references. See Wikipedia:Inline citation for more information.
- This article deals completely with the relationship in the past less than 20 years, and mostly on work that has been done in the past 10 years or less. More expansion is needed to add information on the history of these two countries before 1993.
- The prose is vague in some places. For example, "For a few years, relations between". How many years? What year range? Also, "relations between Cameroon and Nigeria have been intensified". How have they been intensified? Intensified in a good way or a bad way?
- The The Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission Intentions and Accomplishments sections could be combined into one, as they are both very short sections. Also, the Accomplishments section could probably be better presented as prose, rather than a list, and prose is prefered by WP guidelines.
I hope these suggestions help. I am watchlisting this page, so please feel free to post here with any questions you may have about my above comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 12 December 2009, 21:08 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering sending it to FAC, and would like a critique first. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Comments by Road Wizard I haven't had time for a detailed review as yet, but after a quick glance over I spotted that the date of introduction was out by a month (now fixed) and the explanatory notes for the Act contradict the statement, "coming into force in May 2000 as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999" (not fixed). I will carry out a more detailed check in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC) comprehensive - The description in the lead of when it came into force is inaccurate as it came into force before May 2000; the sentence should be reworded.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The passage of the bill through Parliament is limited to two sentences; can more be said about it beyond the joke about a birthday present? Was there any significant debate, any calls to a vote or any significant amendments to the original bill? If there was nothing significant then perhaps a sentence like, "the bill passed through parliament with no/minimal opposition; no amendments were made to the bill and no vote was required."
- There were no significant amendments that I can find in third party sources; such a sentence would be effectively original research, because it would be me going "I have looked through primary sources and cannot see any massive debates, ergo there were no massive debates". Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it worth listing the amendments to the act since it came into force? If so a section at the end of the article would be the logical place for it.
- There are only two of them, so I'll probably include them within the text when I have the time. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
well-researched - "This ruling was quickly reversed, and decisions immediately after used the original rule." (unsourced)
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Territorial Extent: Mostly England and Wales, but Northern Ireland for some sections" appears to be incorrect. The text of the Act says all sections apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland except section 9 which applies only to Northern Ireland. The infobox description implies only parts of the act apply to Northern Ireland.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- As Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd is a redlink is it worth providing a citation with link to some of the case notes, like so? On a side note are we ever likely to have an article there? Italicised case name with cited case notes may be a worthwhile alternative to a redlink.
- Such a site isn't a WP:RS; I will, however, endeavour to put at least a stub in place within the next few days. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am a little wary of the references to the article text. They are useful as supporting references to a secondary source or where a direct quote is used. However, in some places they are the only reference used and seem to support interpretations of the text. The interpretations are quite likely correct but it would be much safer if a secondary source does the interpretation for us. One example I am thinking of is for section 7 (currently titled "Part VII") where the self-reference is the only source.
- Point - I'll try and find a RS covering Section 7. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
appropriate structure - Acts of Parliament are split into sections and when the text is long they are split into parts. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is a relatively short act, having 10 sections and no parts. The section headings referring to parts need to be corrected. Also, why the Roman numerals? This particular act doesn't seem to use the Roman numbering system.
- Those sources I've seen use Roman numerals, but I see your point about the "Part" point. Since the official text uses standard numerals, I've changed both. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article lacks an External links section. It would be useful if the links to the text of the acts are repeated at the bottom of the article per most other Act articles, especially as the reference section refers to the text.
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that covers the issues I have spotted so far. Road Wizard (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for your points :). Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is a fairly tough read for a non-lawyer (me). After reading the article, I concluded that I would certainly need a lawyer to interpret the law and explain it to me if I were involved in a contract in the U.K. It may be impossible to make anything as complex as this completely clear to the average reader, but I think it would be possible to nudge it a bit closer to that sort of clarity. Most of my comments have to do with minor prose and style issues, some of which are related to clarity. Lead - "the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996" - "presented" rather than "presenting"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996. The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords... " - In this sequence, "bill" is lower-cased in the first instance and upper-cased in the second. I think lower-case is correct. Ditto for other instances of "Bill" in the article except where it is part of the formal name of a particular bill. Ditto for "Act" in constructions such as this: "The Act allows third parties to enforce terms of contracts that benefit them... ". If you think "Act" should remain upper-case to make it distinct from other meanings of "act", then it should be "Act" throughout. In some places in the lower sections, it appears as "act".
- Point; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Background - "The first reversal of this law in Bourne v Mason [1669] 1 Vent.," - I think most readers will understand that Bourne v Mason [1669] refers to a court case, but most will not know what "1 Vent" refers to. Would it be helpful to explain legal jargon like this in parentheses or in a note? "Hetley 30" is similarly mysterious, as is "121 ER 762". Maybe a general note could explain these terms.
- would linking "1 Vent" and the like to Case citation help? Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes. That's a helpful link and covers a lot of territory. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Righto, done. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them. The dispute ended in 1861 with Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762, which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him." - The first sentence ends with "benefited them", but the second ends with "benefited him". Probably "him" is correct because "third party" is singular. However, "him" might be considered sexist if used exclusively to mean "her or him". Using "third parties could enforce contracts that benefited them" might be an acceptable solution. Using "him or her" once in a while might be OK too. This same question arises at various places in the article.
- I'd suggest using "him" - it's constantly used in textbooks and the like, simply to lend clarity (dealing with a third person in the singular). Gender is irrelevant, since "him" and "her", in a legal context, are taken to mean the same thing unless explicitly shown otherwise. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of the original doctrine - "A second argument used to undermine the doctrine of privity is to point... " - "was" rather than "is"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Formation of the Act - The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. I'd suggest trimming this head to "Formation" and "Provisions of the Act" to "Provisions".
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "along with a draft Bill" - Lower-case "bill" here and further down in the section.
- Should be fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 3 December 1998, and, when during its second reading, was jokingly offered to Lord Denning as a birthday present due to his fight to overturn the doctrine of privity." - Lower-case "bill" and delete "when"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Part I: Right of third party to enforce contractual term - "An exception to the second rule is if the contract makes it clear that the third party is not meant to be able to enforce the term." - A bit awkward. Would something like this be better: "An exception to the second rule involves contracts that include language barring third parties from applying the rule"?
- Much better, thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Another exception is contracts between solicitors and their clients to write wills... " - Since "exception" is singular and "contracts" is plural, perhaps "Another exception applies to contracts... ".
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been disapplied by the statement in the contract. The Onus would be on him to prove it,[23] something backed up by the High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602." - The first sentence is not a complete sentence. Also, I don't think "disapplied" is a real word; "Onus" should be lower-cased and linked, I think, to Burden of proof. Suggestion: "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been wrongly applied by a statement in the contract, the onus would be on him to prove it. The High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602" supported Treitel's reasoning."
- Ta, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts between them... " - "among" rather than "between"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The third party must be identified by name or as a member of a particular group, and does not need to exist when the contract was made." - How is it possible to name a person or group that does not exist?
- the person cannot exist. For example, if Finetooth reviews my article, I'll give his kids 500 quid each on their 12th birthday. This applies to the group "children of Finetooth". These children need not be in existence, but if you get with pod, such children then become eligible. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Although the topic is not discussed in the Law Commission's report or the bill itself, it is generally considered that the third party would have no rights against the promisee, regardless of his rights against the promisor." - Shouldn't "would have no rights" be "has no rights"?
- Fixed - will do the rest tomorrow morning. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Variation and rescission of contract - "This is only the default position - the Act allows parties to insert clauses... ". - Semicolon instead of spaced hyphen?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "In certain situations the courts can ignore the consent of the third party and allow the promisor and promisee to change the contract regardless if the third party is mentally incapable... ". - Delete "regardless"?
- Done; I also removed "in certain situations", since those situations are then listed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The contract may give specific methods that assent is to be communicated by, and if so any other method is not valid." - Suggestion: "The contract may specify the communication method(s), and if it does, any other method is not valid."
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The third party does not have to have suffered a detriment from his "reliance" - it is enough that he has simply... " - Wikipedia does not generally use a spaced hyphen. Spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes are sometimes OK, but here I think a semicolon would be better. Ditto for other similar uses of the spaced hyphen elsewhere in the article.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Defences available to the promisor - "The Law Commission directly rejected the suggestion that the promisor should have every defence in a dispute with a third party that he would have in a dispute with the promisee (regardless of if it can be applied to the disputed term)." - "Should have" and "would have" are parallel to "could be applied" rather than "can be applied". I'd also recommend changing this slightly to "regardless of whether or not it could be applied" rather than "if".
- Tweaked "regardless of whether or not it could be applied", but I didn't understand what you meant with the other point. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Sorry to be vague. I meant that the verb forms should be parallel throughout the sentence; e.g., "could" rather than "can". You've already changed to "could", so this point is taken care of. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The Act takes a different attitude for the defences available to the promisor in counterclaims... " - Wouldn't the promisor be the one filing a counterclaim? If so, is "defences" the right word? My point is that in a counterclaim suit, the promisor would be the plaintiff and the third party the defendant.
- Indeed, don't know what I was thinking there; changed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Part IV: Enforcement of contract by promisee - "Part IV preserved the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract." - Most subsections of "Provisions of the Act" begin with a present-tense verb, which seems fine. The one beginning part IV is past tense, and so is "overrode" in the first sentence of Part I. I'd suggest changing the two exceptions to present tense; i.e., "overrides" and "preserves".
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Supplementary provisions relating to third party - "and excludes the section of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that covers negligence from applying in actions against a third party." - Should this be "applying to actions" rather than "applying in actions"?
