 | 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 so I can prepare it for a featured list nomination. Since my English has been noted to be bad, I decided to get the peer review done before I finished the episode summaries. I have done up to 509. I'm pretty sure most of my problems are found in the summaries. Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 04:47 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's good enough to be a featured list, and I'd like to get some feedback so that can happen soon. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)
- Most FLs do not have "this is a list of blah episodes". Try "The episodes of Canaan is directed by Masahiro Ando."
- 428: Fūsa Sareta Shibuya de has been wikified too many times - linking it once is enough.
- Choose between Canaan and CANAAN and keep it consistent.
- Please alternative text to the pictures.
- Pictures should not be restricted to allow for user preference.
- A DVD release table should be created. Look at List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes#Volume DVDs for an example.
- The publisher field of references should be filled in.
- Translate the titles of the references into English where possible.
- Please use reliable sources for the list. What makes the following sources reliable?
-
- Amazon is not generally seen as a reliable source and refs 16-24 are from Amazon. Please use publisher's refs or third-party refs if possible.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Extremepro (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - Comments by Timothy Perper (talk · contribs)
- The summaries are imprecise and need a lot of work -- see the Talk page for some examples. I can't do that since I have no idea what the author is driving at in a number of places. I also think there's too much detail, but that may be a matter of taste. It's a good first start, but it needs a lot of work. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 05:48 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)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 22:59 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
This is an article on a known and important but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and determine his course as a creative personality. Since the last peer review this article received, it has been improved considerably, thanks in no small part from the input received. However, it still needs work and input before it is ready to be submitted to FAC. Therefore, I am submitting this article for a second peer review in hope and expectation to make it FAC-ready in the near future and would greatly appreciate help from readers and commentators to reach this goal. Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Quick point: I am reading this, and will have more points later. One initial thing: the caption to the lead image should surely read "anti-clockwise", not clockwise? Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for pointing this out. The caption has been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ricardiana  Doing... Ricardiana (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Lead - Overall, the lead reads much better than before - it was not bad before, but assumed a more knowledgeable readership. I think this version is much easier for the average reader to follow.
- Thank you. This was exactly my intention in drafting the new lead, so I'm glad it succeeds in this respect. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- endemically - ...except for this word! -which I had to look up. Can you rephrase or wiktionary link?
- "Tchaikovsky wanted to write compositions in a style that would transcend national barriers while remaining endemically Russian, and of a professional quality that would stand up to Western scrutiny." -- this reads a little awkwardly to me. Could you put the end at the beginning, so that the references to the West are together rather than sandwiching Russia, something like "Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions in a style that would stand up to Western scrutiny, transcend national barriers, and yet remain uniquely Russian" ?
- "lead composer Mili Balakirev considered academicism a threat rather than a help to musical imagination" - this seems redundant - could you just say "a threat to the musical imagination" (if it is a threat, it cannot be a help)
Early years - "After the first opera was presented in Russia in 1731" - this makes it sound like there is a "first" opera - do you mean "after the first presentation / performance of an opera"? Also, the semi-colon later in the sentence should be a comma (tho' 19th c. texts certainly did use semi-colons this way)
- Yes, I meant the first presentation of an opera in Russia. I've made this clarification in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I was going to wait for Ricardiana, but it may help if you have my remarks on the early sections, with more to follow later. One general point: the article is pretty long, at 9,000+ words. Absorbing though it is, and very well researched and prepared, I'm not sure it needs to be that long. In some of my comments below I have indicated where I think points could be expressed more concisely, but I believe it would benefit from an overall streamlining. I always do this with my own articles, and always manage to lose around 10 to 15 percent of the words without any loss of significant content. - Lead
- Wordiness: "...Tchaikovsky was schooled at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence in St. Petersburg, the political and cultural capital of Russia at the time, and was engaged in a career as a civil servant in that city when he decided to study music professionally." Can be reduced to "...Tchaikovsky decided to study music professionally only after three years' employment as a civil servant" (15 words instead of 43)
- "...to compose in the same manner as Joseph Haydn,..." → "...to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn,..."
- "19th century Western European composers of conservative leanings." This seems a rather ill-defined category. Also, with its political connotation, "conservative" may not be the best word, perhaps "traditional" would be better? But I think the phrase needs explanation.
- I meant conservative in musical practice, as opposed to the progressive musical practices of Wagner, Liszt, Chopin and Schumann. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- How can something "transcend national boundaries" and remain uniquely associated with one nation?
- If the music is of a quality and meets a standard of compositional excellence that could be measured universally yet have melodic or other characteristics that are unique to one nation. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unnecessary link on "composers"
- Describing Balakirev as the "lead composer" makes the Five sound rather like a pop group (The Dave Clark Five?). Could he be described otherwise?
- ...a specifically Russian kind of art music". Why "art music" rather than just "music"?
- "Art music" as opposed to "folk music" or "popular music". Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the "unique" properties of Russian folk music. All national folk music has particular identifying characteristics; is there something else about Russian folk music that distinguishes it from all others?
- Brown, Figes and Maes all discuss that there are stylistic and compositioanl qualities of Russian music that hold true only for it. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "He took pains to ensure his musical independence from them as well as from the conservative faction at the Conservatory—a course of action facilitated by his acceptance of a professorship at the Moscow Conservatory." Tchaikovsky's musical independence, which is what was facilitated, can't be described as a "course of action". I suggest the phrase is replaced with "outcome".
- Why do Glazunov and Lyadov turn up in the final sentence - what's the connection? And why the teaser "at least on the surface" in relation to Rimsky?
- Glazunov and Lyadov were part of the Belyayev circle, a St.-Petersburg-based compositional group that took up in the 1880's where the Five left off. The circle was headed by they and Rimsky-Korsakov. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Early years (intro): "...the greater number of concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and was likewise dominated by foreigners." No doubt this is grammatically correct, but it reads awkwardly. I'd try "...most concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and were likewise dominated by foreigners"
- Tchaikovsky: This subsection ends prematurely. It needs to have added most of what is at present the last paragraph of the "Rubinstein and the St Petersburg Conservatory" subsection.
- The Five
- First sentence: this is first mention of Glinka since the lead, so I think his full name should be given.
- Glinka is actually first mentioned in the brief lead-in before the Tchaikovsky section. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Same sentence - in Spain? Unless his being in Spain is relevant I suggest you omit this. Otherwise people (like me) will wonder: What was he doing in Spain?
- Same sentence: Suggest omit "two men" and run on: "Around Christmas 1855, Glinka was visited by Alexander Ulïbïshev, a rich Russian amateur critic,..." etc
- "young composers through which..." Shouldn't that be a "whom"?
- "All the composers in The Five..." They hadn't been dubbed "The Five" at this stage, so I would call them "the group"
- Describing Borodin as "the old man at 28" is not really encyclopedic language. Perhaps "the oldest"? But - do we need to know all their ages? Maybe it would be enough to say: "All the composers in the group were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28."
- This paragraph needs a bit of repunctuating to improve the flow; at present it has a staccato feel with some very short sentences, e.g. "They were all self-trained amateurs." and "Borodin combined composing with a career in chemistry."
- I've remoed the second half of this paragraph and merged it with the following one. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "All five of its composers was essentially self-taught" This point already made in the previous paragraph ("self-trained amateurs").
- I removed the first of these references. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The fourth was the use of, and incorporation of compositional devices linked with, folk music." Surely these two things are the same? We can avaoid the awkward commas by simply saying: "The fourth was the incorporation of compositional devices linked with folk music."
- Rubinstein etc
- "He also came to realize the essentiality of serious professional musical training..." The word "serious" is probably superfluous. The wording is anyway rather stiff. "He had come to realize that professional musical training was essential, and that higher..." etc
- "on his return" not necessary
- "Musical life had flourished everywhere in those places;" - "had" and "everywhere" are redundant, thus "Musical life flourished in those places;"
- St Petersburg firestorm
- Is "firestorm" your own metaphor? I suspect it is, as the word doesn't appear in the text. It is a rather loaded word, definitely not neutral, so unless it can be cited to a quote I think it should be replaced with a less florid term. Sorry about that.
- Since I merged this section into the previous one, the heading (and the term) is gone. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical progressives and conservatives—or, to label these groups more accurately, radicals and traditionalists" could easily be "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical radicals and traditionalists." Why use the less accurate labels at all?
- I'm not sure that "mentor" is the best term here - I think "inspiration" is the meaning intended.
- The radicals have broken into two factions, and now we have "Each of these three factions..." I suppose the third is the traditionalists, but this is not clear, since the traditionalists are not really a "faction". I'd choose another word, and add an explanatory phase: "Each of these groupings—two radical and one traditionalist—championed a different aesthetic ideal..." etc
- "...the essence and function and music." Typo? ("of music"?)
- "According to musicologist Francis Maes, one thing that should be stressed, given the negative connotation of the term conservative, is that Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity." This is rather cumbersome, and I don't follow the internal logic of the sentence, unless there is an general assumption that musical conservatives must lack artisitic integrity. Could this be simplified to "According to musicologist Francis Maes, Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity."
- Reading on in this section, I found myself wondering whether this level of detail (Balakirev and Rubinstein attacking one another, Serov attacking both of them, Balakirev savaging Serov's opera, anti-semitism etc) is really necessary in this article about Tchaikovsky and the Five. I can see that you want to establish that Rubinstein was an early target for the Five, and that Tchaikovsky's association with the Conservatory and therefore with Rubinstein brought him into the line of their fire. But I'm not convinced that we need this much detail, and am inclined to think that the essentials could be incorporated into the previous subsection.
- Differences in Russianness: Stravinsky quote
- Enclosing the quotation in a box rather cuts it off from the prose flow. Is there any reson why it shouldn't be a simple blockquote?
- As to the quotation itself – what on earth is he going on about? It's about as crystal clear as much of his music, and as tortuously expressed. And did he actually say "popular Russian melos"? Sorry, but I simply can't work out his point.
- Yes, he actually said that. Rest assured, though—I've removed the quote. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's quite a bit to be going on with, so I'll post the rest later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 18:53 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)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 14:46 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because: I would like to minimise prose and copyediting issues if/when at FAC; I have not previously written an article containing a filmography and want to be alerted to any problems with its layout; and I want to test views about the reliability of sources, given the purposes to which they have been put. Reviewers may wish to check my initial chat with Ealdgyth on the article talk page on this point. To anticipate one possible query about options for alternative sources: Steve Dodd played only minor roles on film and TV, so he is almost never mentioned in reviews or reference works. For example, I have consulted three separate encycopedias / books of Australian Television series, none of which mention his roles in the various series listed. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Jonyungk comments: This is overall a very well-written and informative article, one that I would gladly support when it reaches FAC not only for its overall quality but also for what it says about Indigenous Australians and their historical plight through Dodd's career. However, there are still a couple of points to be addressed. Lead - My main point of confusion here is that you state in the lead that Dodd was born in Alice Springs, yet in the body of the article you mention that the actual city of his birth is disputed. If the latter is the case, wouldn't it be better to state his birthplace in the lead as the Northwest territory, as you do in the body of the article?
-
- You mention in the lead that Dodd had a role in the film Galipoli but you do not mention the film in the body of the article. Likewise, Dodd's role in The Coca-Cola Kid, which was, like Galipoli, released internationally, is not mentioned except in the filmography. I realize these may have been minor roles, but these are roles in films which some international readers may recognize. Mentioning Dodd's role in these films might give those readers additional interest in the article.
Background - Since I am an American, I am not familiar with the Rough Riders Association. Perhaps a few words of explanation would help international readers?
- "Airlines of NSW"—NSW means New South Wales? Readers not so knowledgable about their geography may not make the connection.
-
- Fixed. And this led me to spend my day on an article about the Airline, instead of responding here! Back tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This section overall is very well done.
Early career - Dodd's being "a pioneering actor" may be a statement of fact but feels slightly POV as phrased here, without attribution. Is there w way to attribute this statement or, if not, to say he was one of the first Indigenous actors in Australian theater and film?
- You bring us up to 1971 for Dodd's film career, then bring us back to 1966 to include his early stage and television credits. A coupe of transion words would help—"On stage, in 1966 Dodd performed ..." "Dodd's first role on stage ..." or something along these lines. The same goes for Dodd's television roles mentioned later in the same paragraph—a couple of words such "On television ..." would help.
-
- Overall, this section feels very through in its coverage. It kept my interest and also made me more interested in reading about Chips Rafferty, about whom I had no knowledge before reading this article.
Later career - I've mentioned this already in discussing the lead, but a mention of Dodd's roles in internationally-released films could potentially increase interest in the article with non-Australian readers.
- This section is a good start. It does not feel as comprehensive as Early career as it mentions only those roles of Dodd's that are connected with issues facing Indigenous Australians. What other roles has Dodd played, or in what other films? I realize Dodd may have worked primarily in minor roles, but I would still like to read more about the range of roles he has played.
Television roles - I was slightly disconcerted by seeing early television roles mentioned a second time. I realize these are different roles than the ones mentioned in Early career, but perhaps bringing all of Dodd's television work in this section would sidestep any potential confusion.
One other question: Is there any information on Dodd's peraonal life otehr than what is in Background? I realize such information may be scanty, but it would be nice to learn a little more about Dodd in this article, if that is possible. Thanks very much for an enjoyable read. Hope these comments help. Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 03:55 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on improving its quality, sourcing, formatting, prose etc and would like some ideas and opinions of how to improve the article further! Thanks, :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Comments by Gongshow: This is a very well-done discography, and there are no issues with dabs or dead links. I hope the following suggestions are helpful. - Lead:
-
- "a number of other appearances" --> I realize "other appearances" refers to a subsequent section heading, but in this sentence the wording seems just a little too vague for my liking. Perhaps consider changing to something like, "a number of collaborations with other artists" or "a number of guest appearances on other artists' songs"?
- There's an extra "." at the end of the first paragraph.
- "...United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the song also peaked..." --> The comma after Canada must be changed. I'd go with a semi-colon there.
- ""Beep" a collaboration with will.i.am..." --> There should be a comma after "Beep".
- "has been certified platinum by ARIA and gold by the BPI.[4][1][2][8][7]" --> Instead of lumping all the citations at the end of the sentence, I would put a citation after each fact for clarity.
- At the end of the third paragraph, there should be a comma after "Bottle Pop" and after "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)".
- Singles:
-
- Some of the citations don't match up. For example, in the Canada column, the citation does not provide Canadian peak chart positions for any PCD songs except "Hush Hush". In the US column, the citation does not show the US peak chart positions for "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)" (looks like it's found here) or "Whatcha Think About That" (may also be found on a "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" chart at #8). Also, are there sources that show the group's German peak chart positions?
- Other appearances:
-
- References
-
- Citation 3 needs a retrieval date.
- Citation 15 needs a publisher.
Again, these are mostly minor nitpicks. This is a nicely-written and well-referenced article overall. Kudos on the good work! Gongshow Talk 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - heya, thank you so much for your review! :)
- have actioned your suggestions for the lead, makes much better sense now.
- have changed the candian singles ref to make it clearer and added the us jai ho one. also added the german, forgot about that. do u happen to know where the "bubbling under" chart is archived?
- added the wikilink
- the retrieved date and publisher were both there, just spelt wrong, so they didnt show up. fixed now!
Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) -
- You're welcome! As far as an online archive for the "Bubbling Under" chart, I don't have a direct link myself unfortunately, so here are some ideas. First, it's possible that the date for the #108 peak was 11 Oct 2008, as that corresponds to this link which shows the song at #70 on the Pop 100. Unfortunately, there is no "Bubbling Under" chart listed in this issue. Billboard.biz is a paysite, so I cannot confirm that the song will be found there, either. Another possibility is a recently released book, Top Pop Singles 1955-2008, which claims to have every "Bubbling Under" song ever, which would be a great resource for all those songs that peaked just outside the top 100 in the US. There's also a Record Charts Wikiproject which may be of more assistance. Good luck! Gongshow Talk 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 28 November 2009, 18:35 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I was told that the prose needs improving. I think that once the writing style has been improved, the article meets the standards for FA. Thus, I would like help in copy-editing the entire article. Thanks, Ωphois 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Supernatural (season 2)/archive1.
(Peer review added on Saturday 28 November 2009, 14:20 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it has FA potencial Thanks, Pedro J. the rookie 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better since the last peer review. I think the language could still be improved and will try and point out as many examples as I can of rough spots. There are some other mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement beyond language too. - LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth season, something like that. The first paragraph is a bit short anyway. The set in a fictional version of Rhode Island sentence could probably be added here too.
- LEAD - awkward sentence - MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and renamed him Peter, also redesigning Larry's dog Steve, who developed into Brian. Should use parallel construction (so "also redesigning Larry's dog Steve" doesn't match - should be redesigned. The sentence could also be tighter, perhaps something like MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and his dog Steve, and renamed them Peter and Brian.
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- LEAD - "ratings on" doesn't sound right in However, favorable DVD sales and high ratings on syndicated reruns convinced the network to renew the show in 2004. how about "ratings for"?
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- LEAD - this could be tightened too: Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards, of which it won three. The show has also been nominated for eleven Annie Awards, winning three times into something like Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards and eleven Annie Awards, and has won three of each.
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- LEAD - I am nopt really sure what a "low review" is. Family Guy has also received negative criticism, including three lawsuits, and low reviews for its similarities to the animated series The Simpsons. Perhaps replace "low reviews for its similarities" with "unfavorable comparisons for its similarities"?
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- LEAD - there is very little about the show itself in the lead - it seems to me that someone who had not seen it would know more about tie-ins, awards, and criticism, than what to expect watching a typical episode.
- History section has this sentence The network also began production of a film based on the series.[12] with a ref from 2004, then nothing more on a film until the film section, where this is not mentioned at all. I think I would either remove this (a 5 year old reference to a film in planning which has never materialized) or perhaps it owuld be better to move it to the film section and change it to something like When the series was renewed in 2004, the network announced its intention to begin production of a film version.[12] Although this has not yet materialized...
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the material seems a poor fit in the section - it might need to be moved elsewhere or the section title might need to be revised. For example, what does the nice little story about early episode naming conventions really have to do with "Staff" (the section it is in)?
- There are a fair number of places that could provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR For example could the years the people were on staff be added to the Staff section's a list of various types of producers? For another example, why not add the year (2004) to Since the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, the writers have been required to tone down the show's crude humor for television broadcasts.[20] Also not really sure what this has to do with the Staff section, though it does mention the writers.
