The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page.

Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

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

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since 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. Current archive: November 2009

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

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

Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback: November 4 • Krrish • Bob Willis • Mount Fuji • Electronic cigarette • Mercury-Atlas 8 November 3 • Black Eyed Peas discography • Whiz Kids (baseball) • Gulfton, Houston • Cavalier King Charles Spaniel • Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral October 31 • Gray Wolf October 30 • University of Valle If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

[edit] Arts

[edit] Sakis Rouvas

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

I've listed this article for peer review because editors working on this article would like to eventually get this article up to GA or FA status and would like to know of possible improvements, (apart from just typical typo errors) from an external perspective. Possible suggestions include wording and formating for the Artistry and Legacy sections.

Thanks, GreekStar12 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 November 2009, 03:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Somewhere Along the Highway

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

I'd like to see this eventually achieve GA. There aren't many sources available, so I'm kinda making do with what's on offer. However, it could conceivably meet the criteria, possibly with a little help.

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 18:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Tyne Tees Television

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this for over two years and it's time another pair of eyes went through it. Copy editing isn't my forte, so it would be helpful if some kind, gifted soul could either massage the prose, or spell improvements out to me (vague criticisms like "some problems with logical flow" are unhelpful). I would like to get the article to GA.

Thanks, The JPS^{talk to me} 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 12:17 UTC)

---

[edit] Ashley Tisdale

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it again for FA but I'm not sure if this article is ready for it. In my opinion, it is but I wanted to see other editions opinions before nominating it.

Thanks, Decodet (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 00:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Laugh, Laugh

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FAC if it can be improved enough. There was a previous peer review, after which the article passed GAN last month. I've found feedback to be most helpful, so I would greatly appreciate all suggestions related to prose, style, sourcing, and anything else that needs attention.

Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 November 2009, 22:12 UTC)

---

[edit] L'incoronazione di Poppea

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

This opera article had been expanded recently, from Start-class to a potential FAC. On the way it has benefitted from helpful comments and contributions from members of the Opera Project, for which I am most grateful. The article needs a full review of its content, sourcing, images etc. At present it lacks a sound file, but I am hoping we will be able to add at least a Non-free sample of the music under fair use. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I'm starting a peer review now - I hope to have it completed in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• General
  • Capitalisation – a familiar bleat from me about consistency. The carnival is variously capitalised and not capitalised within the article; I'd recommend not. You have the "Glyndebourne festival" (a proper noun, surely) but the "Imperial Palace" (cap not needed.) My Latin dictionary doesn't put a cap on "lictor". Do Consuls and Tribunes need capitalising?
  • Critics and musicologists – e.g. Carter – suddenly appear in the text as if they are familiar names: some context would help at first mention, e.g. "The musicologist Tim Carter"… (not, for preference, the journalese "Musicologist Tim Carter", omitting the definite article – all right for The Sun but not for a serious encyclopaedia article.) Rosand – as for Carter, though she is accorded a first name a few paragraphs later.
• Lead
  • Last sentence of first paragraph. Can one conscientiously describe the work as part of the "operatic mainstream"? I don't recall its ever being done at Covent Garden, for instance (though I am open to correction on this point), and the ENO has had only two productions of it in the last forty years.
• Historical context
  • The last para of this section appears to consist entirely of speculation. If you think the speculation is worth including I feel it might bear more conviction if you briefly set out the reasons given by Carter, Ringer et al for so speculating.
• Composition
  • Rosand confesses might never be wholly resolved – "confesses" is an odd word, here, almost implying guilt – perhaps "acknowledges" is more neutral.
  • music by other composers, has – the comma is an intrusion, surely?
  • recently-discovered score of Francesco Sacrati's previously lost opera – as it's recently-discovered, do you also need to describe it as previously lost?
• Morality
  • Yet despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, critic Edward B. Savage asserts that Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral… – as drafted, this reads like POV, i.e. despite the evidence, Savage says something debatable. Is it correct to say (more neutrally) "the critic Edward B. Savage asserts that despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral…"?
  • the context of their own times terms – "times" or "terms", I imagine
• Early performances
  • the première of Monteverdi's lost opera Le Nozze d'Enea in Lavinia – I see what you mean, but it reads rather oddly. Premiering a lost opera can't be easy. Tricky to reword unambiguously, I admit. I'd be tempted to lose the word "lost" altogether.
• Rediscovery
  • parts of the work." d'Indy's edition – I think d'Indy gets a capital D when he begins a sentence.
  • the Lincoln Centre – an Anglicisation? Oughtn't it to be "Center" as a proper noun?
• Recent revivals
  • arising from Monteverdi having left – gerund needed here, i.e. "Monteverdi's having left"
  • Evening Standard critic – the poor old Evening Standard deserves a blue link
  • with Leppard's heavy orchestration – "heavy" is a bit judgmental: perhaps "large-scale"?
  • Teatro Real – another deserving candidate for a blue link
• Music
  • still in its relative infancy – can one be a relative infant? I'd be inclined to lose the adjective.
  • Arnold – another sudden appearance of a pundit who could do with a tiny bit of introduction or context.