- Indeed; my apologies; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Scope and implementation of the Act - Shorten head to "Scope and implementation"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The Act made it clear that contracts made in the six-month "twilight period" could be enforced by the act if they made it clear in the contract that it was made under the terms of the Act." - There's a bit of number confusion here because of "contracts", "they", and then "contract", "it". Suggestion: "The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act."
- "It does not repeal or abolish these exceptions... ". - "Did" rather than "does"?
- Done, and done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
References - The last two citations (57 and 58) are incomplete. For example, 57 needs the date of last access, title, and author (Jeff Brown), and the publication date should be separated from the url.
- Fixed; in my defence, I didn't add them :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"Images - The coat of arms image needs alt text for blind readers. I'm not sure how to go about adding alt text in a case like this. I can imagine the alt text itself (a description of the essence of the image), but the image appears to be part of a template. Perhaps alt text could be added to the template by someone who knows how. The general instructions for alt text live at WP:ALT. Suitable alt text is an FAC requirement.
I hope these suggestions and questions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 12:41 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently served as the Universities Collaboration of the Month for almost a year while the moderator took a WikiBreak. Now that we've moved on to a new collaboration, I'd like some closure for the old one. Most importantly, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status? Thanks, Mabeenot (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Technical comments by an odd name - First, deal with the tags. In addition to the clearly bad cleanup and undue-weight tags, address the merge tag to make sure that the article is stable (see criterion 5).
- Check external links. I set the page to only show clearly dead links (ones colored red and orange) and there's a lot—it becomes hard to verify an article with so many. You might want to change the accreditation link to http://vpapf.chance.berkeley.edu/accreditation/index.html or one of its subpages; the rest are up to you. Try the Wayback Machine or WebCite to find archives of the dead web pages, and archive the working ones with WebCite to combat link rot. When you are done with those, check the boxes at the top of the page to verify the other links.
- Watch for dab links and links that "loop back" to the article. Replace instances of these links with more specific ones. You don't want to confuse readers who follow the links!
- Add alt text to the images—if your article's reviewer can't see them, you don't stand a chance.
Good luck. --an odd name 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Comments. Not all of these will need to be fixed for GA, but here are some thoughts: - I'd cut the lead by a paragraph; Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says four is as long as a lead should usually get, and I don't see any special reason this needs to be longer. I think the paragraph on rankings can be trimmed and combined with another para -- the school's reputation is certainly important, but the particular ranking institutions you cite are not all of equal notability or longevity. I'm not even sure the rankings are worth including in the article, except perhaps in a footnote to support statements about reputation or status, but that's more a matter of opinion, whereas lead length is a MoS issue.
- History, first para: this makes it sounds as though no UCal classes were held till 1873, but that can't be right. Do you mean that 1873 was when classes were first held in Berkeley?
- A couple of words about what the University Farm was would be good -- this was part of UC Berkeley, after all, until it split. It's not at all clear from the title what it is -- a farm run to provide food for the university, perhaps? (I read the U Cal Davis article to find out, but I shouldn't have had to.)
- The "Radiation Laboratory" in the article isn't described when it is first mentioned; I presume this was a lab that was owned and operated by Berkeley prior to the Manhattan project. A parenthetical clause saying so would be helpful: e.g. "...following Glenn Seaborg's then-secret discovery of plutonium, Ernest Orlando Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory, which had been established in 1937 as part of the physics graduate program, began to contract with ..." or whatever -- I just made that factoid up as I don't know the date or circumstances.
- You usually use "Berkeley" or "UC Berkeley" within the article, but I saw at least one "Cal"; I think you should be consistent throughout, and use one of the other two names.
- I would suggest getting rid of the "citation needed" tags before going to GA.
- The aerial view of the campus is a nice picture, but at thumbnail size it's of little use. I would suggest setting a pixel size; it would also be useful to find a way to label it -- those unfamiliar with the campus will not be able to make much of the buildings without a key. You could put some identifying description in the image caption, or add a diagrammatic version of the picture showing what is where.
- The architecture paragraph is out of sequence chronologically; it jumps back to 1873 after the first paragraph, which is a bit dislocating.
- The natural features section makes me wish for a map again.
- "There is ongoing construction to retrofit the stadium" -- to make it earthquake-proof, I presume, but it should be clear to the reader.
That's all I've got time for tonight; I will look at this again if I have more time. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 07:34 UTC)
[edit] History -
I've listed this article for peer review because Al Ameer Son and I have been working on it for months now and wish to bring it to FA status. We wanted a peer review from an uninvolved user to give us some comments on how to further improve the article and spot any issues in there. Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 25 December 2009, 08:30 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… Given that William S. Clark was a significant figure in the history of US/Japan relations, I'm hoping his page might be a good candidate at some point for "featured article" status. Looking for any suggestions to make this a better article. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:14, 21 December 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 ><>°° 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Some comments: - Please add ALT texts to your images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please add references where there are citation needed tags.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The civil war section is too short to be on its own, have it as third level header under Early life...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and informative article but needs significant work to reach GA. I did some minor copyediting as I went, and I have further suggestions below. I see significant problems with the lead, the lack of sourcing in places, some of the citations, and two of the image licenses. Lead - The lead should be a summary of the entire main text. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
- "a Member of the... " - Lowercase "member".
- "Though he worked most of his life to further agricultural education in Massachusetts, ironically, he is best remembered... ". - Delete "ironically" since it is an editorial comment that would be hard to verify.
- Link Sapporo and Sapporo Agricultural College?
Family - The last two paragraphs of this section lack sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every direct quote.
- "Among these, his eldest child and daughter, Emily Williston Clark... " - "Their" rather than "his" since in the preceding sentence you name both parents. Ditto for "their" rather than "his" in this sentence: "One of his sons, Hubert Lyman Clark, became a prominent zoologist."
"Early career - The entire section lacks sources.
Civil War - Words like "colonel" don't start with a capital letter unless part of someone's title; e.g. Colonel Joseph Smith. Ditto for "major" and "lieutenant colonel" in this section and "professor of chemistry", "agricultural college", "president" and others later in the article.
Massachusetts Agricultural College - I'd consider rendering the long quote that begins "In the good time coming, the refining, elevating, and strengthening influences... " as a blockquote. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
Japan - The first paragraph needs a source.
References - Some of the citations are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known. I like to use the "cite family" of templates, which can be copy-pasted into articles at the proper location and filled in. You can find these templates at WP:CIT. If you choose to use the templates, don't mix the "cite" family with the "citation" family, which are also at WP:CIT. Alternatively, you can enter the missing data by hand. You don't have to use templates.
Image licenses - Copyright questions can get very complicated. When I see photos of statues, I generally check to see if the country of origin has a copyright law affecting what's called "freedom of panorama". In the U.S., it's not legal to photograph copyrighted statues and to publish the photos. I looked up Japan just now, and, alas, it restricts such photos to non-commericial use, which I think makes them unusable on Wikipedia or the Commons because they can't be legally duplicated by Wikipedia readers for commercial purposes. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan has details. This probably means you won't be able to use either of the statue photos in the article.
General - The images need alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images and is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details and you can see examples of acceptable alt text in the articles at WP:FAC. Acceptable alt text is a requirement for FA.
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) 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much. I appreciate the feedback and will get to work on the edits. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 18 December 2009, 21:03 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently jut re-written the entire article and would like to receive feedback on further improvements to bring this article to GA status. Thanks, warrior4321 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Comment. From a read through, here are some comments. - I don't think you need to mention the Encyclopedia Iranica in the lead as your source. If the statement is good enough to stand in the lead, you can put the source for it in a footnote.
- "and that the decay and downfall" -- either get rid of the "that" or rephrase. If you drop the reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica the "that" will go fairly naturally.
- "Darius is believed to have ascended the throne by assassinating the previous ruler Bardiya [...] and becoming crowned emperor the next morning." Poor phrasing again; you probably want a period followed by "He was crowned emperor the next morning"; the current phrasing pairs "assassinating" with "becoming" as the two steps by which he became emperor, which doesn't work.
- Generally the prose needs work -- if I have time I will try to do a copyedit pass, but I think you need a good prose editor to work with you on this. I will point out some more examples, but not all as that would be timeconsuming.
- If you mention the invasion of Greece in the lead I think you need to let the reader know that it was unsuccessful.
- It may not be necessary for GA, but if you want to go further than GA I would suggest an initial paragraph or to to give the reader some historical context. I know little about this period, but here's an example of a couple of sentences of the type I mean: "By the early sixth century, the Medes were the dominant state in the area that is now Iran. In 550 BC, Cyrus the Great's victory over the Mede king Astyages marked the beginning of the Persian empire." Something like this would give a reader who knows nothing about the period a foothold to make sense of Darius's life.
- You might also want to have a section discussing sources. You refer to Herodotus a lot, which is understandable; but Herodotus isn't a modern reliable source. You cite modern sources that discuss Herodotus, which is appropriate, but I think it would be useful for the reader to know a little about the interpretation. For an example of what I mean, take a look at the third paragraph of the "Background and sources" section of Offa of Mercia. The Behistun inscription is also a source in this sense and could be mentioned, along with the ancient historians. See also the sources section in First Persian invasion of Greece, for a more relevant example.
- "According to the account of Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon, Cambyses had left Patizeithes in charge of the kingdom" is confusing. The "and" between "Trogus" and "Xenophon" makes this impossible to parse. Are Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon all historians? In that case it should be "accounts", but if so I'd avoid listing all the primary sources. The reader wants to know what happened, with just enough material promoted from footnote to narrative to give the reader a sense of the authority of each statement. So how about "all the contemporary sources agree that"? You could even eliminate the reference to the historians altogether, if this is uncontroversial. This is another place where a note on the sources would help; if you've explained who these historians are, then the reader will understand what the primary sources are for Darius's life, and they only need to be mentioned again if they conflict or there are some problems of interpretation.