- Also per WP:PCR or WP:IN-U, I owuld describe who Peter, Stewie and Brian are at the beginning of voice cast, so Seth MacFarlane voices three of the show's main characters: [father] Peter Griffin, [Peter's dog] Brian Griffin, and [Peter's infant son] Stewie Griffin.[25]
- There is a one sentence paragraph on MacFarlane's other voice roles that should be merged with the preceding one on his main voice roles to improve flow.
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Needs a ref Other recurring cast members include: Patrick Warburton as Joe Swanson; Adam West playing himself as mayor Adam West; Jennifer Tilly as Bonnie Swanson; John G. Brennan as Mort Goldman; Carlos Alazraqui as Jonathan Weed; Adam Carolla and Norm Macdonald as Death; Lori Alan as Diane Simmons; and Tara Strong as many additional voices, most notably Meg's singing voice. as does most of the last paragraph of Characters
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say eponymous in Adam West playing
himself as [the eponymous] mayor Adam West - he is not really playing himself (is the real Adam West a mayor?) - done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Explain that 31 Spooner Street is the fictional address of the Griffins in This is supported by the fact that the real-world "31 Spooner Street" is located in Providence, immediately west of Roger Williams Park.[43]
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wyach needless repetition - the Adam West the actor voices the character Adam West the mayor bit is in twice and is not important enough to be in the article twice.
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I watch this show occasionally - the whole talking dog that everyone can understand and talking baby that most people cannot understand aspects are not really explained well.
- OK, this is enough - I think it is a lot better, but it still needs some work before I think it could pass an FAC.
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 ><>°° 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 26 November 2009, 22:14 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to solicit feedback about the article and how it meets featured article criteria. Thanks, FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This is well-written in places, less so in others. Its most glaring problems lie with the sourcing, and these would prevent it from succeeding at GAN, let alone FAC. It has potential, though, and the work you've put into it clearly shows. Here are my suggestions for improvement. - The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
- Reference numbers should be snug against the end punctuation rather than one space over as in citation 1 in the lead.
- Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to web-based sources need the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of those can be found. A handy way to do citations is to use the "cite" family of templates found at WP:CIT. If you use these, don't mix them with other families of citation templates such as the "citation" family found also at WP:CIT. You also can look at other film articles, especially FA articles, in edit mode to see how other editors have handled citations.
- At least some of your sources are probably not reliable as defined by WP:RS. Blogs, for example, are not reliable sources, and dot-coms are often questionable.
Plot - "Ip accepts work as a coolie at a coal mine." - Wikilink coolie?
Pre-production - "Producer Raymond Wong stated that the film would take on a similar look and feel to SPL." - Is SPL a film title? If so, this might be a little more clear as "the film SPL ". Oh, I see further down that it's SPL: Sha Po Lang. It should be spelled out and linked on this first instance rather than later.
- Generally, it's best to avoid extremely short paragraphs and sections. The two most common solutions are to expand or merge. The last paragraph in this section is quite short; the Music section is extremely short.
Filming - "since Foshan, in early republican years" - You might add a bit more here to include outsiders in the meaning of "early republican years".
- "unique place where Chinese and Western cultures would converge" - "Converged" rather than "would converge"?
Stunts and choreography - "Yen also had a masseur on set... " Wikilink masseur?
- "after receiving four blows continuously" - Perhaps "after receiving four consecutive blows"?
Film title controversy - "Ip Man gained controversy over its original film title, which was disputed by film director Wong Kar-wai... " - I'm not sure "gain" is the right verb. Perhaps "Ip Man's original title was controversial. It was disputed... ".
- "To settle the dispute, Raymond Wong publicly expressed the film title... " - "Changed" or "retracted" rather than "expressed"?
- The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotes. Blockquotes are customary for quotations of four lines or more. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
Release - "Ip Man was first released in China on the week of 8 December to 14 December." - Should this include the year as well?
- "The film was also released in New Zealand, and was the first country to release the Cantonese version due to time zone differences." - Ambiguous. What do time zones have to do with it? Needs clarification.
Reception - "Prior to its theatrical release in China, Ip Man held a test screening in Beijing on 4 December 2008." - The film didn't hold a screening for itself. Who did?
- "As a traditional martial arts film, Ip Man's fight scenes were awarded... " - Dangling modifier. The fight scenes can't be equated with the film.
- "Kevin Ma of Love HK Film.com gave the film a mixed review... " - The embedded external link should be turned into an inline citation.
Home video releases Sequels - Ip Man 2 sees Donnie Yen reprising the lead role... " - Since films can't see, perhaps "Donnie Yen reprises his lead role in Ip Man 2, the second featured film based on the life of Ip Man"?
- "The film will focus on Ip's migration in Hong Kong... " - "migration to Hong Kong" or "movements in Hong Kong"?
- "A screenplay for a future third installment is currently being written." - I'd suggest merging this short paragraph with the one above it.
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) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 November 2009, 12:51 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a translated version of the Featured Article in the Spanish article. It is very detailled (about 90 kBytes big). I need critical eyes before submitting for GA nomination. Thanks, Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Comment You will need more inline citations in order to meet GA. You obviously have references in the reference section but do not cite page numbers etc. So that is one thing I can tell you right off the bat. This is obviously a labour of love so supplying the citations shouldn't be a problem and will strengthen the article immensely.Hope that helps.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice photos and agree that this is a labor of love. The thing is that each language's Wikipedia has different standards, here are some suggestions for improvement of the article to meet the standards here. - Article needs more references, there are whole sections without any inline refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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 EUR 7 admission (as one example) is only in the lead.
- As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD The article may need fewer sections / headers too.
- The section headers do not meet WP:HEAD which says not to repeat all or pert of the article title if at all possible. So headers like "The Renaissance grillwork in the cathedral" could just be "Renaissance grillwork" (drop "The", already know that it is in the cathedral)
- Use of bold and italic and all capitals does not follow WP:ITALIC and the WP:MOS
- Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interfere with the flow of the prose - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- The long quote in Latin has to have a translation provided
- The text needs a copyedit to clean up many small problems - it reads like a translation that still needs some polish.
- Some of the language runs the risk of violating WP:NPOV - The magnificence of the cathedral of Toledo has always raised among the critics and historians of art great admirations and compliments. If this is a direct quote with a citation, it would be OK.
- The tools in the box at upper right finds one disambiguation wikilink, one dead external link, and no alt text (needed per WP:ALT).
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 ><>°° 05:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 23 November 2009, 13:01 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually take this article to GA status, and am interested in receiving feedback on what this article needs to bring it up to the GA level. I appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) These are just my thoughts. I have no idea about the person the article is about, so maybe as a "new reader" I can provide a different view. You will probably want to find the exact pages to wikilink to: - Annie
- Bernadette
- Marguerite
- The Woman in White
Overall the {{cite}} tags should come after the punctuation marks in a sentences; change reference 3 for example! Check the other references for the same edit. Also, find references for the Citation needed tag. Biography I would suggest removing the header Biography and replacing it with Career instead. This article is already a biography and that seems redundant. Career 1980s - Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey[1] before making her stage debut, at the age of 19, in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea. This sentence structure doesn't seem to flow. Perhaps breaking it up? "Prior to making her stage debut at the age of 19, Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey. Her debut performance was in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea."
- Her West End Theatre debut came shortly thereafter when she was cast in Cats, making appearances as Jemima, Demeter, Griddlebone and Grizabella.[2] Shortly thereafter means? Being more specific when this happens helps the reader chronologically read the article.
1990s - In 1992, at the age of 25, she was cast as Fantine in Les Misérables, though her first starring role wouldn't come until the 1993 trans-Atlantic transfer of the Broadway smash Crazy for You, with a score by George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin, opening at the Prince Edward Theatre. Change the word wouldn't to would not. Also, I think it would read better as two sentences.
2000 to the Present Change the header to 2000-present? - Henshall was cast in the title role of the stage musical adaptation of the Francis Ford Coppola film Peggy Sue Got Married,[4] which opened in London in August 2001 to mixed reviews. Perhaps you can expand what sorts of review were given that made the musical close after two months. Seems like something that might interest the reader to read critical reviews of her performances.
- After Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent in 2009, Ruthie Henshall's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables has become a YouTube hit with more than four million viewings.[11] This seems like trivia and probably doesn't need to be included.
Personal life You will probably want to make this a section that isn't a subsection of Career. It maybe better to have it go before her Career section so a new reader of this performer can read about her background before reading about her career. Theatre Credits/Discography These sections will need more references. Anyway, these are my suggestions for this article! oncamera(t) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Thank you very much for the review! I'll implement your suggestions asap. :) @Kate (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 21 November 2009, 06:56 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in soliciting feedback about the article and how it meets featured article criteria. Any comments are welcome! Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This certainly appears to be comprehensive, stable, neutral, and reasonably well-illustrated, and well-sourced. It's quite interesting as well. I noticed quite a few minor prose and style issues, fixed a few, and listed others below. I'm sure I didn't catch everything because I began to flag toward the end. The special effects section seemed awfully long, not bad but long. A copyedit of the lower sections from "Special effects" down would be a good idea. Lead - "Bennett and Nimoy collaborated with effects house Industrial Light & Magic to develop... " - Add (ILM) after spelled-out version on first use?
Plot - I don't know how you feel about sourcing or what the project conventions might be, but generally it's a good idea to provide at least one source for each paragraph. Perhaps all of the plot claims are supported by Rioux?
- "On arriving at Earth Spacedock Doctor Leonard McCoy begins to act to strangely." - Add comma after Earth? Otherwise it's possible to think on a quick read that McCoy's title is Earth Spacedock Doctor.
- "Believing the Genesis device a potent weapon... " - Insert "to be" so this reads, "Believing the Genesis device to be a potent weapon... "?
- "In the standoff that follows Kruge orders one of the hostages on the surface be executed... " - Insert a comma and "that", so this reads, "In the standoff that follows, Kruge orders that one of the hostages on the surface be executed... "?
Cast - "who is resurrected by the effects of the Genesis Device" - I noticed a mixture of "Genesis Device" and "Genesis device" in the upper sections and began changing the big D to little d. Maybe, though, I should just ask before changing any more of these. Do you want D or d? I went for "d" because "device" appeared to be descriptive rather than a formal name.
- "Nimoy found the most difficult scene to direct one where McCoy talks to an unconscious Spock in sickbay en route to Vulcan." - Much as I like concision, it might help to insert "was" between "direct" and "one". Also, "in which" might be better than "where". Ditto for other places in the article where the construction "scene where" appears.
- "in a minimal amount of scenes" - "Number" rather than "amount"?
- "Kelley asserted that the opposite was true; "tribbles," he said," - Period after "true" and cap T on Tribbles? Otherwise, the quotation needs to start with an ellipsis (but maybe it can't).
- "Navigation officer / acting science officer" - Maybe "Navigation officer and acting science officer" to avoid the front slash?
- "He is forced into the closet at phaser-point by Uhura." - What closet? Am I missing something?
Development - "he had disagreed with changes made to The Wrath of Khan's ending without him." - This could be misinterpreted to mean that the film ended without him in a changed way. Maybe "he had disagreed with changes made without his consent to The Wrath of Khan's ending."
- "After persuading him otherwise, Nimoy was given the job." - Suggestion for clarity: "Nimoy, after persuading Eisner otherwise, got the job."
- "first reaction to the news of Nimoy as director was that Bennett" - I don't believe Bennett is mentioned before this instance. This one should be spelled out and linked rather than the second use in the next sentence.
- "Nimoy wanted to make sure that each character got a small but significant scene to make them more grounded and real." - "Character" is singular, but "them" is plural. "Him or her"? Or, if that's awkward, "Nimoy wanted all of the characters to have significant scenes, however small, that made them more grounded and real."
- "The name of the antagonists' ship, the Bird-of-Prey, remain unchanged, as in the Star Trek original series episode "The Enterprise Incident," Spock mentions that the Romulans loan the designs for their ship (and presumably the cloaking device as well)." - Should that be a terminal period after "Incident"? Shouldn't that be "name ... remains"? The sentence appears to be two that have been accidentally run together, but the terminal period might come after "unchanged". Not sure.
- "Since items such as the look of the bridge... " - Wikilink bridge?
Design - "the physical model was a foot smaller than the Enterprise built for The Motion Picture" - Maybe consider a metric conversion; i.e., 12 inches (30 cm)?
- "Rather than painstakingly wiring thousands of small lights, the model was made of clear plexiglass and then painted;" - Dangling modifier. Maybe "Rather than painstakingly wiring thousands of small lights, they made the model of clear plexiglass and then painted"?
- "illuminated from outside by fiber optics and 2000-5000 watt lights" - Suggestion: "illuminated from outside by fiber optics and lights of 2,000 to 5,000 watts."
Costumes and makeup - "Fletcher ended up designing the Klingon and Vulcan makeup in addition to his costuming chores." - He didn't design his costume chores. Maybe "In addition to working on costumes, Fletcher designed the Klingon and Vulcan makeup".
Filming - "To guard against leaks that had affected the news of Spock's death during the production of The Wrath of Khan,[b] precautions made to make people accountable for their scripts and secure the sets." - Something missing here. Suggestion: "To guard against leaks that had affected the news of Spock's death during the production of The Wrath of Khan,[b] the film company took precautions to make people accountable for their scripts and to secure the sets."
- "The creatures started as small, slimy crawlers, then grew to lengths of eight feet." - Metric conversion?
- "ILM's solution involved rigging the worm with fishing line that were pulled in a choreographed" - "Lines", plural?
- "the hope was to get as much usable shots as possible on one take" - "Many" rather than "much"?
- "used a large 15 by 15 feet (4.6 by 4.6 m) floodlight" - Hyphens needed. The {{convert}} template is handy for things like this: 15-by-15-foot (4.6 by 4.6 m). Ditto for "the top of a 110 feet (34 m) crane".
Special effects - "Eastman 94 for all effects shots save those that required blue screen... " - Should "blue screen" be linked or explained?
- "The cafeteria was a set built at ILM and filled with forty extras" - Digits, 40?
- "eaten away by acetone" - Wikilink acetone? Ditto some of the other terms like vermiculite?
- My attention began to wander here. While the detail is impressive, it's almost too much.
General - The lead image needs alt text.
- Citation 81 has a dead url.
- Should et al. in the citations be in italics since it's Latin?
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) 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mabeenot comments: Wow. I didn't know we had a video of the Enterprise blowing up on Wikipedia. That's awesome. Here are a couple suggestions for the article:
-
- There are a few red links on the page, mostly for people working behind the scenes like makeup artist Thomas R. Burman, cinematographer Charles Correll, and effects cameraman Scott Farrar. If you're looking for FA status, the red links have got to go. Either new articles need to be created for each of the red links or the red links need to be removed from this article, depending upon notability.
-
- Could any of the sources in the "references" section become footnoted references under the "notes" section? It'd be nice to consolidate the two sets of sources and point to where each reference was used.
-
- I hope you pursue Finetooth's detailed response. That was a great critique.
- Thanks for working so hard on Search for Spock. When you're done, do you have any plans on getting Voyage Home up to GA or FA status?
-Mabeenot (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Just to clarify, more for your benefit than David's, there is no FAC requirement for notable redlinks to be created, nor has there ever been one, though it's nice if only for aesthetic reasons. (Seriously, whose bright idea was that colour back in the day?) All the best, Steve T • C 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I've read this a couple of times now; I haven't commented so far, because there isn't a lot that I can see wrong with it, so I didn't want you to think I'd done a half-assed review. :-) Anyway, I think it probably needs another pass on the copyediting front. Not so much to remove the usual redundancies and ambiguity-spawning elegant variations and the like, but more for typos and minor mistakes (e.g. "The designer and the production staff was satisfied with the Klingon costumes he made on the first film.") On the content side, all I'd point to is that the "Themes" section feels a little light compared to that of the other Trek articles you've fashioned (though I can easily believe that it hasn't been subject to the same levels of analysis), the infobox should probably include the
budget= and gross= fields, and the statement "The film received generally positive reviews from critics" is currently uncited. Though it might not be so much an issue on the other Trek articles, this film is one that's (at least nowadays) not considered as strong as some of the others, so I can definitely see that statement as one that might be challenged, even if it's a correct summation of the 1984 critical response. Finally, do you think the dollar amounts would benefit from being corrected for inflation, at least for the most important sums (budget and gross)? This can be done through the {{formatprice}} and {{inflation}} templates, e.g. "The film made $76,471,046 (${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|76471046|1984|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})" which outputs "($157 million as of 2009)". Feels weird to say that about a film that was made in my lifetime, but there y'go. Otherwise, nice work yet again. Steve T • C 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for the comments. I'm still looking for more stuff about the themes (you'd think that it would be easier to find, given the Wagnerian nature of the film, but hey.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 November 2009, 23:57 UTC)
-
Gracious. The most popular and well-known composition in the English-speaking world. I have no business writing about something that means so much to so many people. But here it is in Wikipedia. I think it thoroughly deserves an FA. I would appreciate any assistance getting it there. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Amazing Grace/archive1.
(Peer review added on Friday 13 November 2009, 14:36 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to see if any improvements can be made to the article. Thanks, SciGal (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I'd recommend expanding the lead. Probably two paragraphs long. If any of the secondary sources describe any visual elements of the episode, it would be nice to illustrate that with an image (which has a good fair use rational, see WP:NFCC). "Origin of the Episode" should probably be "Production", and if you leave it, "Episode" should not be capitalized. The rule is that we only capitalize the first word of section headers, unless they contain a proper noun or similar. It would also be nice if there a bit more about the production. If the DVD contains commentary on the episode, that is a good place to find production details. The little reference numbers should go after punctuation, not before. It looks like it hasn't "won or has been nominated for several awards." but won one, and been nominated for one. It's good to be specific. Nice article overall. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) From Liquidluck (talk): - I agree with Peregrine Fisher above; follow what he or she said.
- Delink the airdate in the lead per MOS for dates.
- Delete the "(a fictitious mathematics prize)"; Since it is a plot summary of a work of fiction, it can be assumed it is fictional. You may want to change the "Milton Prize" to "a prestigious mathematics award", though.
- "determine the time of death as earlier in the day." The time of death of who? Currently, the plot makes it sound as though it was Santi. Please clarify.
- "the team learn that Santi and Prita's other friend had died" Is this the same friend Santi identified earlier?
- Add the airdate to the reception section.
- 13.22 million it what country? Also, please add that they saw it live.
- There aren't any actual television critic opinions here. I would split this section up; first viewership, then responses from critics (you might find these in episode recaps by reliable sites), and finally responses from experts.
- This isn't a rule, but references generally go on the outside of punctuation. It isn't required, however, so do as you please.
- Overall, Wikilink way more. Algorithm, organ donation, I'd even say black market.
Nice, neat plot summary, and I think Peregrine Fisher hit on everything else. If you have questions, please post on my talk page. Good luck! Liquidluck (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, guys. I am making corrections to the article, although I still have more to go.SciGal (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I don't think this is far from GA. I think possible expansion could be done on production; if the season has come out on DVD and you have, watch the directors commentary. I'm just going to give some comments on how to massage the prose (although this isn't needed for GA). - General
- HLA is a disambiguation link
- The date uses inconsistent date formats. References use date then month, but the body of the article uses month day. I would prefer month day because this is an American topic.
- Lead
- I think the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm not sure with what.
- "Inspired on a Christian Science Monitor" what do you mean "on"?
- What is an "organ tourist"? The article never defines the term
- link algorithm in the lead
- Add "After airing on January 27, 2009" before "the episode received a mixed reaction". The date aired is needed to give an overview of the article, which the lead is supposed to be
- The last sentence of the lead is awkward: "however" seems to be indicating something negative, but the awards are positive. Also, per WP:AVOID, "however should be avoided. I suggest: "It has inspired academic case studies and received two awards." or something similar.
- Plot Summary
- "Summary" in the header should be lowercased per MoS:HEAD
- "call to a hotel and find" I don't like "to a" here; I would replace it with "from a"
- "blood-stained hotel basement" you repeat "hotel" twice; it's redundant here
- "goes to the hospital to see if Santi's sister is at the hospital and finds" repeats "the hospital" twice
- "them that it was a friend of theirs" replace "it" with "she"
- "that there was a friend who is also missing" can be reworded as "that there was another missing friend"
- "team learn that" should have "learns"
- In the last paragraph, the average reader doesn't know what "HLA" is. Spell it out in full
- "team rescue Prita" should have "rescues"
- "use her money from her prize" would sound better if the first "her" was changed to "the"
- "case has caused her to learn" I think "inspired" would be better than "caused"
- "Alan" is not talked about in the article, so is unfamiliar to most readers
- The last sentence is unclear: Don learned Alan needed an organ transplant so only Charlie became a donor? Or did both become donors?
- Origin of the episode
- The section title should be Origin or Background
- Is Hardin's last name spelled incorrectly in the first sentence?
- Reception
- References, External links, other
- Spell out "WJZ" in reference 4; most readers don't know what it is
- Really getting picky, but per MoS:TM, remove the copyright symbol from reference 8
- Add Category:2007 television episodes
- If a link to the article that inspired the episode is available, I would add it under External links
Don't be discouraged by the amount of issues here, I was extremely picky. Anyway, it makes life easier at GAN. If you have any question, put them here (I'll check back eventually) or my talk page. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC) I made the changes that you suggested to the best of my ability. This episode, unlike several like I had done so far, does not have a commentary on the DVDs, although I wish the episode did. Therefore, I cannot include as many production details as I can. Also, WJZ is a television station in Baltimore; that is why I can't spell it out. I did expand the lead some; what do you think of the expansion? Other than that, I have been able to make the rest of the changes, and I am trying to find more critics' comments about the episode. I hope that this helps you. Again, thanks for the suggestions. SciGal (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 9 November 2009, 15:45 UTC)
[edit] Language and literature -
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) - Translate foreign language reference titles to English by using |trans_title in the references. Be sure not to put square brackets in this part as it renders the title weirdly. Extremepro (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to see it as a GA. Comments/questions/suggestions follow: - Add alt text to pictures.
 Y Added to the only picture on page. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - Good. Possibly you'd also need alt-text for pictures in the gallery (which should eventually be moved into the article text). bamse (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I totally forgot about the gallery. Let me correct myself on that last statement. :P – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The alt text doesn't work in the gallery. :( – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read this? Missing alt text is not a serious problem, the main focus should be on expanding the article.bamse (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are they really sumo wrestling? Was there sumo in 12th/13th century Japan?
- Y It seems that sumo wrestling came around in the 17th century. Changed. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are still a couple of "sumo" in the article.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a sec...if you look in the gallery you can see a fragment from the scrolls that obviously depicts sumo wrestling. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see two people dressed like sumo wrestlers wrestling. I don't know if it is sumo or not, that's why I asked how old sumo is. Compared to modern sumo matches, at least a ring is missing. If you want to be safe you could write just "wrestling", though I admit it looks a lot like sumo and is probably an ancient form of sumo.bamse (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- "...supposedly the origin of the right to left reading direction in modern manga and novels..." I believe there are older handscrolls which are read from right to left.
- We need a source for that. So far there aren't any. But I do have a source that supports my claim. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean this source (from history section)? To be precise, this "source" states only that it is read from right to left in the same way as today's manga. It does not say anything about being the origin of this writing direction. Also, who is Deb Aoki and what makes her blog a RS? Probably there is some useful info in Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts. bamse (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Her blog is a reliable source see here. I must have misread the source. My bad. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't know her. I am pretty sure (but too lazy to find sources) that right to left writing is much older and possibly connected with the way of writing (with a brush). It might have been imported from China in the 6th century or so. The Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga might be the oldest caricature on emakimono, though there are some other "funny" scrolls (Hungry ghosts scroll, Diseases and Deformities,...) created around the same time. See List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) for instance.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- The lead section needs some grammar corrections, but I suggest writing the lead as a summary of the article at the very last. At the moment the second paragraph of the lead is too detailed (Why is only the first scroll mentioned?)
- "The Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga emakimono, belonging to the Kōzan-ji temple in Kyoto, Japan as an ancient cultural property,[2][3] were drawn in the mid-12th century, whereas the third and fourth scrolls date from the 13th century." is confusing: Are the third and fourth scrolls not an "ancient cultural property" or don't they belong to Kōzan-ji?
- "...who created a painting a lot like Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga..." Which painting?
- The problem with this is that there is no information that I can find that says the name of the painting. Just one reliable source that states that "there was a similar painting". – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I'd be really interested to see it for comparison.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you expand (similar style, similar topic,...?) on the claim that it is the origin of modern manga and anime?
- Avoid "you".
- When did such emakimono make "their way into popular culture, with many common people imitating the style."?
- "...(currently) unknown event." Is it expected to be known soon or at all?
- Have there been warthog, reindeer in Japan?
- I don't know. All I know is that's what the scroll depicts. Maybe I should change reindeer to just simply deer. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a biologist, but Warthog says: "A warthog is identifiable by the two pairs of tusks protruding from the mouth...". I don't see any tusks in the scroll. Also, I am not sure how well known African fauna was in 12th/13th century Japan. Maybe it is just a Japanese wild boar!? As for the reindeer, I am not sure if reindeers have such pattern (dots). Could be a Japanese Sika Deer!? bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh well sorry I'm not too big of an animal expert. Changing. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a sec. Unless you have a reliable source (i.e. not me), I would be careful and just call it "deer". bamse (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the description of the scroll be more specific than "animals" (which animals?), for instance: "...a group of animals at a funeral..."
- It would be good to have the pictures not at the end in the gallery but next to the description of the scroll(s).
- Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Better. I'd also remove the "gallery" heading and arrange the pictures with the (to be written) explanations of the four scrolls, i.e., explanation of scroll 1 with pictures of scroll 1, explanation of scroll 2 with pictures of scroll 2,...bamse (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a minute...what the hell? Someone completely disorganized the gallery for no reason. They used to be in order like you're telling me to do. :( I'll fix them tomorrow. Really tired from work today. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can see foxes and other animals but they are not mentioned in the description.
- "...two monkeys holding a box." looks more kike one of the monkeys is carrying a box while the other carries a small package.
- There is a scene between the box carrying monkey and the funeral which is not mentioned in the description.
- What scene? I already mentioned everything. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Question: How many animals are involved in the funeral scene? bamse (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "a frog praying to Buddha as the scroll closes", is rather a monkey praying in front of a frog-shaped Buddha statue. Also "Buddha" is redirected to Budai, which needs a reference as it is a non-obvious claim.
- translation/explanation for what "shinsōbon" is is missing
- Suggestions for expansion:
- Are there any interpretations regarding the various animals: for instance "monkeys depict such and such character or such and such profession"?
- Are there any views on the purpose and the audience for which the scrolls were created?
- Are there stylistic differences between the scrolls? (If I remember correctly, later scrolls are more rough with thicker lines.)
- Add descriptions for the 2nd to 4th scroll including size and scenes depicted.
- You see, they're a problem here. The problem is I don't have any information about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th scrolls. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's indeed a problem as one of the GA requirements is completeness (actually B-class requires "mostly complete" already). There are at least some pictures of the other scrolls in the gallery. Do you read Japanese btw? bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- When were the copies that are now at Kozan-ji created?
- Please explain a bit better. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The scrolls currently on display at Kōzan-ji are reproductions." Are these reproductions old or recent (late 20th/early 21st century)? If they are old, it might be interesting to mention the year or period they were created. Better explained now?bamse (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite some comments. Hope you are not discouraged. Definitely the article needs quite some expansion as it covers only 1/4 of the scrolls. Apart from that, POV interpretations (warthog, sumo,...) should be either referenced or removed.bamse (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 01:43 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… previously been a WP:DYK and WP:GA, looking for input to improve it further in quality. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would be easier to say something definitive if I had actually read the book. As it is, I'd just like to express a bit of discomfort with the article. Being a behavioral neuroscientist myself, I don't feel that our current understanding of brain function sheds much light on how brainwashing would work or whether it is possible -- purely psychological experiments by people like Philip Zimbardo are more informative. The article conveys an impression that the book accomplishes more than it possibly could, in my opinion. I would like to see it be more restrained in its praise of the book. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- How so? Could you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again it makes me nervous to comment without having read the book, but I have a sense that the criticisms in the Le Fanu review are probably accurate and could be explained at greater length and placed in a more prominent position. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay will do, thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Better? Cirt (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Cirt. I am not an expert on the subject matter and I haven't read the book but I will give my input. Can the below techniques be expanded upon? Perhaps giving some examples. Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies.[9] These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment.[14] Is this only in relation to cults and communism? Does she talk about other groups or even individuals (eg psychopaths in relationships) doing this? Does she talk about withholding key facts or truths, telling half truths to confuse or convince the victim(s) of falsehoods etc? I would like to read more about what she says about psychological tactics and effects used by people who brainwash. Perhaps she does not elaborate and focuses on neurology.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC) It is a great article, a very good read and a fascinating albeit disturbing subject that the book covers. Good job on your work to this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks very much for your kind comments on the article. I'd have to say that for Contents, when possible, I like to rely on secondary sources to makeup that subsection, so as to avoid WP:OR. In articles where there may not be an availability of secondary sources that describe that info, for example if there are no secondary sources that go into detail summarizing the entire plot of a fictional book, I generally summarize it myself or work with multiple editors to do so. But in this case, fortunately there were enough secondary sources to use. :) Cirt (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes you can't just summarise from the book, for FA ugh. :( I am not used to editing articles on books. :) Not to worry, it was only a suggestion and I don't think that it will get in the way of this article reaching FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Will begin a lookthrough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) -
- brings the point across - sound like she's already convinced the reader. I think "proposes" is a better verb here.
-
- I am surprised there is no link somehow to Stockholm syndrome, either in the book or criticism.
-
- In fact, it really needs some critique by a psychologist or psychiatrist in a peer-reviewed journal or other. The lay reviews are okay.
(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 December 2009, 01:48 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a stable WP:GA for a while and I would like to see what people think, and what could be done to improve it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is well-done and quite interesting. I made a few changes to punctuation, and I have a very small number of suggestions related to prose and style. My main concern is that the article might not be comprehensive in two ways; the voice(s) of the industry's promoters are missing, and the details of the hearings are missing. It's possible that the industry backers hunkered down, that their lawyers advised them not to talk, and that nothing came of the hearings. If you are thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, you'll want to make sure that the article covers these two areas somehow. - The image needs alt text, meant for readers who cannot see the images. WP:ALT has details.
- The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
- "Representative George Miller held hearings on the matter... " - Would it be helpful to add that he's a Democrat from California?
- "In Help at Any Cost Szalavitz investigates the teen rehabilitation industry and focuses on four programs: Straight, Incorporated, a copy of the Straight Inc. program called KIDS, North Star wilderness boot camp, and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools.[6][4][11]" - It's generally better to arrange the citations in ascending order; i.e., 4, 6, 11.
- "Some of these programs cost parents over US$2,000 per month." - Since the article is U.S.-centric, it's not necessary to add the US in front of $2,000.
- "calling the work "a courageous—if horrifying—study of the tough-love industry". - I changed the en dash here to an em dash because I've never seen a mixed pair before,
but if the en dash is an accurate part of the quote, you should probably revert my change. - My change is OK; it falls under the house-style exceptions listed at WP:MOSQUOTE. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- "The House Committee on Education and Labor held additional hearings on the matter on April 24, 2008, again chaired by Representative George Miller." - Just "Miller" since his identity is fully established earlier.
- The existing citation formatting is a mixture of m-d-y and yyyy-mm-dd. It can be either but not both. Ditto for the formatting in "Other reading" and "External links".
- McAllister, Robert John (2007), Emotions: Mystery Or Madness, AuthorHouse, ISBN 1425982441 - What makes this a reliable source? Was it vetted by outside experts, or is it self-published?
- I wondered about the lack of any mention of people defending or favoring these programs. Did any industry representatives or lobbyists or business owners speak at the hearing? Is anyone on record in their defense?
- What did Miller's committee decide? Did it take any action? Did the members vote on anything or make any recommendations? Were they unanimous in their votes, recommendations, or public statements on the matter? Have any laws—state, federal, or local—been passed since the hearings to regulate this business?
I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Doing...
- I don't have much experience with this process, but I will suggest a couple of things that strike me after reading it:
- Each time you list the 4 programs, I have a hard time differentiating among them and have to re-read them, perhaps you could separate them with colons or semi-colons?
- Several times you mention that the programs are not successful, but success is a relative term, and I would like to know what basis the programs are being judged against if that is in the book.
- You go into a lot of detail about Synanon and its demise. Is that addressed extensively in the book?
- I hope that this can help with the article a bit. Riverpa (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I will look into above. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have ordered a copy of the book and will comment more when I have read it, but the first thing that strikes me on a quick read of the article was that I was left wondering what the conclusions were ( if any) of those hearings which are mentioned in the Aftermath section of the article.Fainites barleyscribs 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Ah good point, I will research that more. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 November 2009, 00:12 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because, as my first fully written article, I'd like to know how I did. Don't hesitate to provide constructive criticism! Thanks, [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
First off, good work for your first article. I think what needs to be done now is find more reliable sources with information on Catledge and expand the article using that. I'll give you some tips on where to find sources. - On an unrelated note, please add ALT text to the one image. Pretend you're describing the image to someone over the phone.
- Answers.com isn't a reliable source because anybody can add content. Instead of citing answers.com, you should cite the Columbia Encyclopedia directly.
- A simple Google (or whatever search engine) search may come up with good info. Remember to always check for reliability, though. I found this great source, and you'll probably come up with something if you dig through the articles listed here. I have access to nearly all old NYT articles, so leave me a message if you need them e-mailed. Another great find is this Time article. This should be enough for now, but after you've exhausted these sources, you can always go to the next pages on the Google search.
- Always next for me is Google Books. See the results of the search here. If you can't see the needed text, go to a local library and inquire about those books.
- Google News may often turns up results, so I suggest trying. This time, it turned up lots of good stuff.
- Now that you have the sources, you need to incorporate their info into the article. Read through all the sources one-by-one, adding useful information you come across.
I'm surprised that nobody had bothered to improve this article before you, with all that information available. Good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 November 2009, 16:59 UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has changed significantly since the last peer review, and I would like to know what else must be done to get it to Good Article status. Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: I'm unable to say much about the content, but I may be able to help with suggestions about technical details. These should be dealt with before you approach GAN. You might not have to write alt text for GAN, but you will certainly need to fix the technical problems with citations, dead links, disambiguation links, captions, and punctuation. General - The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds five links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
- ✓ Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Three of the images lack alt text, and the two that have alt text will be of little help to readers who can't see the images. If you imagine a reader who is listening to a machine reading the alt text, you will find the alt text easier to write. For example, "Major area of Central Morocco Tamazight-speakers (excluding Algeria and France)" won't help a blind reader. WP:ALT has a full explanation.
- ✓ Done In some cases I was unsure of what would be most appropriate, but I've tried to make the alt text more useful. Mo-Al (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The map in the infobox lacks a caption or any identifying information. I'm not sure what parameter might fix the infobox. I'd suggest looking at parallel situations (other language infoboxes) for models and asking editors of those pages for help if the solution is not apparent.
- ✓ Done I've followed the model of the article French language and added a legend. Mo-Al (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Wiki Incubator would be better placed in the External links section than at the top of the page.
- ✓ Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds five dead urls in citations.
- Date ranges, page ranges, and some other kinds of ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. MOS:ENDASH has details.
- ✓ Done This one was tough, so I can't promise that I caught everything. Mo-Al (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources - Many of the citations are incomplete. For example citation 61 includes only the title and url. It should also include the author (Driss Benmhend), the publisher (Wafin), and the accessdate (which could be today or the last time you checked the link to make sure it was working). When the date of publication is known, that should be included too. The various templates in the "cite" family can be helpful reminders of what information is needed and how it is to be arranged. See WP:CIT for details.
- What makes the Wafin page reliable? Make sure that each of your sources is reliable as defined by WP:RS. Dot-coms may or may not be reliable.
Notes and References and Bibliography - Some of the blue parts of the notes appear to be clickable but are not. For example, "Brenzinger (2007:124)' in note 1 looks clickable but is not, whereas "Souag (2004)" in note 2 looks clickable and is. "Abdel-Massih (1971b" in note 3 looks clickable but is not. These should be made to work in the same way, either all clickable or all not clickable.