- "The Babylonian revolt was led by Nebuchadnezzar III had occurred" -- another example of illogical syntax. If you read the article aloud you'll find a lot of these.
- A map would be useful for the campaigns.
- The article on the First Persian invasion of Greece has quite a bit of good, sourced material in it. I think it's appropriate to have a "main" reference to that article, as you have; however, I think you could expand this section somewhat. If it's one of the most important events in Darius's life, as it seems to be, it could stand to be more than half a screenful.
- Generally I think the article is a little short. Adding some of the material suggested above would help.
This isn't a really thorough review; I think there's a fair amount of work to do before GA. If you make the content changes and ping me on my talk page I will try to find time to do a copyedit pass and give you feedback on the changes you've made. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 17 December 2009, 23:08 UTC)
-
I am hoping for some feedback on this article because it covers such a broad and complex set of issues. I am still doing some polishing but before I went too far polishing I was hoping for a little feedback on the structure and content. Specifically, - Organization and structure - I have gone for a largely non-chronological organization in order to allow each of the various themes to be discussed more coherently. Thoughts?
- Length - The article is pretty long at this point (some copyediting might cut it down some but not dramatically). Thoughts on that? Is it too long? Are there suggestions on content that is unnecessary?
- Data tables - There are tables regarding populations of different groups. I think these are valuable as they show demographic shifts over time and help illustrate the dynamics. I have debated about using the Show/Hide features so that these don't take up so much room. Also have debated about using graphs for one or more. Any thoughts?
- Other - As mentioned the article still needs scrubbing but any feedback on the writing is still welcome.
Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - P.S. Any experts out there with observations on key content that has been left out or understated? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I only looked at the references. The reference dates should be in Months, Day, Year though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Can you clarify? Which references are you referring to? For books there is typically only a year of publication. No month or day is typically provided by the publisher. Even if such is given the standard is to still only provide the year in the reference. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- References like 115. The retrieved date should be in the months day year format. Everything looks great though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Ohhhh, I see what you're asking. My understanding has always been that date formatting simply need to be consistent in the references. WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) does say to use U.S.-style dates in U.S. articles though I understood this to refer only to the prose, not the references. In any event, I'll change it. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Disambiguation checker was used for this article. There's a number of them that should be fixed. Dincher (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Link checker shows that ref 30 is a dead link. suggest finding updated or alternate link. Dincher (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those are fixed. --Mcorazao (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- You probably want to mention about John Catlin, the Secretary of Wisconsin Territory. After Henry Dodge became US Senator from Wisconsin Catlin became acting governor of Wisconsin Territory the part that was not included in the new state of Wisconsin. Catlin went to Stillwater, Minnesota and called a special election for the vacant seat of the Congressional Delegate from Wisconsin Territory. Sibley was elected and seated as a result and he pushed the Minnesota Territory bill through Congress.Thanks-RFD (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
PLEASE NOTE: This article has not yet had a general review, only some quick glances from helpful editors. Finetooth comments: Just a couple of things to get started. - The images all need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is required for FA, and it's not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details, and you can look at lots of examples of alt text in the articles at WP:FAC.
- You asked about Show/Hide features. WP:MOS#Scrolling lists says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing." Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are OK using either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd format for the full (triple) dates in the citations. However, you can't use a mixture of the two. The formatting in the main text does not have to be the same as the formatting in the citations, but it, too, must be internally consistent, and in US-centric articles, it has to be m-d-y. Here's the guideline to back this up: WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting. If you choose to make the formatting m-d-y throughout, that's fine too. Finetooth (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Further Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, well-illustrated, generally verifiable, stable, and neutral. In places the prose could be tighter, and I think the article includes at least a bit of unnecessary detail in the "Settlements" section and lower sections. I've tried below to indicate ways in which the article might be slightly trimmed, and I've made some suggestions about image licenses, minor style issues, and layout. You asked about structure. I think it's fine to subdivide by topic, as you have done, rather than attempting a pure chronological order. - I notice an odd absence of commas here and there in parts of the early sections. An example from the lead is "As the Americans established outposts in the area and the fur trade declined the dynamics changed dramatically." Without a comma after "declined", the sentences scans as "the fur trade declined the dynamics", which causes the reader to back up and start over.
- Here is another one from the first section: "In the 1600s a lucrative trade in furs developed with Native American tribes in Minnesota and other areas around the Great Lakes trapping animals and delivering furs to traders who shipped them to Europe." This scans as "Great Lakes trapping animals", which slows the reading. A comma after "developed" would improve things, but even better would be to recast along lines like this: ""In the 1600s a lucrative trade developed between Native Americans who trapped animals near the Great Lakes and whites who shipped the animal furs to Europe."
- You'll probably catch and fix other sentences like these first two on a future read-through. I'd suggest not only looking for missing commas but for ways of tightening the prose. Concision would help the length of the article and make the reading a bit snappier.
- "Instead the French and the British utilized the natives in the area as a source for trade establishing mostly trading posts." - The modifying phrase "establishing mostly trading posts" in this sentence is disconnected from the phrase "French and British" it modifies and seems at first to modify "trade". The cure for this problem is usually to recast so that the modifier and modified bump against one another. This might work: "Instead the French and the British established trading posts that could be used by the natives." It might be useful to ask someone at WP:PRV to copyedit with concision as the goal.
- Captions that consist solely of sentence fragments don't take terminal periods.
- The Manual of Style suggests using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. Shorter ones should simply be embedded in the main text in regular quotation marks. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
- The article seems well-sourced in general, but a good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph. The paragraph starting "Following an 1845 treaty the Winnebago tribes of Iowa were relocated to the Long Prairie reservation... " lacks a source, for example.
- "It is important to understand that, despite American hunger for land, the leadership in the Minnesota Territory... ". - This begins with a judgment that would be hard to verify. Who says it is important? You could fix this by deleting the opening phrase and starting with "Despite American hunger for land... ", which would also be more concise.
- Lead image: The photo credit to the Minnesota Historical Society that appears on the licensing page should not be duplicated in the article itself. I'd suggest deleting the photo credit from the infobox. Also, it would make it easier for fact checkers if you could provide a link from the licensing page to the source page for the image.
- You might consider moving Zebulon Pike to the left so that he gazes into the page. You'd have to move him down a bit to avoid bumping into the subhead.
- The Chief Little Crow description page includes no source, date of creation, or author information. Fact checkers will have a hard time verifying the license without at least some of this data.
- The St. Paul steamboats description page says that the image comes from a Rhoda Gilman book. It should say what book and give other details such as the publisher, date and place of publication, and page number, if possible.
- Publisher and place and date of publication should be added to Eastman Johnson Painting America on the wigwam description page. Details like this are easy to find on the Internet, via Amazon.com for example.
Native Americans: "President Andrew Jackson's policies toward the tribes ultimately was to either pacify them sufficiently to along westward expansion of American settlers or else remove the tribes from the areas in which they interfered." - Word missing? - Perhaps the "Settlements" section contains unnecessary detail and could be shortened. For example, this paragraph adds length but not much in the way of essential data: "When several hundred settlers abandoned the Red River Colony in the 1820s, they entered the United States by way of the Red River Valley, instead of moving to eastern Canada or returning to Europe.[84] The region had been occupied by Métis people, the children of voyageurs and Native Americans, since the middle 17th century." And this: "Henry Hastings Sibley, Justice of the Peace and future governor, built the first stone house in the Minnesota Territory in Mendota in 1838, along with other limestone buildings used by the American Fur Company, which bought animal pelts at that location from 1825 to 1853.[86]"
- It might also be possible to tighten the lower sections by eliminating repetition such as "By the late 1840s, however, all blacks had been completely disenfranchised. In addition they were prevented from running for office and their children were segregated in schools", which appears in the "Society" section but appears again in the "African Americans and slavery" section as "By the time Minnesota had achieved statehood, however, blacks had been disenfranchised and schools were segregated."
- Just to give one more example of how the prose might be tightened, I'll mention this from the "Government and Politics" section: "On August 26 of that year a meeting was held at the store of John McKusick in Stillwater with the goal of establishing a new territory. The meeting, which would come to be known as the "Stillwater Convention," elected Henry Sibley as a representative to Congress." I think the store location may be unnecessary detail. This could be compressed to "On August 26 a meeting held in Stillwater and known as the "Stillwater Convention" led to the election of Henry Sibley to represent the proposed territory in meetings with Congress." Or something like that.
- "In the 1830s a group of squatters, mostly Métis from the ill-fated Red River Colony in what is now the Canadian province of Manitoba, established a camp near the fort. A number of the people at the fort, including Taliaferro, did not appreciate the new presence. As the fort imposed new restrictions, the squatters were forced to head down the Mississippi River.[87] They settled at a site known as Fountain Cave." - Couldn't this and subsequent sentences be compressed to "In the 1830s a group squatters, mostly Métis, settled at a site known as Fountain Cave, later re-named Pig's Eye, then Lambert's Landing, and finally St. Paul"?
- Would it be possible to create a map showing the locations of the places mentioned in the "Settlements" section?
Society - "By the late 1850s English had grown to be the most spoken language. New immigrants, though, brought additional languages to the territory. Newspapers were published in German (Die Minnesota Deutsche Zeitung), Swedish (Minnesota Posten), and Norwegian (Folkets Rost)." - Newspaper names should be in italics.