- ✓ Done Fixed. It appears that Template:Harvcoltxt only works properly when referencing a citation which uses Template:citation, and not Template:cite book or Template:cite web. Mo-Al (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Notes or citations that have strings of all caps in them should be rendered in title case even if the source uses all caps. For example, note 13 has "THE SYNTAX OF THE CONJUNCT AND INDEPENDENT ORDERS IN WAMPANOAG" in it, and this should be changed to "The Syntax of the Conjunct and Independent Orders in Wampanoag". Citations 45, 46, 116, and 119 have other examples, and there may be others.
- ✓ Done Mo-Al (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Page ranges anywhere in the article take en dashes rather than hyphens. For example, citation 59 has a page range, 11-12, and it should look like this: 11–12.
- ✓ Done I think I got all of them. Mo-Al (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 23 November 2009, 02:21 UTC)
[edit] Everyday life -
I've listed YuYu Hakusho for peer review because I've tried to do extensive work on the article this past year. I'm relatively new to writing about anime articles, so I need some guidance. I lack pretty much any and all print material and have relied mostly on online sources for citation, so any feedback on how the article can be improved as is would be appreciated. Thanks, Hibana 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from Tintor2 (talk) The article looks very good, I'll see what else I can comment: Comments from Extremepro (talk · contribs) - Add alternate text to the infobox picture.
- Translate references titles into English using trans_title, making sure not to use square brackets cause it ruins it.
- Refs 44, 46, 47 need to say that they are in Japanese.
- adjacent wikilinks as seen in Nielsen ratings and Cartoon Network can be misleading to the viewer. Rearrange the sentence?
(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 00:54 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)
(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)
(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)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 16:56 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would would like to take this to the FL level, so any help with grammar and prose would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Neonblak talk - 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 06:34 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)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 00:24 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I my intent is to take this to the FL level. Any help with the prose would be fantastic as it is not my strong suit. Thanks, Neonblak talk - 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - I haven't reviewed this in detail, but since there is a symbol for "player-manager", it ought to also be colored. Since two of the player-managers are also HOFers, there probably should be 3 colors - one for HOFers, one for player-managers, and one for HOFers who were player-managers. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - I went ahead made the change you requested, including changing the Hall of Fame color to be consistent with other FL Hall of Fame color indicator.Neonblak talk - 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 20:05 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)
(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)
(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 20:03 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this article up to featured article status. Thanks, Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Lenghty review:
- Infobox should should include the Rampage as a former team. Generally any pro team (AHL, ECHL, Euro, etc) is included there.
- In the opening paragraph I would include that he also played for San Antonio. I would make the first paragraph a brief summar of who Horton is, what teams he played for, stuff like that. The second paragraph can then explain some things he's done, like his OHL totals (which should probably mention whether that is a career total or not), and what type of style he plays (scorer, checker, etc). It would probably be better to leave stuff like first goal/point to later in the article; the lead is a summary of the article, trivial information is not exactly a summary.
- Staying with the lead section, link rookie, as people unfamiliar with hockey or sports in general will have no idea what that means.
- "during the locked out 2004-2005 season only 21 with the San Antonio Rampage of the American Hockey League (AHL)." This sounds a little awkward. Perhaps something like "only 21 games with the Rampage duirng the locked out season."
- "The following two seasons, saw Horton play the full 82 games for the first time in his career, during which he had his career–high in goals and assists." No need for the comma after seasons; also confusing as I don't know what season he played 82 games in, or when he had his career highs. That should be clarified somewhat.
- Include something about his playing career before joining the OHL. Even a sentence that acknowledges him playing in Thorold is suffice.
- Is there any reason he didn't want to play for the Ice Dogs? Going on that, Hockey's Future has not passed as a reliable source in FA nominations before, so I would look for something else that makes that point. There might be a newspaper or something that mentions his stance on going to Mississauga.
- Mentioning him scoring 3 goals against the Greyhounds seemingly has no context here, nor a date. If it just to show that him and McGratton played together, they were teammates for part of the season, so why single out that one game?
- "To begin the 2002–03 season, Horton missed 13 games out of 22 but still ended up scoring 9 goals with 18 points during that span." As a read this, I understand that he missed 13 of the first 22 games. If thats the case, you should perhaps make that distinction. And is there any particular reason why he was gone, an injury or anything? If so, that should be included.
- There is an overuse of the word "considered" in the 2003 NHL Draft section. Consider using a different word, like "regarded," for at least one of those uses.
- Reading the source on the Messier quote, it doesn't sound like is responding to Keenan's comments, and really offers nothing to the article other than that Messier is some 20 years older than Horton.
- I see no mention of when he made his NHL debut. That is usually an important event that should be noted.
- "Staal matched the feat ... at 183 days younger than Horton." Using "at" there makes the sentence awkward. Something like "Staal matched the feat and surpassed Horton as the youngest player to score; Staal was 183 days younger than Horton was when he scored." Along the lines of that, but this example doesn't exactly sound to great either.
- Move ref 20 to the end of the sentence; it looks weird where it is now.
- Its unlikely that Tony Miniaci will have an article written about him, so the link can be removed, just to minimize the red in the article.
- If he returned to the Panthers in March, why does it say above that he was out for the season? This obviously wasn't the case, so shouldn't be there.
- Mention that the 2004–05 NHL season was cancelled, as a lock-out doesn't necessarily mean it was cancelled (just see the 1994–95 season).
- Not every NHL player signed with an AHL team. Just say that they were forced to play in different leagues.
- Comma after Rampage
- "Despite having not signed with the Rampage until October 29..." can be simplified to "Despite not signing with the Rampage until..."
- When did he assist on Campbell's goal, in the game where Horton scored?
- "Horton scored both of the Rampage's two goals..." No need to say "Rampage's two goals," as "both" denotes two.
- "In only 21 games for San Antonio..." "Only" here is a weasel word, and is best removed.
- "the first games of the season, Horton was tied for the team lead in goals" How many games are "the first games?"
- "who the Panthers had not lost to in regulation since the 2004–05 season." Sicne there was no 2004–05 season, this should be changed.
- "Horton assisted on all goals that Jokinen recorded." How many goals did Jokinen score?
- Bruch Garrioch doesn't need to be linked.
- "Peter DeBoer who first saw Horton play at seven years old said..." Change to "Peter DeBoer, who first saw Horton play at seven years old, said..."
- "but failed to record a stat." Change stat to point; stat could mean anything, and he certainly recored some sort of stat in the game.
- Since the playing style is only a sentence long, I would consider either trying to expand it (which could be difficult), or incorporating it elsehwere in the article, like the lead or some other section. Keeping it at one sentence will be a problem in a FA nomination.
- Again, the personal life section will have to be expanded if brought up for a FA nomination. Consider adding something about where he was born and raised, when he started playing hockey, who his parents were, siblings, hobbies, anything like that.
- Going over the references, Hockey's Future and Hockey Fights are almost certainly not going to pass for reliable sources. Hockey's Future has already been tried, and looking over Hockey Fights, I don't have much faith in it working either.
- That all said, the article looks good. With some fixing up, it shouldn't have trouble making it to Featured Article. Good luck with it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments from Resolute
Just to be confusing, I am going to disagree with Kaiser on the infobox. We've usually only added minor league teams to that box if the player has never played in a top level league. I personally would likely leave just the Panthers in the infobox. -
- That is indeed just a preference of mine. I just like knowing any pro teams somebody played for. Keep it or remove it at will. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of that lead section. Dumping a bunch of stats on the reader is not going to engage their interest. More over, I don't see how his statistical performance in Junior A is more important than his selection to the OHL all-rookie team, or the fact that he was a first round draft pick. The lead should sell the reader on why the player is notable.
- Birth city should not be in the lead. Ideally, there would be an "early life" section that would describe his birthplace, life growing up, family, etc, if that information is available. Otherwise, move it to personal life.
- Thorold Blackhawks and Oshawa Generals should be linked the first time they are used in the article body.
- "In a 6–3 win over the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, Horton teamed up with future Ottawa Senator Brian McGrattan to score 3 goals for the Generals." - No context. Why is this seemingly random game important?
- Why isn't his All-Rookie team selection mentioned in the prose?
- As a personal preference, I generally don't sub-section the draft. If left as part of the junior section, I find it helps flesh out the player's pre-professional career.
- Would you be able to note when he made his NHL debut?
- "Horton suffered a torn rotator cuff and labrum which would potentially end his season." - Wrong tense - that is a future looking statement on an event in the past. Re-word to something along the lines of "(injury) that threatened to end his season" or "...feared would end his season.", or some such.
- While the press release claims otherwise, I doubt Horton actually signed with the Rampage. As a player under contract to the Panthers, he would have been assigned there. The current wording is supported by the reference though.
- "The 2004–05 NHL season ended up being locked out..." - "ended up being" is pretty loose with the language. Perhaps something like: "The 2004-05 season was not played due to a lockout..."?
- "Through the first games of the season, Horton was tied for the team lead in goals." - Context. Why is it important to know he led the team in goals through an undefined number of games?
- "...Horton was promoted to the Panthers' first line.[44] Despite his promotion to the first line, Horton's name was mentioned in a potential trade with the Vancouver Canucks..." Redundant usage of both "first line" and his name. Try to avoid using the same words and phrases so close together. Possible rewording: "Shortly after earning promotion to the first line, Horton's name was mentioned in a potential trade with the Vancouver Canucks, however nothing materialized."
- "In the Panthers' 5–3 win over the Ottawa Senators on January 22, 2008, Horton recorded 4 assists,[67] which was a career–high." - I'm bad for this too, but comma abuse. There are a lot of statements throughout that could be reorganized to reduce the breaks and pauses, which hurt the flow of the article. In this case: "Horton recorded a career-high four assists in a 5–3 win over the Ottawa Senators." The next four sentences after this could be similarly reworded.
- "Against the Nashville Predators on November 1, Horton played in his 300th career game, but failed to record a point" - Context. Why is it important to know that he did not score a point in his 300th game?
- Legends of Hockey says he won a gold medal at the World U-18 challenge and a bronze at the U-17 in 2002. This should be mentioned in his junior section.
- General stuff:
- Prose quality needs to be improved, or you will get raked over the coals at FAC.
- There are a lot of random events documented that don't really seem all that important. IMO, these distract the reader from the important information. Also, a FA does not have to be long, especially for a player this young. IMO, the article should focus on key information: milestones, injuries, trade rumours, etc. (example: Dion Phaneuf, which is my current project).
- Numbers ten and below should be spelled out: "four assists" rather than "4 assists"
- As noted above, commma abuse. Personally, I tend to go through an article four or five times before I'm happy that I've removed all of my overuse.
- "Playing Style" stub section will require expansion, or need to be integrated into another section.
- "Personal life" requires expansion.
- While I've been able to prove each time that hockeydb is reliable, I prefer to use the player biography from Legends of Hockey for statistical references (ref 5). Nobody questions the reliability of the HHOF.
- You will be asked to show that Our Sports Central and The Fourth Period are reliable.
- Spell out "The Sports Network" rather than using "TSN" in ref 45.
Hope this helps, Resolute 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 20 November 2009, 00:11 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:CHIFTD is getting very close to having the bare minimum number of articles. If Jay Pritzker Pavilion does not pass WP:FAC, this one may. I thought I would get some feedback to clean it up. After getting most of the articles about features cleaned up, then we can go back and clean up the general Millennium Park article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Since I have some experience with other articles in the Millennium Park series, some of these will be nade in comparison with those articles. - Article needs a copyedit - for example in the lead there is Opening in 2001, it was the first attraction in Millennium Park to open.[2] which could be made tighter as something more like It was the first attraction in Millennium Park to open, in 2001.[2] Or in the second paragraph in the lead, these two sentneces could be combined For four months a year, it operates as McCormick Tribune Ice Rink, a free public outdoor ice skating rink. It is generally open for skating from mid-November until mid-March.
- Compared to other Millennium Park articles, there is very little on the design and construction of the feature. Who was the architect? Who were the contractors? I also note that there is one sentence that could be moved from Details to much earlier in the History Although the rink was budgeted for $5 million, it was constructed for only $3.2 million, making it one of the few Millennium Park attractions to cost less than was initially budgeted.[34]
- I was also surprised that there was no critical reception infromation / section as such. I guess the people watching could be a part of such a section. Perhaps the appearance the Watherman film could too?
- Have there been reviews of the Grill as a restaurant? Does the Grill serve food in the winter (is it then considered part of the indoor seating / dining area)? Could a bit more on the year-round restaurant be added?
- Also since the AT&T Plaza / Cloud Gate is elevated realtive to the rink, how do people get up there from the rink, or down to the rink from the Bean? I know the park has won accessibility awards, but can't see ramps in the images.
- I like the images, but wonder if File:Millennium Park Ice Skating.jpg would be a better lead image, since it actually shows people skating (swap it and the current lead rink image, which also is very nice, but shows no humans / skaters)
- Again, knowing some of the past issues with images of copyrighted art, I wonder about the four images where Cloud Gate is in the background. Not sure at what point it becomes a fair use image. My guess is that less is better.
- Most of the Details section seems to me like it could be in the Operations section - lobby, rental of skates, chiller system, Park Grill in off season. The dimensions of the rink could be added to history (if there is not much on construction, can at least start with the budget as noted before, then tell the reader how big it is).
- Operations says the rink is open from 10 AM to 10 PM, then Details seems to imply longer operating hours Alcohol is allowed in the McCormick Tribune Plaza when the park is open (6:00A.M. to 11:00P.M. daily)[32] This is one of several places where things are repeated in Details (another reason to merge it) - the bathrooms are also repeated here, and the seating is repeated too - just realized the seats on Park Grill are given as 150 and 300. Can't both be right.
- Since it is fairly short, not much else to say. I can try and copyedit this too (and reorganize a bit if wanted) but obviously there is no rush (since Pritzker Pavilion is second in line for FAC and about ready and this would come after 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 ><>°° 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Travel day today. Plane departs from O'Hare Airport in 3 hours. I am about to leave. I will look at these later, but surely not in the next few hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Travel safely and have a Happy Thanksgiving! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- O'Hare now gives 20 minutes of free wifi. Holla!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 19 November 2009, 01:12 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because of a recommendation from JimmyBlackwing, the copyeditor of the article. So with some help with fellow editors, I could get Escape from Butcher Bay to FA status. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Comments by David Fuchs
- General
There are some dabs you need to address. - Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The alt text could use some work; there's spelling errors, issues with tone (contractions) and some very awkward wording (blood spatter over the hands doesn't translate to "blood spatter on walls", for instance.) File:CREBBRiddick.jpg is missing Alt text, however I'm going to suggest that it be removed for better compliance with WP:NFCC. If you're going to justify keeping it, it needs a much better FUR (and probably a better and larger image is necessary; you can barely see what's going on in the image, and you can push the size without going over .1 megapixels.)
- I need a second opnion on removing the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I say remove it. A free picture of Vin Diesel could easily be placed in Development; combined with the box shot, I'd say it's good enough to get Riddick's appearance across to readers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- O.K, I removed the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think I fixed tthe alt text in the pictures. Also, Jimmy, I tried getting a picture of Vin Diesel on the article but I have trouble with having alt text on it. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you show me which picture you're using (there's two in his article), I can help write the alt text. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the one that I like more on the article is File:VinDieselMarch09.jpg. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I added the picture tot the article and added the ALT text Jimmy gave me. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Prose
- "The designers of Escape from Butcher Bay sought to avoid making the game a "see-the-movie-play-the-movie" experience, in contrast to other film tie-in games." First off, quotes in the lead have to be sourced (WP:LEADCITE); secondly, this quote does jack for my understanding. "Play the movie?" I'm assuming it means it's not a fully interactive game experience, but it's better to explicitly state what they are talking about.
- I probably sound like a broken record in these video game peer reviews, but... accessibility, accessibility, accessibility! I think wiki-editors have been spoiled by internal linking, so that they don't explain terms in the text. If you don't give at least a one-bit description, readers have to click away from the article... and it's doubtful they may come back. "In Escape from Butcher Bay, the player takes the role of Richard B. Riddick and attempts to escape from a prison called Butcher Bay.[1] " Who is Riddick, besides the protagonist? "Unlike many first-person shooters, the game contains no heads-up display"... what's a heads-up display (especially considering it's really nothing more than a butchering of head-up display, people might be confused.)
- There's a lot of weaselly, passive voice throughout the article, that leads to repetitious and uninteresting prose. "The player may interact with the prison's residents,[9] from whom quests may be received; the player earns information, tools and other rewards by completing quests.[10] Violent conflict often occurs between the player, inmates and prison guards.[1][9] The player may attack with Riddick's bare hands, or with improvised weapons such as shivs and clubs. Punches can be strung together to create combos."
- Quests are only sometimes received from inmates. Most of the time, it's just idle talk. Also, talking to inmates is usually an option, not a requirement. Rewording it to active voice removes the intended meaning. I'll have to fix the other one; "the player attacks" should be fine. I don't see how any of it is "weaselly", though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that the sentences are all structured the same and sound repetitive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've been working on the prose for awhile, so I can't tell what you mean; I'm too close to the wording. Could you point out a few more specific examples? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I switched a few sentences, where appropriate, to active voice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- "With Johns' help, Riddick eludes the guards and tricks them into killing the warden. The two then steal a ship and escape the prison." Wait, what? Why would the bounty hunter help Riddick?
- This is more of an issue with content than prose. As I remember it: throughout the game, Johns gets screwed over by the prison officials; he eventually gets fed up and helps Riddick escape. It doesn't make sense here because that subplot isn't mentioned. GamerPro: is it possible to add it in? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Though I don't have a reference, I, more or less, added the text to the sentence. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
More comments when possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) -
- "tarbreeze intended the game to feature more role-playing elements, but they were removed due to feedback from Diesel and game testers. Starbreeze senior producer Peter Wanat referred to the game's role-playing elements as "RPG-lite", and said, "We tried to limit the number of really hard or really intricate RPG elements, and that was a choice because we wanted the game to be playable."" Lots of repetition of elements... maybe something like "components" or another synonym to mix it up?
- I decided that the "RPG-lite" comment was covered by the full quote, so I axed it. And I changed the word's first appearance to "systems". The repetition should be gone, now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see that they produced a developer commentary for the directors cut of the game. Methinks that might add to the comprehensiveness of the development section, no?