I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Thanks! --Mcorazao (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 December 2009, 15:16 UTC)
-
Peter Heywood has been described as the third man of the Bounty mutiny – less well-known than Captain Bligh or Fletcher Christian, but with a fascinating story of his own that combines exotic islands, piracy on the high seas, shipwreck, capture, court martial, death sentence...and rehabilitation. His story throws some fascinating light, too, on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century. Comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Heywood/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 21:22 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. I did a mistake previously by directly putting it for tht status. I was given some suggestions to improve the article. They are all done now, so hows it look now ? any suggestion to improve it further ? Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- You need more bibliographical details on the two Treadgold references, they should match the other references given.
- Alphabetize your references
- Note that for the Runciman ref, it was originally published earlier than 1991. You should note that the edition you're using is a reprint. Double check your other references to check this.
- Your Elton ref is a review article of a book, this isn't the most high quality source available, suggest replacing it.
- Your book references need publishers for all of them, at the very least.
- Your ISBN for the Akram ref is incorrect. It's this work, correct? I'll note that this isn't exactly held by a lot of libraries, both editions only show one library holding each.
- Using gibbon is not a good idea. We're talking a source that is over 200 years old, history has advanced quite a bit since then. Strongly suggest replacing.
- You've got the wrong publisher with the Haldon isbn, it's Stroud, not Arcadia for that particular ISBN.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
any thing else ?? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) -
- You should wait for comments on the prose content. This may be a few days' coming. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I will be waiting.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from doncram Just a quick comment: the lede is confusing to me. It includes "The battle consisted of a series of engagements that lasted for six days in August 636, ..... The Battle of Yarmouk is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in military history,[5][6] and it marked the first great wave of Islamic conquests after the death of Muhammad, heralding the rapid advance of Islam into the then Christian Levant. The last Roman-Persian Wars ended in 627, with Emperor Heraclius finally emerging victorious...." It seems like some reorganization is needed, or some transition. Why jump abruptly from talking about the battle in 636 to something happening in 627? Perhaps the stuff about 627 belongs in the separate "prelude" section. I believe there is a good guideline on ledes at wp:lede to help in the rewriting. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) . - thanks for ur comments, i hv removed it as it was already mentioned in detail in prelude section.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
.
-
- As I have stated on the discussion page Talk:Battle of Yarmouk. Why the total ignoring of John B. Glubb's THE GREAT ARAB CONQUEST? Before that book, hardly anyone outside the Islamic world, knew about Yarmouk much less carried about it? He was the first person who ever tried to make heads or tails out of that battle according to the rules of WP articles -- ie neutrality and unbiased. And this was back in 1963??? And their can be no claim that his chapters leading to the battle, the battle itself, or after the battle are not detailed enough. The chapter on the battle is 18 pages. And the type is small, unlike today's books. Just curious? I mean, historians have the right to disagree about the conclusions or facts of others. But they usually quote about the first book that gives in depth details about a battle and why they disagree with the author?--Jackehammond (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- We didnt used it, is not becoz he isnt reliable, its because we havnt read it, the modern works tht we have read and used in the article must have taken their research through Glubbs's work.
So its fine any ways. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Dear Mr. Mohammd, Glubb's book is 1963 and I believe is still a modern work. Most historians and authors of have used his research, but then basically plagiarized it to disagree with him. And those in the Muslim world who have done that (for example a Pakistani retired general) have done it -- in the opinion of many -- out of pride and envy and wounded dignity. They are upset that a non-Muslim did the best research on the first 60 years of Islamic battles and warfare. Similar to many historians today in the USA who are prideful and envious of the fact that UK authors can research and print better histories of the USA and its battles and wars. If you read the book, from a neutral and biased approach, I guarantee you that you will be astonished. I have re-read it two times, because it is the only detailed in depth book on that subject, even today. Glubb's map of the Plain of Mekka, at the time of Muhammd is one that many historians and TV producers have used without giving Glubb credit. Note, I have left more detailed information on the Yarmouk talk page. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
. -
-
- Dear Mr. Mohammand, I have read the whole article and looked at the maps on Battle of Yarmouk and it does a dis-service to the memory of Khalid ibn al Waleed. Khalid had by any shadow of doubt snatched victory from the jaws of defeat "twice" similar to the American Civil War commander Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. They Byzantines had the main Arab-Muslim forces "fixed" at Deraa on the Yarmouk River gorges and they came into the rear with another massive army to take what is now Beersheeba and then Aila and cut off Khalid and his forces, forcing them to fight with an army in their rear and in their front or flee east into the desert. Instead Khalid did a masterful counter march and defeated the main Byzantines army north of Beersheeba and then in another counter march back to the Yarmouk area before the Byzantines there could could do anything and then defeating that army. Sealing the Byzantines fate south of Taurus Mts. It was masterful. Not equal till Napoleon to some. And even superior to Napoleon and Jackson. But very little is known about the Battle of Yarmouk. It is like the Battle of the Red Cliffs in China. A brilliant battle, but little in the way of reliable records of the actual details of the battle. But instead of accepting that -- ie as Glubb did, while still praising Khalid as one of the greatest military commanders in history -- Muslim writers have decided to accept conjectures as facts. Similar as in the US where many writers, instead of accepting what happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941, believe the Japanese success could only have been possible due to a massive conspiracy on the part of President Roosevelt and not the gross negligence and disobedience to orders, and writing different scenarios and conjectures as facts, claiming since there are no proof to prove that it did not happen the way they claim, then it is a fact -- challenging those that disagree to prove a negative. General Glubb gave glory and honor to Khalid, but stating the known fact, and what "possibly" could have happened at Yarmouk. Because along with Khalid's other military victories, he did not have to have conjectures to build his reputation. And sadly, in later decades, there will be historical researchers, who will come along, when political correctness and the desire to pander has cooled, and they will harm Khalid and his warriors reputation, by using the sources you and others are quoting to smear his reputation. Ignoring all other historians like General Glubb. Just as American Civil War historians, use "Gone With The Wind" as an example to smear some good American Civil War historians of the late 1800s. Finally, this will be my last message on this subject. I have seen other articles like these. And they seem to gain a momentum of their own that at the time are unstoppable. Anyway, I have some air to ground rockets, antitank missiles and an aircraft company I have to do some editing on that I have been requested to do. But I do pity the memory of one of the greatest generals in history: Khalid ibn al Waleed. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
.
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:08 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. This article have gone through a peer review of wikipedia military history task force, the suggestion given there are followed and now i wonder if it is ready to be send for the nomination for feature article. Comments and suggestions please ... Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Please alphabetize your references.
- As I pointed out in the Yarmuk article, using Gibbon is not using the best quality sources. He's out of date, and at this point should only be used as a source for articles about the history of history.
- Your book references lack details to allow them to be verified. They should have year of publication, publisher, etc. at the very least.
- Decide if you want the sources author last name first or author first name first, (suggest last name first as it's much more common in history articles)
- Again, the Runciman works are before 1987, should note that you're using a reprint edition of a much earlier work (first published 1951). Like the Gibbon, Runciman is starting to get a bit outdated and should be used with care.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Any other suggestions ???
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Since others have commented on the content, which I know little about, and the sources, I'll comment on issues mainly related to prose and the Manual of Style. I found the article interesting but a bit confusing in places. Here are my suggestions.
- Overlinking. Generally, linking a term once is enough in a short article like this. It might be OK to link once in the lead and then once in the main text. But Caliph Umar should not be linked twice in the lead; dates like 637 and 614 should not be linked; Patriarch of Jerusalem and Sophronius should not be linked twice in "The Siege" section; Christians and Caesarea do not need to be linked twice, and I think you may find others.
- Long paragraphs. The lead and each section consists of a single paragraph. I'd consider breaking the long paragraphs in "Prelude" and "Siege" into two or more pieces along logical lines. For example, paragraph 2 of "Prelude" might start with "Prophet Mohammed". Paragraph 3 might start with "In 634 Abu Bakr died and was succeeded by... ".
- Heads and subheads. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding starting heads and subheads with "The" and also recommends against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. For these reasons, I'd suggest changing "The siege" to "Siege" and "Surrender of Jerusalem" to "Surrender".
- Proofreading. I see quite a few small things that need attention. For example, "Unable to decide the matter, he wrote to caliph Umar for instructions. In his reply the Caliph ordered the Muslims to capture Jerusalem". This sequence uses "caliph" when "Caliph" is needed, and uses Caliph when "caliph" is needed. The word takes a big C when it's part of a formal title and a little c when it's being used in a generic sense; i.e., Caliph Umar is a caliph. Another example would be "true cross"; it's linked twice in the article, but it appears as "True Cross" the first time and "true cross" the second time. True Cross appears to be a formal name; if so, the big T and big C are correct.
Lead - "After a prolonged siege of six months, Patriarch Sophronius agreed to surrender the city but only to the caliph himself. In April 637, Caliph Umar... ". - This is confusing because "caliph" links to Rashidun here, whereas "caliph" links to Caliph later in the article. Would it be helpful to link to Caliph in the first instance for readers unfamiliar with "caliph" or "Rashidun"?
Seige - "The Byzantine garrison could not expect any help from the humbled regime of Heraclius and after a prolonged siege of four months, as expected the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, having no hope of any help from the emperor, offered to surrender the city and pay the jizya, he however put a condition that the caliph himself would come and sign the pact with him and receive the surrender." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The Byzantine garrison could not expect any help from the humbled regime of Heraclius. After a siege of four months, Sophronius offered to surrender the city and pay the jizya on condition that the caliph come to Jerusalem to sign the pact and accept the surrender."