- Pet peeve for reception sections; it's generally best to list critics, not just publications, ex. "Douglass Perry of IGN" or similar. While they are representing their publication, it's still one critic's view (it also helps avoid confusion if you're reviewing different versions of the same title.) Speaking of which, are there a couple of reviews of the directors' edition that could be included?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - Done with adding names of reviewers. I will now look for quotes from the director's edition. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- When I have time I'll check my LexisNexis/Proquest subscriptions to look for more critical commentary and coverage from print publications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 November 2009, 00:19 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is detailed enough to be a WP:FA. I would like to get more feedback. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - N.B. In some of my editorial efforts, I have been noted for being excessive in use of citations. In this article, at times in Beilein's career where he was in a two newspaper town, I often included both citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Tony, I haven't peer-reviewed one of your articles recently, so I'll try this one. Will report soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I'm not sure how helpful this review is going to be, but I'm doing my best. Basketball isn't my field of expertise, but here goes. - Lead
"The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third year at Michigan..." A season cannot be a year. Suggest: "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third at Michigan..." What is the "Division 1 level"? Since "Coach of the Year" seems to be an accepted award, it should be capitalised (as here) He's won this "numerous" times - but you only give three instances. If these are examples from a bigger number you should say so. Otherwise, say he's won it three times. - I count four times, but they are different types of Coach of the Year recognitions at different levels of play. I will change numerous to four though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the NCAA Tournament? (yes, I know, ignorant Brits, but there's quite a few of us) - Early college coaching career
This sentence is somewhat intrusive, placed where it is: "Beilein first applied to coach Division I basketball at Canisius in 1987."[9] The information should be placed at the end of the section, as part of the lead-in to the next phase of his career. - I have clarified that he was not hired the first time he applied. The sentence is in the correct chronological place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I would expect the section to end with information about his second, and evidently successful, application to coach at Canisius, rather than the somewhat flat statement about him unsuccessfully seeking other jobs. - Canisius
- What is the first sentence about? How is Beilien compiling a record for the 1991-92 season when he doesn't join te college until 1992?
Dodgy grammar: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College, which was also the first position at which he hired assistant coaches." Needs to be something like: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College as head coach, and was able for the first time to hire assistant coaches." No spaces around mdashes (I fixed this in the lead, not elsewhere) "team into a team" is repetitive. Use a word like "outfit", "line-up", "squad" etc, for the second mention of team. - Second paragraph: after the words "Coach of the Year" the text becomes very confusing. Who were "the number one seeded team", and what is the relevance of this sentence to Beilien? What does "The conference earned three NIT invitations" mean? I am equally lost with the rest of the paragraph. No doubt it all makes good sense to followers of American basketball, but it needs to be understood by the rest of us.
- Who are the "Golden Griffins" - is this a nickname for Canisius?
"...and it continued to have never won the conference tournament." Very awkward phrasing. Perhaps "and it continued its record of never having won the conference tournament. - I'm having great difficulty trying to follow a tournament structure that I don't understand. As I've said, it's probably clear to those that know these things. However, one thing that bothers me is that Beilien, the subject of the article, is pretty well invisible in this section, which is basically a record of his team's results and little more. Perhaps we could do with fewer results and more about Beilien's coaching methods, and why he was successful.
- I have detailed what I can about his style. I will probably await sports discussant at FAC in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Richmond, West Virginia and Michigan sections
- I don't see much purpose in my commenting on these sections, which mirror the Canisius material in largely presenting team performances under Beilien, with little about the man himself.
- See current FA Steve Bruce. His managerial career section does not talk about him much as a person. Coaches are written about in depth personally unless they have extraordinary accomplishments. I think this is sufficiently broad for FA consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Coaching style: disappointingly brief. I would have expected something about the influences on Beilien which helped him develop his particular coaching style, also indications of how the style has changed and developed over his fairly lengthy coaching career. Also, please note that "notoriety" implies fame for the wrong reasons; Al Capone was "notorious". In this case it might be better to say that Beilien has gained "recognition" rather than notoriety.
- Personal life: I'm unhappy about this section. I think there are WP:BLPNAME issues, and also issues about the relevance/trivia of some of the information. Most of the final paragraph adds little of value to the article.
I'm sorry, Tony, if I haven't been able to provide much help. I've done my best, but it really isn't my area. I hope that you can pick up something from the review, however, and I wish the article success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for your perspective and attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've struck the issues which are clearly resolved. As to the others, my lack of familiarity with the sport makes it difficult for me to comment constructively, so I'll leave these to be resolved by more knowlegeable reviewers. I hope I've been of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 14 November 2009, 03:49 UTC)
-
I've worked this page to a GA and now looking for possible improvements in hopes of getting the article to FA. The biggest concern, something brought up during the GA nom, is the referencing of the table of scores in the Dancing with the Stars section. I have tried to find references for each score, but have been unsuccessful in that. I'm not sure what to do with that table! Anyway... any feedback or comments are appreciated. Thanks, oncamera(t) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. The problems I noticed have to do with prose and style issues. Sorry, I can't help with the refs for the table, but the claims do not seem especially controversial (though the information isn't common knowledge and must have come from somewhere). Here are a few suggestions. Heads and subheads - To avoid repetition, something like "Beginnings" would make a better subhead under the head, "Career" than "Early career". Under "2002 Winter Olympics", deleting "Olympic" from "Olympic qualification race controversy" would avoid repeating "Olympic". The next subhead in that section could be shortened to "Games". The subhead for section 2.6.1 could be shortened to "Trials".
Lead - "competitor and a five-time medalist (2 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze)... " - Numbers from one to nine are generally written as words, and bigger numbers are written as digits except at the beginning of a sentence. In this sentence, you use "five" but also 2, 1, and 2. Better would be "competitor and a five-time medalist (two gold, one silver, two bronze). Ditto for other instances in the article.
Early life - "Ohno's parents divorced when he was an infant, so he was raised by his father." - "And" would be a better choice since "so" suggests that being raised by his father was the inevitable result of a divorce.
- "Ohno has stated by the time he turned 13 years old, he would attend parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends". - Insert "that"? Change to straight past tense? Suggestion: "Ohno has stated that by the time he turned 13 years old, he attended parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends".
Early career - "When he was 14 years old, Ohno became interested in short-track... " - Wikilink short track?
- "His father wanted to encourage Ohno's developing skills... " - Perhaps "His father wanted to encourage Ohno to develop his skills... "?
- "...so he successfully advocated for Ohno's acceptance into the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track, despite being underage." - Since Ohno's father wasn't underage, perhaps this would be better: "and, although Ohno was underage, he got him admitted to the Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track."
- "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?
- " He participated in no training from April to August 1997... " - Tighten to "He did not train from April to August 1997... "?
Olympic qualification race controversy - "By removing Biondo from the competition, Smith finished in second place and allowed Davis to win." - Since Smith didn't remove Biondo, this sentence should be re-cast.
- "The final verdict was that O'Hare's claims went unproven in the arbitration case, all three were absolved of guilt, and the claim was dismissed." - Tighten by deleting "in the arbitration case"?
The Games - "Ohno was in second place with three laps remaining, and on his third attempt to pass on the final lap, Kim drifted slightly to the inside where Ohno raised his arms to signal he was blocked." - Since Kim wasn't making an attempt to pass, this sentence should be re-cast.
- "thousands of accusatory letters, many of which were death threats" - "contained death threats" rather than "were death threats"?
After Salt Lake - The Manual of Style advises against sandwiching text between two images on opposite sides of the page. In addition, the Olympic skates photo overlaps two sections. An easy fix for both problems would be to move the skate image up into "The Games" section.
- "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno stemming from fears of a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy." - Since Ohno didn't stem from fears, perhaps re-cast as two sentences, thus: "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno. Their concern stemmed from a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy."
- "Ohno was unable to defend his World Cup title reign from the previous three seasons" - Delete "reign"? Or change to "Ohno was unable to extend his World Cup title reign to a fourth season"?
- "winning the 1000 m and 3000 m races." - When the race names are used as adjectives, they should be hyphenated; i.e. "winning the 1000-m and 3000-m races."
Post-Olympic hiatus and return - I'd recommend combining the two first paragraphs because they are so short.
- "In 2009, Ohno won his 10th national title,[4] and qualified for the world team; however, unable to defend his championship, Ohno finished fifth in the overall rankings at the 2009 World Championships in Vienna, Austria: he placed second at the 1000 m, and won gold with the 5000 m relay team." - Too many things tacked together. Two sentences would be better.
Olympic trials - "were the one through top five finishers at the trial" - Tighten by deleting "one through"?
Performance - In the table, what does "Safe" mean in the Results column? Should this be explained in a footnote?
General - The images will need alt text, meant to explain the image content to readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
- The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
- The link checker finds six dead urls in the citations.
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) 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Comments: Thank you for the thorough review of this article. I went through and made changes to the article per all of your suggestions. However, as for this one: - "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?
There are hardly any well-written speed-racing articles, so after reading WP:STYLE Unit Names and Symbols to use m instead of meter as along as I included the nonbreak in it i.e. 100 m. Since there are multiple uses of meter throughout the article, I didn't know if it would be redundant/distracting to the reader to constantly see the word. I think it makes sense to write meter out as m instead. Also, in response adding alt to the images, I wasn't sure how to add it to the image in the infobox template, so I might have to ask someone if they know how to add it to the template itself or something. oncamera(t) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - Your explanation about "m" vs. "meter" makes sense in the context of this article. I added a |image_alt = parameter to the article's infobox just now so that you'll be able to add the alt text. You are right in thinking this is a bit tricky; the parameters in the infobox differ from the parameter for most of the other images. If you ever have to do alt text for a map in the infobox, it's |map_alt = . Best of luck with the FA pursuit. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Another thought. Do you want to add the "persondata" info to the bottom of the article? WP:Persondata has an explanation. I have a script that can do most of the work (not much, really) automatically by cloning data from the infobox. Just let me know if you'd like me to run it on this article. Finetooth (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for adding the alt_image to the infobox, but I don't see the alt text when I turn the images off. Do you have to make the change to the Template:Infobox Speed Skater itself? I don't know how to edit that! If you would like to run your bot for the Persondata, that would be helpful. oncamera(t) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Puzzling. I'm not seeing why the alt text doesn't show up. I'll keep thinking about this and perhaps ask for help. I added the persondata by copy-paste of the template from WP:Persondata. (For some reason, the script did not work.) You can see the persondata in edit mode. Only four bits of data were relevant. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, flummoxed. I don't see how to fix the alt text. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Persondata template. I will look for other help with the alt tag in the infobox! Thanks for trying, oncamera(t) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - I see that someone has fixed it and that the solution is a variant that I didn't try. :-) Glad you found help. Now that the technical problem is fixed, I have another observation. The alt text is not the same as the caption; if you can imagine a blind person listening to the alt text being read out loud by a machine, you will have a good idea of what the alt text should say. For example, "The skates Ohno wore at the 2002 Olympics" won't be of much help to a blind reader. Something like "A pair of silver skates with gold-colored blades are mounted in a display case" would be better. You can improve on the other two alt texts as well. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I went and edited the alt texts again according to that logic; it's better now. Thanks for the advice, oncamera(t) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 14 November 2009, 02:28 UTC)
-
This is the first time I've requested a peer review, but basically I'm looking for general advice on where I can take this article. Content wise I'd be grateful for any of the following: grammatical feedback, comments on whether the prose is of appropriate length and correctly weighted, whether I am missing any sections, and whether there are any areas where I have possibly gone over the top. I very warmly invite any feedback, regardless of your knowledge of the sport. What a football (or baseball, basketball, tennis) fan thinks is essential might appear to be useless minute detail to a casual reader, so in that respect I would very strongly welcome even brief opinions from people who have little interest in football/soccer. I'm also quite new to wikipedia, so I'm curious as to whether it would be worth nominating this as a good article in the near future, or if because of its nature I'd have to wait until May or June. My personal opinion is that the article is stable, as the only major additions are updates of statistics, or changes made in direct response to consensus at WT:FOOTY or the season article task force. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This makes sense to an outsider (me), seems broad in coverage, neutral, illustrated, verifiable, and not filled with unnecessary detail. Since I'm an outsider, I can spot jargon that other outsiders might not understand. (As I review more and more football articles, I am learning the jargon, so I'm not quite the utter newbie I was a couple of years ago.) Most of my comments have to do with jargon and how to make the material a bit more accessible to readers unfamiliar with the sport, and I have a few thoughts related to the Manual of Style guidelines. My impression is that this will likely be ready for a run at GAN in May or June but probably not before because the ongoing story will certainly change and could even change greatly by then. Lead - The lead should be a summary of the entire article such that a reader who could read only the lead would understand the essence of the topic. It's going to be hard to complete the lead until the end of the season, because the stats are going to change, and other more dramatic things (injuries, awards, championships) may happen. Perhaps you could add a kind of interim third paragraph that summarizes the statistics to date and then update that paragraph perhaps once a month through the end of the season. Just a thought.
-
- I agree that this should be done. I think that "As of 20 November 2009" would be too arbitrary, and I don't think backdating to October would be particularly useful, so I'll work on this at the end of the month.
- "There were many changes at the club from the previous season, with Malky Mackay becoming the new manager, and several first team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin leaving the club." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Slightly better might be: "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club."
- Wikilink or explain striker for readers unfamiliar with the sport?
Background - "Watford finished the 2008–09 season in 13th place in the table." - Would it be helpful to add when exactly the season began and ended? Should "table" be wikilinked or explained?
- "Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club "by mutual consent" in November 2008... " - It's hard to tell scare quotes from direct quotations. If "by mutual consent" is a direct quote from a source, it needs a citation to the source. On the other hand, scare quotes express doubt. Is there some reason to doubt that Boothroyd agreed to leave?
-
- It seems that part of the terms of his settlement are that he can't answer that question directly, but when interviewed in August 2009 he was quoted as saying "If I had stayed we would have done an awful lot better than finishing 13th." 1 Not sure if that could be considered a reliable source though. As good a fansite as it is, it's still a fansite, so I'd need to make a compelling argument to use it. Hopefully the source I've added will justify keeping the scare quotes in. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- "lifting Watford away from the relegation zone in the closing weeks of the season" - Wikilink or briefly explain relegation zone?
- "He subsequently joined Reading in June, with Watford receiving an initial £500,000 in compensation." - Another "with" as a conjunction. Suggestion: "When he subsequently joined Reading in June, Watford received... ".
Pre-season - "The first team began with matches at local sides... ". - Should "sides" be linked to teams?
- "The club's final pre-season fixture... " - Perhaps write "fixture (scheduled match)" to make the jargon clear to wide audience?
- "and club record signing Nathan Ellington" - Not sure what this means. How could a player sign a club record?
August transfer window - "handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back" - Wikilink right back or add "defender" in parentheses after "right back"?
September to December - "Leicester equalised late in the game, with the match ending 3–3." - Suggestion: "Leicester equalised late in the game, and the match ended 3–3."
"3,389 Watford fans travelled to Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers" - Write out the number in words or re-cast the sentence to avoid starting it with digits, per the Manual of Style. - "despite a red card for Ellington" - Explain or wikilink red card?
- "Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, with Cleverley joining Graham as the club's joint highest scorer of the season." - Another "with" conjunction. Perhaps: "When Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season."
Friendlies - Add a footnote explaining "friendlies"?
-
- This is a very good point, but didn't see how this could be done in practise. There is no logical place to insert a link to the note, and full-sized text would be inappropriate in my opinion. Instead, I've inserted "friendly match" into the prose, allowing me to wikilink it.
Management and coaching staff - The external link to Watford F.C. should be converted to an inline citation.
-
- Removed altogether, it was redundant.
Out - "£2m" - Spell out "million"?
Notes 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) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for the feedback, it was fantastic and exactly what I was hoping for. I've made all of the changes in the way you have suggested, except for where I have left notes. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
More commentsThis is coming along nicely. Most of my suggestions are breaking up long sentences. This is based on my personal preference and I can't say that that is the best.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC) -
- It looks like this was touched on up above. It will need to be broken into paragraphs as the article grows.
- "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club"
- Maybe break this up into a couple of sentences since it could use more commas and that might make it unwieldy.
- New arrivals at Vicarage Road included striker Danny Graham and former Scotland international Scott Severin, along with loan players Heiðar Helguson, Tom Cleverley, Craig Cathcart and Henri Lansbury.
- Same as above
- Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club by "mutual consent" in November 2008 and was replaced by former Reading and Chelsea academy boss Brendan Rodgers.
-
- Two sentences "...in November 2008. He was replaced by..."
- The first team began with friendly matches at local sides Boreham Wood, Hampton & Richmond and Wealdstone, before a pre-season tour to Spain where they faced CF Balaguer and UE Lleida.
-
- Same as above. Start a new sentence for the games in Spain.
- Watford sold striker Tamás Priskin to Ipswich days before the start of the season,[7] and started the Championship campaign with the future of several players unresolved, including those of top scorer and player of the season Tommy Smith, highest earner Jobi McAnuff,[8] and the club's most expensive ever player Nathan Ellington.[9]
-
- Same as above. "[They/The team] started the Championship..."
-
-
- It's a difficult balance. As you say, this is a sensible alternative to a month-by-month. I agree with your point and have removed "transfer window", but those unfamiliar with the English football season will find my choice of headers somewhat odd without the phrase.
- Since this is live in the mainspace, consider removing the January- and February- section headings.
-
- After the match Doncaster
-
- Add a comma: "After the match, Doncaster"
- Done.
- After the match Doncaster manager Sean O'Driscoll believed that a Dean Shiels shot had crossed the Watford goal line, and that a goal should have been given.
-
- Should "believed" be changed to "said" or "said that he believed"?
- Done
- Mackay handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back Lee Hodson, and a first game of the season to goalkeeper Richard Lee.
-
- This comes across a little informal with "handed".
- To an extent that was the intention, but maybe it is too informal. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
- Barnet restricted Watford to a 0–0 scoreline after 90 minutes, before Severin and Mike Williamson scored in extra time for a 2–0 win
-
- Both teams restricted each other. Maybe "The scoreline was..."
- Changed to "The match was goalless..."
- The match finished 4–2 to Watford, with loan player Tom Cleverley scoring in his first game for Watford.