Surrender - "On Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was drawn up, which surrendered Jerusalem and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty for Christians in exchange for jizya ("tribute") – known as the Umariyya Covenant." - Suggestion: "Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact known as the Umariyya Covenant was drawn up. It surrendered Jerusalem and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty to Christians in exchange for jizya (tribute)". Also, it would be better to give the translation of jizya on first use rather than here.
- "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles that at the Zuhr prayers time Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but Umar declined fearing to endanger the church's status as a Christian temple and that the Muslims may not break the treaty to make it a mosque as the Caliph had prayed in it." - Suggestion: "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles that at the time of Zuhr prayers Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a Christian temple and that Muslims might not break the treaty and turn the temple into a mosque, declined." By the way, these two thoughts seem contradictory. If Umar was planning to break the treaty and throw the Christians out of the temple and turn it into a mosque, why would his saying of Muslim prayers in the building bother the Muslims?
"Note b" - "al buladhuri" - Should this be al-Baladhuri?
- "A.I.Akram believe 636-637 to be the most possible date." - Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; thus: 636–637. Also, "believe" should be "believed", and "most likely" would probably be better than "most possible".
References - For consistency, either use the author's full name (last name first) or just the last name, but it's best to be consistent whichever form you choose. The existing refs are a mix; e.g. Gibbon in one place but Bernard Lewis in another.
- The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt texts are not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details. Helpful alt text is one of the requirements at FAC.
I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) -
- thanks for ur suggestions, i have edited the article as suggested by you, also images nw hv alt text. As for the why didnt umar prayed in the mosque fearing the muslims might not break the treaty making the temple, a masque. So dont know from where the work not jumped in and made the statement ambiguous. The confusion was all because of tht not, i have removed it.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:07 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm branching out from bishops and horses to ... Taxes! Yes, medieval taxes, so fun! On a more serious note, I'd like to make sure this article is comprehenisble by the non-specialist, that the prose is engaging, and that there isn't anything left out for context or similar stuff. All in an effort to get to FAC with this. (It just might be the first tax FA!) Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - And I know the perfect day for it too:Tax Day. They turn to wikipedia for the IRS and find medival taxes on the front page. Oh what jolly good fun ^^! ResMar 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- ...and was a replacement for the older danegeld, which was last collected in 1162. What was the danegeld based on, then?
- I've clarified this a bit in the lead. They were both land taxes, but the geld had become difficult to collect due to the great number of folks withe expemptions (medieval tax loopholes!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was only collected six times in the years between 1194 and 1224, and never raised sums as large as other taxes collected. Is "as large as those other taxes collected" more fitting?
- Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- In 1194, the assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087. Not particuarly important but I perfer "The 1194 assesment" because the tax isn't a singular event. Also, you should say breifly what the Domesday Book is: ae. "...the Domesday Book, a census of England completed in 1087."
- Reworded to "The first assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087 which investigated land holdings in England." because Domesday isn't a census, it was a landholding survey, not a counting of people. (People are totally incidental to it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- In 1198 the carucage was again collected and was based on the carucate, figured at 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 acres (49 ha). I'de say "figured at either 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 (49 ha) acres.
- Template issue here, it sets the order on that... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Revenues from this taxation do not appear in the 1200 Pipe Roll, which may mean that it was paid into a special commission in the Exchequer. Further evidence of this is the fact that William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage, in official records. Who is this William de Wrotham and why is his being the receptor signifigant?
- It's not that significant that it was W in particular, but it is significant that someone was appointed to that position. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The 1217 carucage was only paid by laymen; the clergy made a donation in lieu of being taxed. Linking laymen and clergy would be nice.
- The 1220 carucage was definitely collected by... Rm definitly. I know what you mean but that's a bit of an interpetation.
- No space in FitzBenedict?
- The 1220 carucage was for the defense of Poitou. Link Poitou.
- Records indicate that the bulk of the revenues raised were paid into the Wardrobe. What's the Wardrobe oO? Is it their war commitee?
- On your issues: the article is comprehendible to me (lol tax expert) however there are multiple spots that would benefit from a wikilink, or in the absense of such a link a short description. I don't know how feasible that is, but is it possible to give the values of the money gathered in modern terms? That would make the exact amount of money gathered much clearer. Sincerely, ResMar 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The normal {{inflation}} template that is used only goes to 1254 or so, so there isn't really a good way to give equivalent figures. Most history works for this period don't really give equivalents, since it's so hard to gage. (the wage economy is just getting started about 1200 or so, so comparing daily wages isn't good... ) I'll try to work on the others in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 14:34 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a Good Article review and a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I'd like to take it to FAC when this Peer Review is over. Main concerns are prose, which is never my strong point, and MoS compliance. I also welcome analysis of my sources, although I'm confident that I've exhausted all available WP: Reliable Sources. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/M22 Locust/archive1.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 12:25 UTC)
[edit] Geography and places -
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a fairly stable GA for nearly a year. It has recently been checked for broken & dab links & alt= tags added to images + had a thorough copyedit. I think it is nearly ready for an FA nomination but would appreciated any comments or guidance about what else might be needed. Thanks, — Rod talk 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. I wouldn't say that it's yet had a thorough copyedit, as I hadn't finished going through it, but no matter, I'll list my concerns here. - The article variously claims that sluice gates are locally called "Clyse" (with a capital "C"), "Clyce", and "clyse".
-
- I have standardised these to clyce per OS maps.— Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The Drove bridge is the first and the newest road bridge to cross the river, and marks the end of the Port of Bridgwater." This stopped me in my tracks when I first came across it. How could it be the first and the newest? Then I realised that this is "first" starting from the river's mouth and moving upstream. I think that needs to be made clear right at the start of the Bridges and structures section.
-
- I've changed this to nearest the source.— Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit puzzled by the capitalisation of the bridge names. For instance, is the Drove bridge really just called "Drove"? Shouldn't it be "Drove Bridge"?
-
- Capitalised— Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Response thanks for the comments - hopefully now addressed.— Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- From the lead: "... it [the river] is prone to frequent flooding in winter and high tides." Perhaps being excessively picky here, but is it really the river that floods, as opposed to the land on its banks?
-
- I would have said the river floods and the floodwater then inundates the surrounding land - but I could be convinced otherwise.— Rod talk 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article, but I think it needs some work before it would pass FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement. - There are several FAs on rivers / streams, the two most recent are Columbia River and St. Johns River, both of which are somewhat larger than this, but still would make useful model articles.
- I notice this article does not have a Geology section, but I believe all other stream FAs have one. There are at least two places where geology is mentioned here, so that is a start, but I think the article needs more.
-
- Discharge is mentioned in the Geobox but not the article
-
- External link tool finds one dead link
-
- While this is generally nicely referenced, there are several places without refs that would probably need them for FAC. For example, the end of the first paragraph in Course, or much of the material in the Tidal Bore section, have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
-
- The lead seemed a bit sparse to me - my rule of thumb here is to include every header in the lead in some way
-
- I though the organization was a bit muddled - for example in the course section, there is a lot of history and floods. COuld this be in the history section instead?
-
- Some more moved to relevant sections
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Thanks for your helpful comments which have helped to improve the article.— Rod talk 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 20 December 2009, 08:47 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has improved a lot recently, especially with citations. Thanks, SPat talk 13:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Comments - The references need work. Footnote 4 is an example of a ref that is well presented - the author (where one is identifiable) is stated, and above all the publishing source is listed. This is essential to assisting subsequent discussion of whether sources are sufficiently reliable, which will be important if editors ever want to get this article to good article or feature article status.
- The history section contains too much information that is very recent and topic-specific. Consider either shortening (moving some material to article History of Pune), or moving topic-specific recent material to the relevant topic area (eg. to transport section). History of Pune should be longer than the history section in Pune, which is not currently the case!
- There are whole sections, such as "road" (under transport), "military establishments" and most of "Literature and Theatre", that lack any references at all.
- Military establishments seems a strange section, that i've not seen in other top-level articles about major cities, and which may give undue weight to that particular subject. Perhaps more limited coverage, spread amongst "economy" and "education and research", might be better.
Keep working away at these issues and it will continue to improve. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Comments by Dana boomer Hi SPat. It looks like you and some other editors have made a good start on cleaning up the article. However, there is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done. You didn't specify above where you would like the article to go (i.e. just regular cleanup, GA status, or even FA), but I'm going to assume that you want to go at least to GA. To that end, I agree with the comments that Hamiltonstone made above, and I have a few more comments besides that. - All of the banners and in-line tags need to be taken care of. The banners especially are a quick-fail criteria for GA.
- There are a lot of bulleted and numbered lists in the article. These are generally discouraged by MOS, and I think that many or all of them could be easily converted into prose.
- There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, which make the article look very choppy, and make it harder to read. These should be combined with other paragraphs, or possibly expanded in some cases.
- There are a lot of red links in the article. Although red links are tolerated and in some cases encouraged, please make sure that all of the red links go to subjects that are actually notable enough to have articles written about them at some point. If the subject isn't notable enough for its own article, don't link it.
- The Sports section has a lot of really short sections. Some or all of these could probably be combined, with Sports institutions the only one that I would leave as its own subsection.
- It is very important that all web references have titles, publishers and access dates. As Hamiltonstone said, this makes it easier to verify the references and make sure they go to reliable sources.
- Check this link, there are quite a few dead links which need to be fixed.
- Check this link, there are several dabs that should be fixed.
-
- Ref #70 (Pune Basketball) is a blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources.
- If you plan to take this article to FAC, you may want to check out the FA criteria on high quality sources. This means that if a higher quality source (generally a book or journal article) can be found, it should be used in place of a low quality, though possibly reliable source (generally webpages). It is often easier to add these references when initially referencing the article, rather than trying to go back through and replace lower quality sources just before a FAC. Although books and journals may not be the best references (or they may not be available) for subjects on modern-day Pune, they should probably be used for historical areas such as the History section.
I hope these thoughts help. I have watchlisted this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 13:46 UTC)
[edit] Engineering and technology - Previous peer review
-
We've listed this article for peer review because we would like to submit to WP:FAC soon and wanted a last check to make sure it meets the FAC criteria. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. I am copying User:Brianboulton's comments from the article's talk page below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2.
(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:35 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because the prose requires checking before submittal to the FA selection process. Also, any instances where text clarity can be improved to cater for the lay reader would be most welcome. Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Rebuilding (A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm. The problems that I have with this are: - Who was "Gresley"? (he is not mentioned earlier) - yes, we know (and I've linked him), but read on...
- What was Gresley's relationship to the Southern Railway and these tests? - bearing in mind he was the LNER CME (there's your assumed knowledge!)
- How come Gresley got the Southern trials stopped? (Had the LNER trials already finished?)
This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted. (B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology. EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC) - They were tested on the LNER, and as a guess, I think it was because it had main lines in a better state of repair that the Southern on which to gain an objective assessment of the running characteristics of the class. I'll have to wait a bit to confirm this, but it should be done by Monday/Tuesday evening.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) - The above has been dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Precision The {{convert}} tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - I've standardised all to 3 sig-figs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Operational Details This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use {{stnlnk}} in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg [[Portsmouth railway station]] is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Have sifted through the article and modified those that I felt needed modifying in this way. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Further reading There is no "Further reading" section; I have three suggestions for that: - Fryer, C.E.J. (1992). Railway Monographs No.1: The Rolling Rivers. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. ISBN 1 872524 39 7.
- Bradley, D.L. (April 1980) [1961]. The Locomotive History of the South Eastern & Chatham Railway (2nd ed.). London: RCTS. pp. 66-82,115-122. ISBN 0 901115 49 5.
- Nock, O.S. (1987). Great Locomotives of the Southern Railway. Guild Publishing/Book Club Associates. pp. 98-102,115,132-137,154-160. CN 5587.
I realise that Bradley is already in the references, but that is for first edition. The above 2nd ed is much expanded (note the different page numbers). Nock is a Book Club edition, and was first published by Patrick Stephens Limited. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - Several articles I have been involved with once had a 'Further reading section', but whilst I have no problem with it, a reviewer stated that it implies that not all sources have been accessed, which is true in most cases. However, no-one has access to all sources, so to save argument, I removed it. I may re-instate it on articles already passed for FA. Will think about this. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't see why this "reviewer" should object to a "Further reading" section; it's mentioned at MOS:APPENDIX as the fourth of five standard appendices. Articles might get denied GA or FA because they don't follow MOS - but IMHO, anybody suggesting that it's wrong to follow procedures actually laid down in MOS, must be wrong themselves.
- Later at WP:FURTHERREADING it's given a fuller definition - the operative phrase here is "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by Bradley or the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't put it better myself, so as you can see, I've added one of the texts suggested. I'm thinking of ordering a second hand copy of Bradley's revised edition of SECR locomotives after Christmas to see if there's anything important that wasn't included in the 1961 version. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - MOS:APPENDIX notes that Further Reading should be a level 2 heading, so I have raised it accordingly. As noted above, this section is for sources that have not been used in the article, potential references, if you like. The above-linked pages note that the section is similar in scope to an 'External links' section. I would say you can easily get away with adding the other two books, if you are certain that the loco is covered sufficiently within. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Add to above list: - Grayer, Jeffery (July 2009). "Scuppering the "U-Boats"". in Robertson, Kevin. Issue No 7. The Southern Way. Corhampton: Noodle Books. pp. 60-65. ISBN 978 1 906419 17 2.
- Robertson, Kevin, ed (July 2009). "Scuppering the "U-Boats" - Years Earlier". Issue No 7. The Southern Way. Corhampton: Noodle Books. pp. 66-67. ISBN 978 1 906419 17 2.
The first article describes what happened to the Maunsell moguls (including the N class) after Dieselisation of the Reading-Redhill route in January 1965. The second article is essentially a selection of photos; a posed photo of A790 in service, plus three (with lengthy captions) of A800 awaiting repair at Ashford after the accident. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - I have this publication, and will also use it when improving the U class article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- What does "pps." mean (this edit) - "p." means "page", and "pp." is "pages", so "pps."=? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional: - Chacksfield, J.E. (1998). Richard Maunsell: An Engineering Biography. Oakwood Library of Railway History. Usk: Oakwood Press. OL102. ISBN 0 85361 526 8.
Most info on the Rivers and the rebuilds is in two chapters, which are chronologically out of order. Chapter 8 "Tank Engines and the Sevenoaks Incidents" (pp. 96-108) and chapter 7 "The Moguls: The Maids of All Work" (pp. 84-95), but there is more elsewhere, such as pp. 65,67. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) PPS. is something I picked up from a previous FA attempt, not to mention my referencing as an MA student of History. As usual it represented a compromise between how the editor and the reviewer wants the article formatted. I think I'll change to PP., as this seems to be the common way to do it, looking at recent FAs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - If you examine book references formatted using the {{cite book}} template (such as my earlier examples), you'll see that these have their bare page numbers in a
|page= or |pages= parameter, and the visual rendering is as "p." or "pp." respectively. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Referencing I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a composite diff of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the name= attribute to the <ref> tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in <ref name=value> must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this: <ref name=Bradley2nd>Bradley 1980, pp.66-7</ref> then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this: <ref name=Bradley2nd /> but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this: <ref name=Bradley2nd p.69/> Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this: <ref>Bradley 1980, p.69</ref> (where the ref is only needed once, the name= attribute is not required). There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this: <ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 18</ref> under Sevenoaks disaster we have this: <ref name=Scott-Morgan /> So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this: <ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 46</ref> The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ a b c Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Reference p. 46 now separated from the two p. 18 references. I'm surprised I let that one slip, but its good to have someone going over these things. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Review Lead section - Presumably "...were among the first non-Great Western Railway (GWR) types to use and improve upon the basic design principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward." is included as part of the K and K1 classes' reasons for notability. It is probably explained later in the article, but, at this early stage, it leaves the question hanging for those readers not in the know: what were Churchward's basic design principles and how did the K and K1 classes improve on them?
- Ditto, what were the Midland Railway concepts?
- I have added a link to George Jackson Churchward to in first paragraph.
- If all of the engines were built between 1917 and 1925, the time frame "between the first and second world wars" is a bit artificial as they were all built in a seven year period out of 21 years. It is also slightly inaccurate because the first was built during WWI not after as "between" implies. It is also at odds with the class construction history section which indicates that 10 were built in Brighton in 1926. I think it would be better to say that the design was completed in 1914, the prototype was built in 1917 and the remaining 20 engines were built in 1925-26.
- The use of "the" in "as part of the SECR's fleet standardisation" implies that the standardisation has been mentioned previously or that the reader is familiar with it. At this stage, they may not be. Suggest change to "a SECR fleet standardisation".
- "various" in "various rivers" is redundant. A common term like river does not need to be linked.
- Again "the 1927 Sevenoaks railway accident" assumes prior knowledge. Suggest "a railway accident at Sevenoaks in 1927".
Background - "On the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) – inherited by the SECR in 1899 – beach pebbles had been used for ballast rather than conventional ballast with irregular shapes that "lock" together to keep the track in place. These economies in construction meant that only locomotives with low axle loadings could operate safely over the track. The SECR was therefore unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy in reducing the number of locomotive types inherited from the two constituent railways" has a number of problems because it assumes prior knowledge in several places which needs to be addressed:
- Where are the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway?
- How did the SECR inherit the LCDR?
- Why did the SECR want or need to reduce the number of locomotive types?
- The LCDR was one constituent railway of the SECR, but what was the other one, that, presumably, had done the sensible thing and used standard ballast?
- Can it be explained why the SECR just did not reset the tracks in standard ballast rather than design a new engine?
- "Despite increased passenger and freight traffic between London Charing Cross and the Kentish coast during the first decades of the twentieth century, the Operating Department had to use mismatched classes of underpowered and obsolete 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 locomotives which could operate within the restrictions imposed by the infrastructure."
- "London Charing Cross" should be "Charing Cross station" or just "Charing Cross".
- "Kentish coast" should be "Kent coast"
- How is the second half of the sentence "despite" the first half? I think it should start "Although passenger and freight traffic between Charing Cross and the Kent coast had increased..." and then discuss how the limitations on the engine loadings restricted the SECR from responding efficiently due to the obsolete locomotives.
- Why did this result in "double heading"? It is partially explained in the design section but should be mentioned here.
- Why was Wainwright's retirement enforced? There is nothing in his article to explain this.
- "in a too heavy axle loading" should be "in too heavy an axle loading".
Design - "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, only the Great Central Railway 1B class freight locomotives (later known as the LNER Class L1 and L3 classes) having preceded the K class." Is awkward; suggest "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, having only been used on the Great Central Railway's 1B class freight locomotives."
- Why was 2-6-4 uncommon? Did it have technical disadvantages or limitations that made it less suitable?
- How had track curves constrained the size of locomotives on the SECR? Presumably it was tightness of curve, but was this another problem caused by the LCDR's shoddy construction or was it a problem on other non-LCDR sections?
- "London Charing Cross" used again and linked for a second time.
- What was the first step in the standardisation programme?
- A lot of the influences on the K class design seem to have come from Maunsell's assistants. Is it fair then to say that Maunsell designed the class?
- Churchward's first name should be given.
- Again, what were Churchward's design principles?