-
- Consider not using the second "Watford" (ease of reading)
- Changed to "the club". I was wary of overusing "debut".
- victory for the League One leaders
-
- "For Leeds, who were the League One leaders at the time/would go on to finish..."
..." You would have to break up the previous line if you did this, though. -
-
- I've left it for now, because they were League One leaders at the time and have been at every stage since. Longer term I will certainly edit along these lines.
- In Smith's final game for the club,
-
- Since it isn't established in the article yet, "In what would be Smith's..."
- Days before the end of the transfer window, Portsmouth submitted transfer bids for Smith and Williamson, while Reading were in negotiations with Watford for Smith,[16] and had submitted a bid for McAnuff.
-
- Consider breaking this into two sentences.
- Done
- Graham's goal put Watford ahead against Swansea, but Alan Tate scored a late equaliser for a 1–1 draw.[21]
-
- Focus was shifted abruptly. Ease into it more with "In the next match against Swansea..." or something like that.
- Reworded, and done my best to mention Swansea as possible while still ensuring the paragraph makes sense.
- "...including Dale Bennett, who was making his first two league appearances."
-
- Should the tens be "..who MADE..."
- Done
- The style changed from "A game against so-and-so" to "THE match..." a couple of times in the Sept-Dec section.
-
- "A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended AN away match against Reading"
- "Preparation for AN UPCOMMING game against Coventry City..."
-
- If I reference the result before the team, I've generally gone with "a X – X win/defeat/draw" (or variants of these). Where I've given a game more than a cursory reference and have started talking about the team (for instance Reading), I've used "the match" or similar. For other games I start by talking about circumstances leading up to the match, and they flow naturally (Leicester and Coventry). I don't really see this as a problem, provided I don't start saying "a game" or "the win".
- A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended the away match against Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers.
-
- "...who were managed by.."?
- Done.
- Preparation for Watford's game against Coventry City was affected by a virus affecting six first-team players
-
- Maybe use "hindered" or something similar instead of "affected"
- Not done. In the source Mackay has gone out of his way to say that the virus was not an excuse for the two defeats (despite the fact that several players were dropped as a direct result). I think "hindered" would imply that Watford lost partly because of the virus, but it is true to say that Watford were "affected" (otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned at all).
- footnote 1" ^ Matches are normally played on Saturdays, but Watford's game against Sheffield Wednesday was moved to Friday for live television coverage."
-
- Is this important enough to be a footnote? If so, is it important enough to be included in the section? Further expansion is possible from the other footnotes so keep it in mind.
- Removed altogether, as it will soon be redundant. A direct reference to TV will come in the prose in a week or so. We're playing the team furthest away from us on the Saturday, followed by the team nearest to us (and our second biggest rivals) on the Monday. Meanwhile, the team nearest to us gets to play a home game while we're tired from all the travelling. Longer term I am considering creating an ownership/commercial/finance sort of section, which would allow me to cover this side of it properly without talking about things which have no direct relation to what happens on the pitch.
- Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season.
-
- Consider adding the total.
- Attempted, it looks a bit clumsy though.
- I was under the impression that using images directly below level three headers was something to avoid. I'm not sure if this is still the case. The benefits of the image might also outweigh whatever the drawback is.
- Using them on the left directly below a header is generally a bad thing (but I don't want all of the images to be on the right). Hopefully the section will be long enough that I can move it down a paragraph at the end of 2009.
- The second Don Cowie in the International appearances table (14 November 2009) was a disambiguation. Also, consider removing the multiple wikilinks for him in the main body.
- Liberty Stadium, Swansea was a disambiguation
- "United States national soccer team" was a disambiguation.
Thanks for your comments, they were pretty helpful. I haven't dealt with the lead yet, I plan on a major re-write soon but I've said I'll do many things over the next few days. Thanks for your on the article and help with the redirects btw. WFCforLife (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 9 November 2009, 03:00 UTC)
[edit] Philosophy and religion -
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and am looking for prose help, as well as help with finding any missing context that might be needed for a non-medievalist. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Colin's comments: I know very little English history so amply qualify as a non-medievalist. Here's some initial comments from the first two parts. More later if this is helpful. - "was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury, in England." The ", in England" jarrs. Is it necessary? We mention England a few words later, just in case anyone doesn't know where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives.
-
- Deleted the "in England" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "sent to England". I'm now wondering "from where?"
-
- Clarified a bit .. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Gaul" may be worth wikilinking.
-
- "a native Italian". Do we need "native"? Do we know anything about where he was born or where he lived prior to coming to England?
-
- Removed the native bit, and no, we know nothing nothing nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "books brought to England by Mellitus". I don't know who Mellitus is. I see it is wikilinked later but I need it here. I see from his article that he was believed to have come on the 601 mission too, which explains why he is being mentioned in connection with the books Justus travelled with. Can we give some context here?
-
- Expanded a bit in the previous paragraph Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed the article spells "traveled" with one "l". Is this written in US English? Just asking.
-
- It should be in Brit English, but I usually have Malleus check over these types of articles because I'm a yank, thus catching all my mistakes (I've finally gotten "favour" down..) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really following the point about "but examination of...one possible survivor". Why the "but"?
-
- Clarified that a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Along with the letter to Augustine" why "the letter", not "a letter"?
-
- Should have been "a" oops. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "the returning missionaries" I'm confused about "returning". I thought they came to Britain, not returned to Britain?
-
- this paragraph came from another article (easier than retyping the whole big lot!) but a couple of typos obviously occurred. One of the 601 missionaries was actually returning (Laurence) but the others were new. Easier to just remove the "returning" from here, where it is unneccessary detail (the article it came from was Laurences, obviously). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "force the conversion of his followers" Is "followers" the right word? Doesn't a king have "subjects"?
-
- "Subjects" has a connotation that isn't quite correct in the early medieval period, especially here. The nobles, etc. were more "followers" than "subjects", as they could (and did) desert these kings (who were really not able to enforce their will on the peasants) so followers is a bit more correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Colin°Talk 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) More: - "The King was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines" I'm wondering why this is a separate sentence rather than just run on from the previous as "and destroy all pagan shrines". Did that urging come from someone else, or was that behaviour not "like the Roman Emperor Constantine I"?
-
- Nope, just a relic of how I put articles together, which is to throw up data in bits and pieces then rearrange as needed. Sometimes that means that sentences aren't always real long. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did they succeed? Did the king convert his subjects and destroy the shrines?
-
- We don't really know if he destroyed them all, nor do we have a lot of evidence about how many were converted. On reflection, I've removed the sentence about hte letter, as it's really peripheral to Justus. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- "another of the missionaries who was Bishop of London" this reads like there were several missionaries who were "Bishop of London". Do you mean something like "who was another of the missionaries and who was Bishop of London"?
-
- This got fixed in a rewrite connected to comments above... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- "He then consecrated Romanus as his successor" a little ambiguous if "he" is Justus or Boniface, particularly when Boniface's actions continue to be described in the following sentence with an "also" linking back.
-
- Do we know why he was regarded as a saint?
-
- No clue. No sign of miracles being attributed to him like Mellitus, nor any other idea. Pre-congregation saints are ... shadowy. I've added that he's pre-congregation to the infoboxEaldgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- How long is the poem about him? If short, could it be reproduced here or linked to?
-
- I have no idea. I have no idea if it's even been translated from Latin, honestly. If it has, it might still be copyrighted depending on the date of translation. For that matter, transcribing manuscripts may very well be copyrighted. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can we wikilink "Reginald of Canterbury"
-
- I've redlinked him. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- What a shame we only know bits of his life and not even the year of his death.
-
- We know more about him than some other Archbishops of Canterbury... see Feologild. And the ABCs are much better off than some of the other early medieval English bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Colin°Talk 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks Colin, I'll get started on these shortly. Hopefully tomorrow.. it's been a rotten couple of days here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 18:50 UTC)
-
STOP! Don't read this article! Before you look at the dismal shape this article is in, I want you to imagine for me what questions you might have about the idea "religion", and what you would expect to see in an article about "religion". Reading this article will only confuse you. I have looked at it many times and it always confuses me. It is the center stage of a wonderful mixture of esoteric POV pushers, including individuals who have told me on the talk page that scholarly discussions of current issues in religious studies are far less important for the sake of a good "religion" article than promoting their personal POV battle. So, don't even look at it-- imagine it, as it exists in Platonic form, the Featured Article in your head. ANYONE reading this paragraph is welcome to add their comments here even if they don't want to do a full peer review. I am open to rewriting this from scratch. Even after you look at it, please suggest radical revision. For example, who determined that a section called "religion and superstition" should be prominent in the article, instead of placed under "Related forms of thought"? Why is there no section named "religion and society", or "religion and politics"? I'm asking these questions myself, as a past contributor, because I'm only one voice and I want your input. Alright, go ahead Shii (tock) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: Taking you at your word and commenting without looking at the article, I'd expect it to address the basic "who, what, where, when" questions. The "what" would involve an extended definition of the word, "religion". Since the definition must come from reliable sources, it might actually turn out to be "definitions", and it might be necessary to report on major controversies involving the definitions. The "who" would involve naming and very briefly describing the most notable individuals and groups involved in religion(s). (This might be done as a table). The "where" would involve the geography of religion(s), possibly illustrated by a map. The "when" would involve the history of religions, perhaps reduced to a timeline. The topic is so enormous that I'd never attempt it myself. I don't see how it could be done except as a bare-bones summary of the who-what-where-when type, presented in a clinical way, without bias. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Thanks for your comments! I think the point of the topic being enormous is quite important. I just realized that writing paragraph-long summaries of subjects like "religion and superstition", "religion and society", or "religion and politics" is an immense task that this article should not even try to cover. I'll have to bring that up on the talk page. Shii (tock) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Further Finetooth comments: You are most welcome. I waited two days and then read the article, and I have just a few other thoughts, mostly about form but one about content. Biased content - "The word "religion" as it is used today does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The history of other cultures' interaction with the religious category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europe under the influence of Christianity." - On the face of it, this is an extraordinary claim sourced to a single author. It would be easy to object to this claim on grounds that it seems to suggest that before colonization by Western nations, other nations and cultures had no religion. Other writers might well disagree, and, if they do, they should be represented here too. This claim might be interpreted in some other way, but it segues into a discussion of the meaning of Christianity, and a reader might wonder why an article on religion in general has so quickly become a discussion of one particular Western religion. In the first paragraph of the discussion of Christianity, a sentence says, "What we would call religion today, they would only call "law". Big oops! Who is "we", and who is "they"? Whatever else the article might be, it isn't neutral if it divides the world into "we" and "they". I think the working definition at the beginning of the article needs to be broad enough to encompass all religions in all times and places. I don't think you can start with the Romans or simply the etymology of the English word, "religion" without introducing a Western bias from the start.
Form - The lead should be a succinct summary of the whole article. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can envision what the lead needs to be. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. This lead isn't a summary at all but rather an extended definition. I'd suggest moving the definition into the first main text section. Then the lead could be wholly re-written as a summary or abstract.
- Large chunks of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.
- Bolding is used sparingly in Wikipedia articles. Most of the extra bolding in "Specific religious movements" should be removed. Please see WP:MOSBOLD for details.
- The editing tags that challenge certain sections or statements need to be addressed.
- Images should be placed so that they do not displace section heads or overlap sections.
- Lists such as the one in "Myths" should be rendered as straight prose.
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) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 9 November 2009, 21:39 UTC)
-
I'm part of the Wikiproject University of Florida, and I've been tasked with rewriting the biographies of the university's presidents, and then to apply that collected knowledge to the expansion and rewriting of the article covering the history of the university. I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded it beyond the original stub article, and I would like to understand the category "A" article and feature article requirements better as I continue to rewrite, expand and properly source the other dozen or so articles for which I am responsible.
Thank you for your assistance, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, generally well-written, stable and neutral, and has two nice illustrations. I have a fair number of suggestions related to style guidelines and some other suggestions as well. Lead - MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead is an introductory paragraph rather than a summary. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
Professor, Emory College and the "Sledd Affair - "Although Sledd's essay supported the continuation of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, a public firestorm ensued in Georgia, stoked by the vitriolic letters and editorial attacks of agrarian populist Rebecca Felton published in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper." - Although most U.S. readers would guess from reading this subsection that Rebecca Felton and others denounced Sledd because they favored lynching (if they actually said this) as a means of suppressing African-Americans, foreigners might think they denounced him because he supported racial segregation. It might be helpful to amend this section slightly with a non-U.S. audience in mind and to make the essence of the controversy unmistakable. (It becomes more clear later in the article, but I think it should be made clear from the outset.) Direct quotations might be one way to do this if you can find representative examples, perhaps from Sledd and Felton. The quote in citation 8 might do for Sledd, or perhaps something longer would be better. Anything of four lines or more can be set off in blockquotes. See WP:MOSQUOTE for details.
General - The article includes quite a lot of overlinking of the sort described by WP:OVERLINK. For example, the first two links in the lead both go to University of Florida, and the second two go to History of the University of Florida. Readers will assume that the links are meaningful but will discover that the second of each pair is not meaningful. To enhance the value of the wikilinks, redundancies should be avoided. I'd be inclined to link University of Florida only once in the entire article. Ditto for Methodist, Emory University, Board of Control, and many others. In addition, I don't think you need to add the linked places like Emory to the "See also" list.
- Date ranges and page ranges anywhere in the article, including the citations, take en dashes rather than hyphens.
- It's possible to over-reference. It's not necessary to provide a source for every sentence, especially if the sentence in question contains nothing controversial, no statistics, and no direct quotations. For example, the second paragraph of the "First President, University of the State of Florida" section consists of five sentences, all sourced to the same document. One at the very end of the paragraph would be sufficient to cover the whole paragraph. I'd suggest culling refs that aren't truly necessary. (I realize that deciding which are needed and which are not can be subjective and tricky).
- It's a good idea to use short, snappy heads and subheads and not to repeat the same words multiple times in the heads. Thus, perhaps "Scholar and teacher" would be a slightly better head for section 2, and the subheads could be shortened to "Emory College and the Sledd Affair", "University of Florida at Lake City", etc.
- Wikipedia normally doesn't use "Dr." as a title. (See WP:CREDENTIALS). Thus, the Dr. in the infobox should be deleted, and constructions such as "the son of a Methodist Episcopal minister, Dr. Robert Newton Sledd" should also drop the "Dr."
Images - The Sledd Hall image should be re-sized downward. It's too big and on my computer screen overlaps two sections. I'd suggest tinkering with the size until the image fits within a single section and looks good.
- Featured articles must have alt text as well as captions. Alt text describes image content to readers who can't see the images. Although you might not have to have alt text for GA, it's a good idea to add it as a service to this group of readers. WP:ALT has details, and you can always visit WP:FAC to see how other editors are handling alt text questions.
Bibliography - If available, book data should include ISBNs. The older books won't have any, but something like Dictionary of Georgia Biography most likely will.
References - I noticed something odd in this sequence of sentences in the University of the State of Florida section: "Sledd's role was instrumental in the formation and ultimate success of the new university, but his tenure as its president was a relatively short four years.[22] His political support came to an end with the retirement of Governor Broward, and the inauguration of the new governor, Albert Gilchrist, in January of 1909.[22] The Florida Board of Education, which oversaw the Board of Control, made no secret of its desire to replace Sledd,[22]" Although these are sourced to an article about Buckman Hall, the article does not seem to mention Sledd's tenure, Governor Broward, and so on. It would be good to check the citations to make sure that they directly support the claims they are attached to.
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) 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC) -
- Thank you for your comments, Finetooth. I am just running out the door to my day job, but I will begin to respond to your comments and make suggested changes this weekend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 22 September 2009, 03:22 UTC)
[edit] Social sciences and society - Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen substantial work and would like to improve it further. Looking forward to general hints and tips as well as comments on more serious errors I might have missed. Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 12:10 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)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 12:41 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks to be a good candidate for a Good Article, and some feedback on what (if anything) needs to be done might push people along. Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 00:32 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article will be viewed a lot over the next week. Alan Khazei is running to become US Senator from Massachusetts to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. The special election Democratic primary will occur on December 8,2009. I think that improving the quality of this article & other articles related to the upcoming election will be really useful for people coming to Wikipedia to find information about these candidates. It would be great to get this article & other articles related to the upcoming election to good/featured article status. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 06:57 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)
(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 07:34 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I helped take this article to GA Status and going over it again I believe that it could qualify for FA status and would like input from other wiki editors. Particularly I want to make sure I satisfy criterion 1a and 1b. However I will point out one major problem with this article and that is that information related to Teresa de Simone simply doesn't exist prior to her murder! I can't find any biographical information in regards to her that isn't related to the murder, I can't even find her year of birth let alone date. It seems bizarre that this (even basic) information doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can find, whilst I absolutely respect the rights of the family to their privacy, anonymity and grief I'm surprised that none of the refs in the article have mentioned this information. We also need to be mindful that Sean Hodgson is still alive and so WP:BLP most definitely applies and that the sections relevant to him (particularly since is undoubtedly innocent) should be upheld to the highest standards. Thanks, Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating tale well-told. I think it's close to FA, though I do have a few suggestions for further improvement. All of the newspaper names should be in italics, for example. I made a few changes as I went, including changing one long quote to a blockquote. Please revert this change if you don't like the blockquote. Or, if you like it, two or three of the other quotes of four lines or more could be rendered as blockquotes (without quotation marks) as well. - I'd eliminate the bold phrases in the lead except for the title per WP:MOSBOLD.
- The Manual of Style deprecates the use of fancy quotes such as the ones around the text box in the Hodgson trial section. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
Murder - "When her shift at the Tom Tackle ended at 2300 UTC she went on to Fridays... " - Wikilink UTC on first use?
Police investigation Arrest of Sean Hodgson - "Sean Hodgson (aka Robert Graham Hodgson)... " - Spell out "also known as"?
- "It was not routine to make audio recordings of police interviews at the time, and much of the original police paperwork from the case has so far not been located." - It would be better to say something like "has not been located through 2009" rather than "so far".
Acquittal and release - "Hodgsons is potentially Britain’s the longest serving innocent inmates." - Something missing here. The sentence doesn't make sense.
- "While imprisoned his identity was stolen making it difficult to access insurance and housing." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.