Construction - K Class - ",but as with the N class," needs a comma after "but".
- "due to the requirements for armaments manufacture by Ashford works during the First World War" would be better as "due to the use of the Ashford works for wartime armaments manufacture"
- July 1917 is not towards the end of the war. At that period the war still had 15 months to run.
- Chief Mechanical Engineer is used in full although CME has previously been used as its abbreviation. It also is linked again.
- Punctuation in the third paragraph needs improvement.
- "London Cannon Street" should be "Cannon Street station" or "Cannon Street".
- 300 long tons equals about 305 metric tonnes not 300; use {{convert|300|LT|t ST|sigfig=3}} to get the correct conversion plus the short ton conversion.
- "...to address complaint of rough riding by earlier members of the class" should be "...to address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class"
- I have rephrased the last sentence about the accident.
Construction - K1 Class - The conversion templates are producing conversions from inches to mm to thousandths of a millimetre. I note above that you say that you have set them to three significant figures; actually you have set them to round to 3 decimal places which is not the same. Use {{convert|6|ft|mm|sigfig=3|abbr=on}}, {{convert|16|in|mm|sigfig=3|abbr=on}} and {{convert|3|in|mm|sigfig=2|abbr=on}} instead to produce conversions to the nearest mm.
- What were the conversions applied to N class locomotive 822 in 1922?
- The article says that the main visual difference between K and K1 classes was the use of "a slab-front" on the K1 class. What is a slab front and what did the K class have instead?
Naming the locomotives - The article gives the name of three rivers used for the names of the locomotives - Adur, Avon and Frome. To satisfy the question as to what the others were named, I think the link in the See also section to List of SECR K and SR K1 class locomotives needs to be moved up to this section.
K and K1 class construction history - I think that this section should be above the naming section.
- As the notes column only repeats information already in the text above, I think that this can be removed.
Operational details - What are "service trains"?
Performance of the tank locomotives - I have fixed grammar issues in this section.
- Who was the chairman of the board who over ruled the directors in their efforts to ban the K class from passenger traffic? Was this before the Sevenoaks accident?
Sevenoaks disaster - What impact on the SR's standing did the accident have? Was compensation paid?
- It is interesting that the accident report concludes that the engines were well designed and suitable for express services on well maintained track. Perhaps this conclusion should be added to the article, either in this section or the Operational assessment and preservation section.
- The linked PDF report includes a good engineering elevation on page 42 of the K class which could be added to the article as the Crown copyright on the report has expired.
See also - This section is not strictly necessary as the items listed in it are already linked elsewhere in the article.
--DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 10 December 2009, 20:58 UTC)
[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics -
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GA, and is structured similarly to 1941 AHS, also an older Atlantic cyclone season. I'd like to get it to FA eventually, and while it's comprehensive, I'm sure a few tweaks could be made. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - I gave the prose a once over. It looked good, but I made a few small changes. I'm not an experienced copy-editor, so I won't be offended if you wind up reverting some (most?) of it. Besides that, images need alt-text. That's all I could find. Good luck! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your chances look great, thanks! It's always great to have an uninvolved pair of eyes to look over the more specialist articles. I think I added alt text to most of the images already, actually. Might have missed one or two though. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Not a full review, but here are a few (hopefully) helpful suggestions:-
- Second sentence: The word "generally" looks superfluous, as you are only saying that most tropical cyclones form in this period.
- Are "tropical cyclones" and "tropical storms" the same thing? If there is a distiction it should be explained.
- I think the timeline diagram should indicate the year 1939, as I feel diagrams/images should be self-contained if possible
- The term "hectopascal" is not well known, and should have a link.
- Some mph figures are converted to kph and others not - at least, "50 mph" isn't.
I hope this amounts to a bit of a helping hand. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I made a dozen or so minor c/e changes, including adding conversions where needed. I have just a few other suggestions. Aside from this and the things mentioned in the reviews above, the article generally looks fine to me.
Main infobox - Alt text is missing for the top image. I think the solution might be to add the |Track alt = parameter to the infobox and then add the alt text.
Lead - "All of the storms impacted land to some extent. - "Affected" rather than "impacted"?
Tropical Storm One - I added a conversion template for 50 mph, which yields 80 km/h. The infobox for this storm gives the metric equivalent as 85 km/h, which I think must be an error.
References - It looks like the newspaper archive you've linked to requires a subscription. You might use the "|format =" parameter to add "subscription required" to the newspaper citations to keep readers who want to read the source stories from getting frustrated.
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) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 05:02 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in suggestions on how to improve the article in general. Where are its weakest points, and what can be done to improve it to GA status? Thanks, Åkebråke (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 15:48 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been working long and hard on this article (which is also the condition that causes me to be disabled). It is my hope to elevate the article to Good Article status. With your review and assistance I feel this can become a reality! Thanks, Basket of Puppies 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/archive1.
(Peer review added on Monday 14 December 2009, 05:33 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because although I believe it is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, there's always the possibility that someone else could come up with ideas for improving it. I'm especially interested in discussion of how/if it is possible to get subjects with very little information available up to featured article status. Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I too will be interested to see how this does at FAC... personally, I abstain from submitting anything less than 20k of Wiki text to avoid any possible "too short" mentality, but I'm rooting for ya here. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Sasata (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - shouldn't the authority be Peckham & Peckham, 1888, and the authority for the older synonym (not included in the taxobox) be Hentz, 1845?
- The convention (in zoology at least) is to list the authority as the author of the earliest description. If the name is changed from the original, the authority is listed in parentheses, otherwise it is listed plain.
- where was the first species found? (ok, I see it later in the hab & dist section)
- range map needs a caption
- link specific name, subgeneric, classification
- any more info on the subfamily Dendryphantinae? How many species does it include? What characteristics are common? What source tells us the subfamilial placement?
- Dendryphantinae includes hundreds of species. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to describe the subfamily in a species article, as it is neither immediately above or below the species taxon. It would make sense to describe it in the Zygoballus article, however, so that the reader can understand why all Zygoballus spiders are classified under Dendryphantinae, otherwise we would be duplicating the same text across every Zygoballus species article. I should also note that Dendryphantinae is not easy to describe. It would take at least a paragraph (with lots of jargon) to give a basic explanation for what Dendryphantinae consists of. I've added a source for the classification though.
- make sure to put a non-breaking space when using the abbreviated genus name (including the figure captions) to prevent unsightly line wraps
- images needs alt text
- spider anatomy jargon words needs to be better explained so that a reader doesn't have to click other articles to get the gist of what's being described. This is especially true in the lead.
- See if you like it now.
- Much better now... even a high school student could understand it. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Mouthparts of male Z. sexpunctatus" figure caption: tell the reader what kind of view this is (frontal? overhead?)
- "...and as wide as long." sounds odd to me... I would use "...and as wide as it is long."
- femora in Description needs relinking (and explaining)
- I've described the femora in the lead and relinked it in the description.
- "The female can best be distinguished by the form of the epigyne." Yes, but how is it different?
- No source describes the difference so I'm not sure there's anything I can do about this vagueness.
- "Drawing of Z. sexpunctatus epigyne" figure caption... what am I looking at here? What are the circular things?
- No source describes the epigyne, so I would only be speculating if I tried myself.
- what's a sweep net?
- link courtship display
- Any more detail about the courtship displays or agonistic behavior?
- Probably not. See discussion on article talk page. The only information available is a one-paragraph abstract which mentions the species. I could add a lot of info from the videos linked in the External links section, but I'm afraid it would either be considered original research or not a verifiable source.
-
-
-
- That's the same source as the videos mentioned above (David Hill). Do you think I could claim it's a reliable source without getting ripped to shreds at FAC? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say yes (even definitely yes), seeing as he appears to be the general editor of a scientific journal about jumping spiders. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, see Talk:Zygoballus sexpunctatus#David Edwin Hill videos and webpages as reliable sources. More to come. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- link sexual maturity
- re: life cycle - when are the eggs laid? How much time from laying to hatching?
- No information is available on this. The entire life cycle section is derived from a single row in a table in one article. All the information it is possible to glean from the table is included in the article.
- book references needs locations (else you'll get nailed by Fifelfoo at FAC)
- need more consistency with capitalization of journal titles... maybe just stick with sentence case
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current ref 1 needs a last access date.
- Current ref 3 needs a page number
- Current ref 11 isn't published by the Internet Archive, but by whoever put the website out in the first place, IA is just hosting it. Same for current ref 22. And what makes these relialbe sources?
- Actually they were originally published on the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has other stuff besides the "Wayback Machine". I've added the specific collection (Open Source Movies) to the citations to clarify. Regarding the reliability, please see this thread as well as the peer review above. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.peckhamia.com/gallery.html a reliable source?
- Please see this thread. I would be very interested in your opinion on this before it goes to FAC. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 20:25 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because while I think I've patched up most of the major holes, I would like it checked for scientific accuracy and also any stylistic or similar issues before taking it to FAC Thanks, Serendipodous 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Åkebråke: "These studies showed that the comet's dynamics follow a simple area-preserving map similar to the standard map. Its dynamics were shown to be chaotic and unpredictable on long timescales. Halley's projected lifetime, as determined by differential escape, could be as high as 10 million years." Both two links are impossible to understand for a layperson. What does "differential escape" mean? Åkebråke (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC) It wasn't really needed, so I removed it. Serendipodous 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and certainly broad in coverage. Since I'm not a scientist, I can't speak with authority about the astronomy, though the meaning seems clear enough throughout. The article is not yet ready for FAC, however, because of prose, style, layout, and image-licensing questions that I mention below. All of these problems are solvable, though some will require a fair bit of time and effort. Here are my suggestions. Layout - The Manual of Style generally recommends against extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The "Apparitions" section has a fractured (listy) appearance because it contains so many tiny subsections. I'd suggest merging these in some logical manner to make a smaller set of longer subsections.
- Images should not overlap two sections or subsections but be fully contained within the section they illustrate. Combining short subsections should make this layout problems easier to solve. For example, all the BC apparitions might be grouped under one subhead
Lead - "and can currently be seen every 75–76 years" - Generally, it's better to replace vague time terms like "currently" with something more specific. Would this be better as "since the 18th century"? Also, I think the sentence would scan better if "75–76" years were changed to "75 to 76 years". Ditto for similar constructions throughout the article.
- "Many comets with long orbital periods may appear brighter and more spectacular, but Halley is the only short-period comet that is clearly visible to the naked eye, and thus, the only naked-eye comet certain to return within a human lifetime." - It does not follow logically that the short periodicity and naked-eye visibility make it certain that the comet will return within any particular human lifetime. I'd be inclined to drop the last part of the claim or to modify it to something like "... thus, the only naked-eye comet that might appear twice in an observer's lifetime".
- "after whom the comet is now named" - Delete "now"?
Computation of orbit - "(he was later found to be correct; see Newton's Comet) - Generally it's best to avoid addressing the reader directly as here in the implied "You see Newton's Comet", an imperative.
- "Halley's prediction of the comet's return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758 (by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer) and did not pass through its perihelion until March 13, 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days,[23] as was computed (with a one-month error to April 13)[24] by a team of three French mathematicians, Alexis Clairault, Joseph Lalande, and Nicole-Reine Lepaute,[25] previous to its return." - Too complex. Break into two sentences.
Orbit and origin - "Its perihelion, its closest distance to the Sun, is just 0.6 AU... ". - It would be helpful to non-astronomers if you converted as astronomical units to miles and kilometers on each use of AU. Also, on first use, it would be good to spell out and link astronomical unit (AU).
Structure and composition - "which may extend about 100 million kilometres into space" - I'd suggest giving this in imperial units as well as metric. Ditto for other measures given in metric only.
9 June 1456 (1P/1456 K1, 1456) - The direct quote from Platina needs a source.
1531-1759 - Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
- This short list could easily be turned into straight prose.
20 April 1910 (1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c) - Dates like May 18 are not normally linked.
- "Halley's 1910 apparition should not be confused with the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... " - Instead of telling the reader what he or she should do, it would be better to say something like "Halley's 1910 apparition differs from the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... ".
Images - The licensing for Image:Halleys comet.jpg is a bit shaky. For example, it's not possible to tell from the description where in the world this tablet resides. The image appears to be self-made, but the description does not say so. It would be good to fill in as much of the missing information as possible.
- Image:Tigran Mets.jpg has similar problems and has been flagged at the Commons for lack of source information.
- You may be asked where in the Nuremberg Chronicle the image Image:NurembergHalley.jpg appears and which edition this refers to. If you could add a link to the exact page, that would be helpful.
- Image:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg lacks a date on its Commons description page. It should be possible to add at least an approximate date for the tapestry's creation.
- "Comet Halley at 28 AU Heliocentric Distance. Credit ESO" - The credit on the licensing page is sufficient and shouldn't appear in the caption.
- The images need alt text, meant to explain the content of images to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details. Helpful alt text is a requirement for FA, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. You can use the alt text viewer in the box at the top of this review page to check the alt text.
General - The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds four wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
References - Newspaper names should appear in italics.
- Date formatting should be consistent throughout the refs; in this case, it would be easier to change all nonconforming dates such as November 12, 2009 in citation 71 to yyyy-mm-dd.
- Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
- Authors are normally listed last name first.
- Even when a source uses all caps in a title, Wikipedia converts this to title case. Thus, FROM KUIPER BELT OBJECT TO COMETARY NUCLEUS: THE MISSING ULTRARED MATTER in citation 34 should be altered to "From Kuiper Belt Object to Cometary Nucleus: The Missing Ultrared Matter".
- What makes a dot-com source like "www.twainquotes.com" reliable?
- What makes a personal web site like Bill Arnett's in citation 31 reliable? It's doubtful that it meets the requirements of WP:RS.
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) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 14:03 UTC)
[edit] General -
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is complete and would like a review. Thanks, Elimitat Tattoo Removal Resource (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 28 December 2009, 04:40 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major make-over but it needs more . i want wikipedia contributors to have a look at this article and provide suggestions regarding prose and other problems that the article has and also about what can be done to improve the article. Thanks, Souvik.arko (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Overall a good start. Don't have time for a thorough review at the moment but here are some initial comments: Here are my comments: - Notability
- The article needs to do a little better job of establishing its notability. For some topics the notability is pretty obvious but for a topic like a high school an article should demonstrate why this high school is one of a small percentage of high schools in the world that is significant enough to merit an article.
- Ideally this notability should be established in the first paragraph.
- Since a typical reader might be dubious about the notability it is good to explicitly mention an authoritative source that has concretely stated the importance of topic (i.e. not just a reference). Even better a quote from the source put in lead is good to establish notability.
- Apart from quoting a paritcular authoritative source I would recommend trying to give references to more than one source when establishing notability so that nobody questions whether this article should exist (this is debatable; Wikiproject Schools seems to be rather liberal about notability).
- Additional content that would be desirable:
- Student demographics - Is there information available about what the student make-up is like: kinds of or distributions of family backgrounds, etc.
- Extracurriculars - The extracurricular activies discussions should be expanded a lot. E.g. talk about the history of the school magazine, how many students work on it, etc. Is there anything special or surprising about what it covers (does it just cover mundane details of student life? Does it do profiles of notable students? Does it cover events in the community? etc.). Tell us more about sports. Does the school compete in a league with other schools? What kinds of tournaments are there? etc.
- Copyediting comments:
- The article needs some general polishing on the writing (I don't know if this is a more an issue of non-native English speakers doing the writing or regional dialects of English creeping into the writing).
- The Bengali name should also be transliterated in the Roman alphabet and in IPA.
- <ref>s should be placed after the period at the end of a sentence.
- Terms like "viva voce", "secondary school certificate", and "quirat" should be explained, at least briefly. Such terms are not necessarily common knowledge to everyone in the world.
- Avoid using symbols like ampersands (&) in the text. Explicitly write out "and."
- Lists are introduced with overly terse headers, e.g. "RUMC aims -". It is generally best to introduce lists with complete sentences, or at least a reasonbly detailed phrase. If a phrase is used terminate it with a colon (:), not a dash(-).
- There are spaces missing before parentheses in a lot of places.
- There should not be any spaces between <ref> tags and the text preceding them.
- Be careful about words like "wonderful." Generally unless the article is explicitly describing opinions of some particular source such words make the article sound biased.
- "football,basketball, cricket, handball etc competitions are ...": Should be rewritten as something like "football,basketball, cricket, handball, and other competitions are ..."
- Other comments:
- There are some very short sections. Ideally a section should have at least 2 paragraphs and — say — 8 sentences. If you can't come up with even 4 sentences on a subject then the text should be merged into some other section.
- There are several big tables. It might be good to make the tables collapsed by default and make them floating (see Help:Table and look for "Collapsible tables" and "Floating table"). This makes them less intrusive and doesn't force the reader to look at them if they are not interested in those details.
- Some of the detail in certain areas may be excessive (this is subjective, though):
- Aims and beliefs. As it is this section seems unnecessary. Most of the statements in these lists are similar to credos of a lot of schools and organizations. If there is something particularly unique about RUMC's beliefs or how it applies them compared to most schools then this should be discussed. In such a context listing these out might be appropriate (perhaps as a collapsible table to the side).
- Listing out each of the positions in the Board of Governors.
- Uniforms. I would say 1) don't discuss this as a list, 2) cut back slightly on the detail, 3) discuss a little more about the motivation and the culture surrounding the use of uniforms.
- Rooms in the campus. Describing where every room is located is trivia that almost nobody but people associated with the school would care about.
- Be careful about lists. Wikipedia tends to disdain lists in articles in favor of simply talking about what you need to in the prose. For example, in the School events and programs section it would be preferable to simply discuss the different activities in a series of paragraphs rather than have a list (it's not even clear what some of these in the list are).
You might want to use an article like Amador Valley High School as a model. Hope this helps. Mcorazao (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 05:58 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be cleaned up for wikipedia's standards. Thanks, Lukejtharries (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Review by mcorazao Theoretically an article is not supposed to eligible for review if there are deletion and notability banners on it but I'll offer a few comments: - References:
- A Youtube video in not a very good source. In this case it is both a self-published source and a primary source (primary sources are acceptable in limited cases but this one is plain bad).
- I don't see anything in the MenuMania source except a listing of Giapo which says that 14 readers rated it well. That certainly does not back up its being "one of Auckland's Top Restaurants."
- That leaves effectively just one source that has any real merit. Ideally it would be best to find hard sources (i.e. books). That's probably impossible since this is a new company so you should try to find more magazine and/or newspaper articles as sources.
- Notability:
- The article really doesn't explain the notability.
- The largest cone thing is really just trivia. The "top restaurants" thing is not supported by the references.
- If it has achieved some sort iconic status what is the extent of that status and where is the evideence.
- Is it notable because the customer base is particularly large (hard to believe)?
- In general the article is extremely low on content. What is the history of the company? What are the revenues. How many locations? etc., etc. etc. If there really isn't much to say then why is it notable?
Hope that helps. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 22:57 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was previously peer reviewed and changes have been made. Thanks, Flyguy33 (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 26 December 2009, 08:04 UTC)
|