Operation Iceberg - Shouldn't David Lace be mentioned by name in this section? It seems a little odd not to mention him and then to jump to a "David Lace" section without the connection being made explicit.
- "they are on the right track and hopefully could be close to solving this 30 year old murder... " - Did the source have hyphens here; that is, "30-year-old murder"? I yearn to add them.
David Lace Notes and references - The appeals citation needs more details. "R v Robert Graham Hodgson EWCA Crim 490" is quite mysterious. At the least, the abbreviated parts should be spelled out, so that EWCA appears as "England and Wales Court of Appeal". Perhaps Crim stands for Criminal Division? What does "R v" mean?
- The Appeals Notes section on my screen looks cluttered and a bit hard to read. Would four columns or some other arrangement work better than six?
- Newspaper names like The Guardian and Southern Daily Echo need italics. I see lots of these in the Reference section. If you use the "work" parameter rather the "publisher" parameter for the newspaper name, the template will add the italics automatically.
- Triple dates like 4 December 1979 should be unlinked.
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) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Response to Finetooth comments:
 Thank you -
- Acquittal and release
- point 1) The sentence could be written a bit better but it is essentially correct; it is potentially possible that there is (or has been) a Briton who has been imprisoned longer who was innocent. So Hodgson is the longest known.
- Operation Iceberg
- point 2) It doesn't, however since this is a direct quote so bad grammar is fine.
- Notes and references
- point 1) R stands for Regina which is the Queen regnant. Essentially the crown if held by a woman.
(Peer review added on Friday 27 November 2009, 17:46 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… My eyes have been on it too long and not enough views that have generated comments! lol. I have watched the page for a year looking to see if there were improvements, but none. So, this past summer I started editing the artical answering questions that I would have for the Spanish monarchy. There are other sections I wish to add, but before I go further I wished to get comments on what is present. Thanks, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - Two days ago I considerably reorganized the article, but it was returned to a previous version as Drachenfyre and I don't fully agree on all aspects of how the article should be organized and focused. Hopefully this review can bring in different ideas and perspectives. Ltwin (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Lt, list your concerns as a peer review so we may work on them! :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by an odd name (help honey) Mainly if going for featured article status (and one should try to at least aim for that), but may also apply to good article status, article accessibility, and general policy as well. - Fix the dab links and loopback link. Would you want to be forced to pick from a list of same-named articles, or click a link to the article you're already on?
- I'm not sure yet how to fix this yet. Can you provide a link to what you are suggesting?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you open this review's subpage (the previous text will be bold if you're on the right page), you will notice the links "disambig links" and "external links near the top. Look for the listed links in the article, and replace them with working links.
- In "disambig links", just look for any links in the article that match the listed ones and change them to a more specific page. In "external links", you will notice white boxes and colored boxes: click each colored box to see if the link works. If you get an error message instead of a page, change them or look for archives of the dead pages in the Internet Archive or WebCite. You may need to edit both the article and its templates (like this navigation box at the bottom) to fix all of them. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the artical is already expanded to an unmanageable mess! Ill be working on changing the citations to the WebCite.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- The images have no alt text. Try to at least add a brief alt whenever a new image is added. The dynastic line in "History" should, at the very least, have an alt that says roughly how many royals have preceded the current one.
- On that note, I'm not convinced the dynastic line image in "History" is actually Iacobuslatinus's work—the "1"s in the right-side corners with the crown on top suggests it's a page from another source. If it is from a pamphlet or poster with no copyright, it should be labeled so, and not licensed (there is no right to do so). Such copyright problems can delay or deny promotion.
- Gods I would hate to lose that image, but after looking at other posts, I tend to agree now. I'll shoot him a pm for clairification, will remove in mean time :( ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- "The concept of lèse majesté ("lesa majestad") exists in Spanish jurisprudence, as in other legal systems, which is the crime or offense violating the dignity of the head-of-state, or against The State, which in Article 56 of the Constitution the Spanish monarch and the dignity of the Spanish State are one and the same; "The King is Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence" (El Rey es el Jefe del Estado, símbolo de su unidad y permanencia)"—tl;dr. Split the sentence and explain what lèse majesté is right after ("lesa majestad"). Check for such long, rambly sentences throughout—educate, don't confuse.
- Broke sentence into two, and looking for others. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is "¿Por qué no te callas?", a relatively modern event, really relevant to the main article about the monarchy throughout history? "King Juan Carlos may have breached lèse majesté himself" does not convince me it's important—it's unsourced and original research.
- I removed this section, it is an event in 2007 but does not deserve this much detail now. Also, though I wrote that the king "may have breeched"... it does seem more like OR now that I reread the section. So removed. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some things to avoid (added on 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)): - Will do! But what a find in an of themselves!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Ibid." for citations—they get moved and deleted often.
--an odd name (help honey) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Thanks AnOddName! Much to soak in, which I am working on right now! I see your points! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment about the removal of ¿Por qué no te callas?: I think it might still be relevant. Hugo Chavez hasn't attended a single Ibero-American Summit since that incident... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - As a matter of diplomacy between the two countries (Spain and Venezuela), that seems a much more solid rationale for inclusion than the "lèse majesté" original research, and (if properly sourced) I won't oppose its inclusion for that reason.
- Still, I'll repeat—with some edits—one of my questions above. Prepare for others to ask, given Spain's long history and the rules for proper weight and trivia sections: Are the habits of Hugo Chavez, a relatively modern head of state, really relevant to the main article about Spain's monarchy throughout history? At the featured article stage, articles should avoid unnecessary detail. --an odd name 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- One comment on "Spain's monarchy throughout history?". I had written the artical from the perspective of a contemporary monarchy, though reference it's history. From my perspective another artical specifically focused on the History of the Spanish Monarchy would be appropriate for a detailed historical narrative. The artical "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" to me focuses too much on the historical monarchy rather then on how the British monarchy operates today. I had written this artical asking that question... how does the Spanish monarchy operate today.
-
- I don't think ¿Por qué no te callas? is as appropriate in the "lèse majesté" section as I once did. I had included it there as it seemed to me to be indeed a "lèse majesté" on the part of the king towards another head of state. But there is nothing in any sorce which states that exactly, so it's inclusion there would be origional research.
-
- It is an important event, but it prehaps should be mentioned within a one or two sentence statement rather then the detail that it goes into here, no?
-
- AnOddName: Is the "lèse majesté" section stronger now that the ¿Por qué no te callas? is removed? It seems to me a stronger section.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the section is stronger. Maybe you can re-add it to section "The king and queen". I think the current and historical events should be balanced, maybe half each; I just don't want this to suffer from "recentism" and get filled with a news event every week or two. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Another comment: I have to say, I think every single important thing is mentioned in this article. Good job! I have a few doubts about the way it is presented, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to present the info about The Crown and Constitution (and the Royal Household of the King) before the Monarchy in Contemporary Spanish life? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - To answer your first point, there's certainly a lot to take in. I'd expect few or none to oppose the article on criterion 1b in a FAC. It may even need more splitting off, but I have no preference and there are definitely longer featured articles. --an odd name 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Raystorm: So you would have 'Contemporary Monarchy' after the Crown and the Constitution? I am not averse to that and will change it see how it flows today.
-
- AnOddName: Do you really think it is nearing FAC level?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- It has a lot of info, but it needs cleanup. Watch for phrases that don't need to start with capital letters, combine related paragraphs and sentences, and (if you haven't already) ask one of the editors in this copyeditor list or the League of Copyeditors for help with the full article. Ideally, get a copyedit from someone who's not familiar with the subject (to get rid of jargon and other problems).
- You also should make sure all your citations are to reliable sources—less random blogs, more strong news outlets and academic journals. You might even find more interesting facts from them. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Guidence requested: I must admit that I am uncertin when to use the origional language, in this case Spanish, when referencing technical terms and names. I am now looking it up in the Wiki style guide, but might anyone comment to the use of foreign terms and languages in the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC) - Coming from WP:ITALICS: "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." Mm40 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! I am still uncertin though regarding using translations of sections of the Spanish constitution right under the English translations. Do you have a comment on this by chance?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 23 November 2009, 07:05 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because editors UpstateNYer and Eliphaletnott have been busy substantially updating the article over the past few months. They requested an informal peer review on WP:Universities#Peer_review in September and WT:UNI in October, but further comments from a wider audience would be appreciated. Thanks, Mabeenot (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Quick comments: These aren't thorough suggestions, so I'm not taking it off the unreviewed notice at the top (where it might attract someone else's attention), but I might come back later.
- First off, nice work in just a few months!
- Images need alt text per WP:ALT
- Save for later; we'll get more important things done now so we can pass a GAN. upstateNYer 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Check the disambig & external links. Several disambig pages are linked, and, when I checked, there was one dead link and (I believe) one ref that needed an access date.
 Y Done Not sure why it's claiming that link dead; it brought me there from the check page... upstateNYer 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - Can something like what the Family Guy article has done with its voice cast (scroll down a bit) be done with the Minerva system pics?
- Changed the whole section so it's a non-issue. upstateNYer 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The all caps sayings in Seal and motto should be lowercase, per WP:ALLCAPS, and italicized per Foreign terms
Nice work! Liquidluck (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: The article has quite nice images; the prose is generally flowing, and the article seems broad in coverage. Liquidluck's suggestions should be addressed, and here are some more things to consider. Overlinking - Only terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to many speakers of English need to be linked, and most terms should be linked only on first use. What needs to be linked is a matter of judgment, but I would say that history, biology, psychology, and engineering don't need to be linked. United States does not need to be linked at all and certainly not multiple times. Centuries are not normally linked. In "Presidents of Union College", Eliphalet Nott should be linked on first use but not on second use or in the caption. Ditto for other links in the lower sections. Too many links are distracting rather than helpful.
- I'll go thru and take a look; hopefully my counterpart will also. I always link the United States when listing a location (i.e. city, state, US) because it follows the other two locations consistenly. I also always link anything in an image caption that may be linked in the article. This is good for browsers who are skimming the article but reading the captions. This gives readers a quick opportunity to click a link, rather than search long and hard for its use in the article. And for the list with Nott in it, isn't it better practice (by formatting and consistency, if nothing else) to link him there as well, since you're linking everyone else that has an article? But for the other ones, I'll heed your advice. upstateNYer 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Capital letters - Many common nouns in the article are being treated as proper nouns. Example: "The Board consists of four Life Trustees, 21 Term Trustees, four Alumni Trustees, two Faculty Trustees, two Student Trustees, and the President of the College. The Governor of the State of New York is an ex officio member. The Board meets three times annually, in February, May, and October. The Board appoints the President of the College upon vacancy of the position; it may also appoint an interim president should the need arise." Shouldn't this be "The board consists of four life trustees, 21 term trustees, four alumni trustees, two faculty trustees, two student trustees, and the president of the college. New York's governor is an ex officio member. The board meets three times annually, in February, May, and October. The board appoints the president upon vacancy of the position; it may also appoint an interim president should the need arise"? Ditto for lots of other common nouns in the article.
- Done, I think.Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Lists - When feasible, render lists as straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. The list in "Undergraduate research" and the list of Minerva houses would be easy to convert to prose. The Theme Houses list would be easy to convert if you omitted the street addresses, which will be of little interest to most readers. I think the lists of rankings would also be easy to convert. The student statistics and data might be compressed and summarized in prose. I would also suggest eliminating the list in the "Landmark" section by deleting all the subheads.
En dashes - Date ranges and page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. The en dashes should be unspaced.
- Isn't there a script for that? Could I get the link if you have it? upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done, I think.Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Links to external sites - Direct links to external sites are OK in the "External links" section but not in the main text. All of the Minerva Houses have external links, and I see a few others elsewhere. Use an inline citation rather than an external link.
References - Make sure that the citation numbers snug up against the end punctuation in the main text. I see that some have spaces between the punctuation and the number.
- Done, so far as I can tell.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reference section would be much easier to read if you created a Notes or Bibliography section below it into which you put the complete data for each long work that is cited multiple times. Then long, repetitious entries like "Somers, ed., Wayne (2003). Encyclopedia of Union College History. Schenectady: Union College Press. p. 599" would become "Somers, p. 599".
- Amen to that; I just got chewed out by someone at my most recent FAC by someone who didn't like that style. upstateNYer 01:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doing... but it will be a process... upstateNYer 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like it's Y Done upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 151 lacks a publisher, date and place of publication, and ISBN. Which edition are you citing?
- The DNB and the ANB are standard citations forms for these two works; I have added publication information, however.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 07:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC) - All of your suggestions were very helpful. Keep them coming, please.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Should the "bibliography" be in effect only the works cited in the article, and the "further reading" other works, but not cited in the article? Eliphaletnott (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Even though Wikipedia is not made of paper, the repetition would be redundant if works under Bib were also under FR. upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Editing changes so far look great. Eliphaletnott (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 22 November 2009, 19:45 UTC)
[edit] History -
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)
- Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs) regarding images
- File:Nunnery Isle of Man.jpg - Pre-1.1.1923 publication (1913) is verifiably sourced, but where is the 1825 date from? I'm sure I've just overlooked it.
- File:Yasmina.Bounty.JPG -
The OTRS ticket (which is one of the best I've seen in terms of documentation) releases this only as CC-by 3.0. It shouldn't be using a GFDL license (and certainly not one with a "self" modifier, at that). Just shouldn't be using the "self" modifier. - File:William Bligh - Project Gutenberg eText 15411.jpg - Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years is only applicable to unpublished works in the U.S. This is a published work (per the source, a publication), so the license should be one based on a publication term (e.g. {{PD-US}}).
- File:Mutiny HMS Bounty.jpg - Source is a dead link (although sufficient information is present to support the license tag). Any chance of finding a working link?
- I tweaked a few of the others to remove bare URLs/add source links/etc. The above are minor issues; overall, images look well done indeed. Эlcobbola talk 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the above. I can't for the life of me find where I got 1825 from - I'll keep looking, but otherwise I'll amend this information. I'm not clear what if anything I should do about the Yasmina image details. I have replaced the licence on the Bligh portrait with PD-US and have found a live link for the mutiny picture. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments Fascinating read. I knew the story in general. I imagine this is heading for FAC so you'll want me to work it over thoroughly. - General comments:
- Is the fact that Nordhoff and Hall used Heywood as the basis for the narrator in Mutiny on the Bounty worthy of mention?
- Lede:
- First sentence bugs me. I don't like leading in with the fact that he was condemned to death. I also think the paragraph should be a bit longer. Can we do it as three sentences, first mentioning that he was aboard the ship at the time of the mutiny, second mentioning that he was tried convicted sentenced to death and then pardoned, and the third dealing with his later naval career?
- There are chronological difficulties with the lede. Bligh's return to England preceded the dispatch of the Pandora; though he was not in England at the time of Heywood's court-martial.
- The one, unattributed comment about the three seamen being hung while Heywood was spared is an awfully thin reed for the treatment you give it in the lede. "And summed it so well that it came to far more/Than the witnesses ever had said". Carroll.
- Again, aren't you overstating it a bit when you say that Heywood benefited from the Christian family's activities? No particular benefit is mentioned.
More later. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 21:22 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I belive that this is a very important part of Human history and definied the next 40 of history (1950-1990). This article deserves to become an FA. Thanks, Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:34, 6 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.) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 21:34 UTC)
-
I'd like to add this to my queue of future FACs. I think it's not far from there now, and would appreciate whatever thoughts people are willing to provide about improving it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:45, 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. 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.) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 16:45 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)
(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)
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:07 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it for feature article nomination, i need all types of comments and suggestion that would help me to further improve this article so that it may pass the feature article criteria. Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:02, 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.
- Also, you've managled the Gibbon, it should be "Gibbon, Edward (revised by Henry Hart Milman). Although I'm not sure how much "revision" happened, as it doesn't look any different than a scan of a much earlier printing of the work (Victorian era, I'd guess.) Milman died in 1868, so this isn't a significant recent revision
- 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.) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- wht should i do ? except for gibbon there is no other source tht illustrates siege of damascus in such a detail.
by the way almost all the references given to gibbon in the article are further supported by modern sources, so is it all right using gibbon since wht ever he stated is now supported by modern historians as well. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:02 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)
(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) - Hi, I was invited to provide a citation review here.
- Short cites check out fine. The choice of Author with titles used to differentiate is a great one for history. You could consider having the short citations end in full-stops (I think it looks cleaner, but this is totally a personal thing).
-
- A nice idea, and I've enacted it!
- Chamberlain & Ellis in the short citations differs from the bibliography which is Chamberlain; Ellis. This is up to your own tastes really, because its not inconsistent within sections. I just like pushing multiple author consistency between the short citations and the bibliography.
-
- Couldn't figure out how to correct the template in the Bibliography, so I changed it to the latter example in the short cite in the article; could you check that's consistent now?
- You'll want to add Locations for your References section. If you're on {{cite book}} you'd want |location= ; when using |location= you have some options. International cities don't need further identification, London: Penguin. Cities so well known because of a press association can stand alone, Harmondsworth: Penguin. or if you don't like that way, all presses can have their major sub-national unit and formal state listed. ie: Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Or Sydney, NSW, Australia. Or New York, New York, USA. Please remember: popular sub-national units (Russia for USSR, England for UK) are inappropriate. All US states should be put as State, USA. If using contractions on US states, use a consistent set, and only contractions.
-
- Not entirely sure what I'm doing here; I'll see what I can add and then come back here to tell you, if that's okay.
- Okay, added all locations, not sure if they're all done correctly.
- Is this really a hyphen: "Army - Airborne Forces"?
-
- No, and I can't believe this, but I got the title wrong - doesn't need the 'Army' bit, just 'Airborne Forces'. I'll correct it in other articles as I go.
- You're missing a comma between the title and the pp. "Zaloga, Armour of the Middle East Wars pp. 4–5"
-
- Done, thanks.
- Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources, tertiary sources include articles, cite the article using {{cite book}}'s |chapter= and use |pages= in the bibliography to indicate the pages spanned. Indicate the article's author (anonymous? named?) indicate the encyclopedia's editors. What makes the article's author an expert whose tertiary opinion can be relied upon? (Ie: what makes this a reliable source).
- Uh, hopefully this is only for Bishop, but I'm not sure how to do this with Bishop - no idea who wrote the entry, either. Could you help out with this bit?
- Is this part of a relevant book series (ie: on universal tanks)? Fletcher, David (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2.
-
- Nope, Fletcher just called it that, the previous one is called 'The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour...' I don't think that makes it part of a series, he only did the two books anyway. Let me know if I need to add anything.
- You may want to check on the Manual of Style for the capitalisation of titles.
-
- Will do!
- I'd want reassurance about the high quality of the illustrated sources?
-
- I'll talk about this at the bottom, to keep it all in one place.
- I'd want you to describe how you searched for journal articles: but I'm not familiar with military equipment journal articles, military science tends to concentrate on leadership issues... in general, it helps to explain how you've exhausted sources for historical articles with a low source count. (I'm aware that the Locust doesn't draw the imagination of tank history authors).
-
- Let me start this here, and maybe expand on it tomorrow. Obviously, firstly I did the usual Google, Google News and Google Scholar search: nothing in those of any help, annoyingly. When I was doing my MA at Warwick University I used my access to JSTOR and the like to see if there was anything, and there wasn't. I'm not sure what else I could look for that I'd have access to. Oh, and anything the National Archives at Kew would have - looked through there for secondary stuff. Is that enough to satisfy you, or can I do any more?
- I'll also point out that Flint seems to have gone over all of the possible military journals for the Locust as well as the Tetratch, and especially for the former there are very few, mostly from the odd modelling magazine and regimental journal. Nothing that I could really get my hands on, which is annoying as I wouldn't mind reading some of them anyway.
- Oh, also, we don't give authors titles unless they're part of their name, "Otway, Lieutenant-Colonel T.B.H (1990)" should be "Otway, T.B.H."
-
- Done!
- On a side note, the lede appears a bit long for the article? There's style advice about lede size out there. WP:LEDE perhaps?
-
- Hmm, I'll double-check this and see if it can't be trimmed down a tad.
- I quite like this article, it was a nice read when I was reading about airbourne tanks and armoured vehicles. I hope I've explained the citation issues present clearly enough? Your citations aren't missing any major information pieces, except the press locations, and the articles referred to in the encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the really quick response - I'm glad you enjoyed it. I've got to pop off to work now, but I'll get through these tomorrow; I'm glad to see that there aren't any huge problems. I'll re-check for journal articles and the like as well, while I'm at it. As for Bishop, he's only used for one cite, so it isn't a huge deal if he has to go, though it might mean a slight rewrite; how would I prove he's a HQ reliable source? Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, and the same for Tucker; if he isn't a reliable source, then this article might have a few problems. What's the usual route for arguing that they're both High Quality, Tucker especially? I found that, in researching the Locust, a number of books understandably got them mixed up with the Tetrarch, and Tucker was one of the few that didn't, which would seem to put it head and shoulders above many other sources. Any ideas would be a help. Skinny87 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Key points to a HQRS: If its an encyclopedia article, if it is a specialist encyclopedia, and if the article in question was written by a specialist who actually signed their name to it (not the encyclopedia editor generally, they tend to write the short poor quality articles and sign their name over actual staff writers). For sources in general, is the press academic or commercial specialist? Was the source reviewed favourably by the specialist presses dedicated to that area? Finally (and only if the others don't work), is the author a recognised expert in the field. Obviously recent works in academic or dedicated specialist commercial presses would be the best! Its okay to not be entirely HQRS for Featured Article Candidates, as long as the majority of the work is derived from HQRS, and the WEIGHT and core narrative has been set by HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, here we go! I've knocked down Tucker and Bishop to a total of four citations, as the others were merely duplicates that can easily go without compromising the article. Of those four, all of the Tuckers can potentially be replaced by Chamberlain and Ellis once I get access to it on Friday (My copy is at the regimental museum I volunteer at) which only leaves the Bishop citation. This is slightly more awkward, as the history of the Locust is rather piecemeal at times: the Bishop cite states that the tank was chosen by the War Office to be transported by glider. Seems obvious, I know, and I can probably find something to replace it with, but it would be a tad awkward. I can't really defend Bishop as an HQRS - the [About Us for his publisher] doesn't exactly make me confident about them. Ironically Tucker's publishers, ABC-Clio, the one I can hopefully replace, seems a lot more defendable. Their [About Us page] mentions a number of awards and they would seem to be more rigorous, although I'm not really sure what I'm looking for. Neither author seems to be academically-known in any way, unfortunately. So, as it stands: Tucker can probably be replaced and might be reliable(?); Bishop would be more awkward to replace, and would not seem to be an HQRS. I leave my sources to your mercy, and any advice you could give :)
- Ah, I didn't realize Chamberlain and Ellis had 'Illustrated' in their title as well. I think they can be deemed HQRS, as they publish a number of military history books and so forth, but I can't find a website for them. I think they've been subsumed under Orion, as it states here somewhere at the bottom: [Orion Publishing About Us]. Orion seem quite reliable and a fairly big publisher, and I have stacks of Cassell-published history books at home, if that helps. Both of the authors have published other books on military history, tanks specifically, although I can't figure out how to do that Google thing where you can see if a certain book has been cited. If Chamberlain and Ellis aren't HQRS, or at least good RS, then I'm sunk really. I'll be back in a while, this is giving me something of a headache.
(od)Okay, I think I can source everything to Chamberlain and Ellis that is currently cited to Tucker, which would leave only the one Bishop citation, which I'll work on. I think two are better than three, especially since I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that C&E are much more likely to be HQRS than Tucker or Bishop - better publisher, authors have published numerous books on the subject and so forth. But, of course, I leave it yo your opinion, Fifelfoo. Skinny87 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - And everything from Tucker is now sourced to Chamberlain and Ellis. That just leaves one citation to Bishop. I think C&E would qualify as HQRS, per my comments above, though how I'd go further to prove that I haven't a clue. I'm also unsure how to edit the Bishop citation to show it's an encyclopedia article, as I don't know who authored the article on the Locust. Skinny87 (talk) 18:20, 7 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.) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by an odd name - I was asked to check alt text. I made a few changes, but it looks good, except...
- I'm concerned about File:M22-littlejohn-adapter-01.jpg. It's cited to the US Ordinance Dept but only two images on the source page are cited there and that isn't one of them!
- There are other images that say they are "possibly" made by Allied soldiers (on their file pages). How do we know they are, and not copyvios? I think a few of those images will have to be removed before or during FAC.
- It's not entirely obvious (to me) that the tank is moving in the action shot (File:M22locustincombat.jpg).
- It's also not entirely clear the people here are wearing overalls (image looks washed out, etc.). Also, the source image is dead and its source page seems a bit biased ("If we persist in foot-slogging its a dumb choice born of narcissism not an inevitability. ... We certainly don't like the POS Pandur but at least here, its being shown being LVADed from a C-130...")—I wonder if there's a better source with better images.
- I wonder why the damaged tank in Israel (File:M22-locust-negba-2.jpg) doesn't have the two sets of handles in front—it doesn't look like they were shot off. Maybe their absence might warrant a mention in its alt?
- No dabs or dead external links—good.
- I read the lead and some of the "Background" and it looks reassuringly clean and accessible. If the rest of the article is that good, you're probably ready (but I'm no specialist in tank articles, so I hope the A-class project review caught remaining content problems).
--an odd name 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review, very much appreciated! I have edited the alt text to state that the Locust is simply on the road moving through the field. As for the other photographs, I have to agree with you about their dubious status. I certainly won't want to use any possible copy-vio images, so I've removed them from the article. I'll take another look in the IWM Collections and the Library of Congress to see if I can find any with correct licensing. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - It's sad to see the images go, but we should always be sure that what we use is free (or, at least, not free).
- Finally, this article has a redlink to gyro stabilizer, but the dab page Stabilizer has a redlink to Gun stabilizer. One of those should change, unless gyro is only one notable type of gun stabilizer. --an odd name 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 12:25 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about one of important personality from Uttar Pradesh who have held many key positions at various Government/Public levels. I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status. Thanks, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 12:24, 1 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.) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 12:24 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status. Thanks, --CarTick 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Brianboulton comments: You have indicated that you would like feedback on how to get this article to FA status. I have not had time to study the prose in line-by-line detail, but a quick readthrough and scrutiny reveals a number of issues that need attention:- - There are several disambiguation links that need fixing. Go to the toolbox on the top right of this page, click on "disambig links." That will reveal what needs to be fixed.
- The images all need alt text. If you have problems dealing with this, let me know and I'll help. If you haven't done so already it may be an idea to look at WP:ALT
- The images may be public domain in India, but for free use on Wikipedia they need to be PD in the United States. Generally this means they need to have been published before 1923, which is obviously not the case here. You need to establish, with the help of an expert image reviewer, whether these pictures are PD in the US under some other criterion.
- The lead needs to expanded into a summary of the whole article rather than a brief introduction.
- Section headings
- Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case uless they are proper nouns or form a title. Thus "Government response" not "Government Response". (and others)
- Avoid beginning section titles with "The..." unless this is part of some formal title." Hemce, "Day of Mourning" not "The Day of Mourning" (and others)
- Some subsections are far too short to be freestanding, e.g. "Riots in the North". They should be incorporated into the sections.
- The repeated use of quotation boxes, even for short quotes, is disruptive to the smooth reading of the article. Short quotes should normally be incorporated into the text. Longer quotes (100 words+) may be in blockquotes - I have converted the first two long quotes in the Government response section to blockquotes so that you can see what needs to be done. But the majority of your quotes are not long enough to justify using blockquotes.
- I notice that some sections are in bullet-point format. This is very much frowned on for potential featured articles. These sections should be converted to prose.
- Reference formats
- On-line references (Nos 1, 38, 42 etc) need access dates.
- All references need publisher information
- Ref. No 1 goes to a page that appears unrelated to the topic under discussion
- No 3 goes to a "Not Found" message. There may be others - please check
- Odd points
- The quantity 1635 should be written 1,635, 1200 should be 1,200. Check for others.
- Consistency in spelling required; at present, for example, you have "organizers" (American) and "organisation" (British). It makes sense to stick to Brit spellings (you have adopted British date style), so please check for spellings such as "favor" etc. "Normalcy" in BritEng is "normality".
- "climbdown" is a single word, not two.
All these issues need to be addressed. The prose doesn't seem at all bad, but probably needs the attention of a conscientious copyeditor. A most interesting article, well worth some further effort to take it towards FA. Maybe GA as a transitional stage?. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Thanks brian for the review. i will incorporate the comments.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Public domain, In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain and If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.). That would mean File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg, File:Rajaji1939.jpg and File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg though are in public domain India now, they were not in January 1, 1996, and therefore, not in United States now because US does not follow the rule of shorter term. If it is not in the public domain in U.S, it can not be used in wikipedia. too bad. looks like we need to delete all these images. hope my assessment is correct, pls correct me if i am wrong. --CarTick 00:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- correct assessment for File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg and File:Rajaji1939.jpg. But File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg has been released into PD by the periyar kazhagam (if we switch to wikiality123's version), for all purposes. That means PD in US too. So we can use that as it was released into PD and not lapsed into PD. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- that is correct. permission from the copyright holder, in this case, periyar kazhagam should be fine. --CarTick 04:05, 7 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.
- Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
- Magazine titles need to be in italics also.
- Current ref 51 has the title of the journal and the issue number in the link title. Should be broken out to have an author, title of the article, journal, volume and issue, and page numbers. Also for current ref 52, 66, and 80
- What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?
- This has been backed up by another book now. However, this has been used as a source not for "what happened" but for "why they claimed they did it". Since the "they" in question is the DMK party, and sangam.org link is a lecture by Sachi Sri Kantha (a scholar with multiple Gscholar hits, BUT in another field) which quotes from a primary document of the DMK where they defend their actions. "What happened" has been sourced from a reliable source (scholarly work). And "what they claimed" has been sourced from DMK's own publications of that time period (now backed up with other scholarly work from Anthem press). --Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?
- Same as above. This has been made the source for "why they claim they did it". As this is the official website of the DMK party this has been used as source for their "claim". Now it has been backed up by two more sources (one recent newspaper article and another journal article from the same time period) plus the legislative assembly proceedings discussing the . As in the above case "what happened" has been sourced by other RS including books and newspaper reports.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 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.) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Brianboulton comments -Tick - Sodabottle and I have re-written the lead.
- I have removed two images which are in public domain in India but not in US. I have replaced the third image with a duplicate image (permission for use here had been granted by the copyright holder). --CarTick 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Brianboulton comments - Sodabottle - Fixed disambiguation links
- Added Alt Text to remaining images
- Changed Section headings to confirm to MoS per Brian's comments.
- Short subsections have been eliminated and their contents incorporated into other subsections
- Reference formats 1) access dates added 2)publisher information added for all online refs 3)ref no 1 is citation for no of languages in India, source for general background for the article 4) fixed dead links in citations, verified all others
- Odd points 1)number format fixed
- Still to do : 1) British English conformance 2) Quotation box issues 3) bullet points to prose conversion--Sodabottle (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Ealdgyth comments - Sodabottle - The reliable sources issue has been addressed (see above) by adding additional citations.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed Magazine and Newspaper titles using cite news and cite web templates as suggested by Ealdgyth --Sodabottle (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed Indian Recorder and Digest in journal format. Indian Review (by Natesan and Co) is an annual year book and not a journal. Similarly India Today (by living media) is also an annual year book and not a journal. So they are left as such with cite book template
All comments/issues raised by Ealdgyth incorporated.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 04:31 UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and am wondering if (a) it's too complex for the lay reader who isn't a medievalist, i.e. does it lack context to make the average reader able to understand it and (b) is there anything that is still lacking as far as "expected" information? Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC) - You might wanna give English translations for your Latin phrases (e.g. Liber Wigorniensis, Enucleatio libelli)
- Is Hemming's Cartulary a cartulary, or a manuscript too? I mean, I know it's both, but maybe it should be described as both in the opening line?
-
- Added in "manuscript" right in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first cartulary was composed at the end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century. The second section was compiled by Hemming and was written around the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century. Traditionally the first section is titled the Liber Wigorniensis, and is mainly organized geographically. The second section, Hemming's Cartulary proper, combines land records with a narrative of the losses of property by the church of Worcester
-
- We're told that the first "section" is organized geographically, and then when we move to the second section we're told what it is composed of. This doesn't make any sense.
-
- I think I've expanded this enough for clarity now Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The lead is, as is normal with leads, not so well written in general (e.g. and is mainly organized). I'm sure time and c/es will fix this.
- The second part is Hemming's work and takes up folios 119–142, 144–152 and 154–200.
-
- Out of curiosity, what is in folios 143 and 153?
-
- Here is where we get iffy. I mention what is on the inserted folios later in the Manuscript condition section... should we reorganize somewhat? This is where not having a critical edition of the work hurts, since we can't "borrow" the organization there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- MS Cotton Nero E i and British Library MS Add 46204 may also contain charters collected as part of Wulfstan's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Wulfstan's episcopate.
- Who's Wulfstan? He's not been introduced yet nor even linked yet. :)
-
-
- Give me simple Anglo-Normans anyday... changed it to "...as part of Hemming's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Hemming's lifetime." which keeps the whole Wulfstan commissioning the work to the section later where indeed, Wulfstan is introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, which helps to explain why and how the cartulary was created.
- I didn't get what was meant here.
-
-
- Does "The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, explaining why and how the cartulary was created." work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. You mean that the documents are connected with a/the narrative ... that the title explains why and how the cartularly was created? The narrative does? The documents are? Even then I still don't get what is meant. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's try "The documents are connected with a narrative explaining why and how the cartulary was created; the narrative is usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum." That better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers, that is better. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Besides charters, it incorporates information from the Domesday survey's sworn testimony for the region
- Another sentence you might wanna rewrite for clarity (i.e. what is Domesday survey's sworn testimony?).
-
-
- "Besides charters, it incorporates information from the sworn testimony from the region used to create Domesday Book." that work better? (You mean not everyone knows that Domesday book was created by getting sworn testimony???)
- It also contains an accounting of amounts paid to King William in order to regain items the king had taken from the diocese.
- Another (an accounting of amounts).
-
-
- Changed to "...a listing of amounts..." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- it was produced to Wulfstan's successors:
-
- "produced for" Wulfstan's successors? "presented to"?
- (fixed it Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
- You should, if you can, consult pp. 12–14 of Historia de Sancto Cuthberto (Anglo-Saxon Texts no. 2). As its editor South points out, the Historia is very similar in style and structure to fols. 119–34 of Hemming (the bit called Codicellus possessionum huius aecclesiae) and to the brief biography of Saint Wulfstan.
-
- Do not have access to that, so it appears. I've hunted through U of I's catalog to no avail. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've got a copy of the edition/translation somewhere, but not of the introduction (apparently too humane to extract more pages from it under the pressure of the photocopier lid). Anyway, I'll track down the book sometime next week. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thankee. Not sure why U of I doesn't have it... they are pretty good for stuff like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, you can get it on google books I see [1]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It does not want to give me page 12, of course. This is why I despise Google Books previews... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can see page 12 and can send you an image if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- That would be great. This had better be worth the bother to everyone (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is a list of contents of the MS possible?
- Ha, Ealdgyth kicked my ass for doing so : ) She was right, but perhaps a simplified version without an intimidating wealth of detail could help the reader visualise the structure of the MS in terms of contents. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- We could always do a listing of the full folio by folio as a list and link to it in a "see also" or "main article" thing somewhere. It just overpowered the article here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems encyclopedic to me that an article about a manuscript would have a list of contents if it was going to FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It does, just not a folio by folio listing, which was what was inserted before. I don't have a problem with a small listing overview, but I really think a folio by folio detailed listing is way too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've thrown up a possible small table on the article talk page, if folks wanna address that there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we don't need a list that big, but we need one bigger than that (perhaps in a side-box), to give the reader a good overview of what's where. Atm this table doesn't even say where the "Codicellus possessionum" is ... :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, between Cavila and I, we've expanded the table, and I got the stuff in from Historia, and I've placed the table in the article... I'm not wedded to where it's at right now, but it seemed the best fit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's me with my comments (for now at least). Good work btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) - There were some issues with the logical order in which the structure, contents, themes and purpose(s) of the work were described. Scholarly views on Hemming's codicellus as a commemmorative work should be treated together rather than separately, obviously. I went ahead and tried to re-organise a couple of things, but an extra pair of eyes might be welcome. Hope to be able to provide more feedback soon. Cavila (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- The rearrangement looked fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 November 2009, 19:29 UTC)
-
|