A most satisfying article throughout (though I was sad to learn that the only number in the whole show that I – and, I suspect, most operagoers – can remember, viz "Pur ti miro", may not be by Monteverdi.) The balance of sections seems to me just right: there are no sections that cry out for expansion or for pruning. The whole article is easy to read and to understand. It will certainly grace the front page. I've made what seem to me to be straightforward corrections of ten typos, but please check that you're happy with them. – Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this review and for the helpful comments. I have adjusted all of them in accordance with your suggestions. Most importantly, you reminded me of something that I had forgotten - the weakness of the third paragraph in the Context section. I have rewritten it, removing the speculation and saying only what is specifically covered by the sources. One other thing: within the next day a short "Recording history" will be added to the article and you may want to look at that. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jonyungk

• Lead
  • In the final paragraph, you write that "the work is universally accepted as part of the Monteverdi operatic canon as his last and perhaps his greatest work." Maybe I missed it, but this point does not seem to be addressed in the body of the article. The closest mention is a (negative) comment by Romain Rolland after the d'Indy edition was first performed.
  • In the same paragraph, you mention that the opera "helped to inaugurate a new era in the history of theatrical music, and established Monteverdi as the leading musical dramatist of his time." I was hoping to read more about how this was so, especially considering there is "no record of the opera's initial public reception", but did not see anything else pertaining to this comment in the body of the article. The closest the article comes is in addressing, in the "Music" section, how the opera "broke new ground in matching music to stage action". That information in itself is very well presented but does not address how it established Monteverdi nor how other composers might have followed in Monteverdi's footsteps.
• Historical context
  • The final paragraph is slightly confusing. Monteverdi might have become acquainted with Busenello through a mutual associate and produced one of Monteverdi's operas together. Then we read that "the details of their professional relationship are unknown; there is no record of any meeting between Monteverdi and Busenello, or any evidence of direct collaboration". How did they work together to produce an opera if they did not collaborate somehow? Maybe including the word "otherwise" before "unknown" might help.
• Writing history
  • In the "Libretto" section, we read, "Drusilla, despite her complicity in the attempted murder of Poppea, becomes an example of steadfastness and constancy that impresses even Nerone, whereas the real-life Drusilla, from an earlier Roman generation, was the daughter of Agrippina the Elder and the incestuous sister of the emperor Caligula.[14]" How is this a contradiction of actual events? Other readers may be remiss on their Roman history, even with the inclusion of the word "incestuous", so perhaps a few words to explain would help.
  • I've mentioned this before, so please bear with me. It seems that the "Morality" part of this section refers more to the historical context of the libretto and how it would have been received by its listeners and readers than to its actual composition. Would "Morality" be better served in "Historical context", or perhaps as a section of its own?

This is an altogether excellent article, even within the high level of your work in general, and I agree with you that it deserves FA status. Here's wishing it the best. Jonyungk (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 November 2009, 16:53 UTC)

---

[edit] Krrish

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has just recently passed it's Good article status and I think ... with several improving suggestions and hard working on the article, it could actually deserved it's Featured article status. So, if you editors found any mistakes or any suggestions to improve the article, you can write here.

Thanks, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I believe the article has some catching up to do to retain GA standards and aGA reassessment might be in order.
  • Entire plot summary is unreferenced
  • Ref 1 is to a forum post on Naachgaana; why is this source considered reliable?
  • Refs 4, 7, 8, 10 are to a fan forum; why is it considered reliable?
  • Ref 9 is not a reference, it's a link to the movie's official website, not even to the section where the statement is supposedly mentioned.
  • Ref 11, looks like cinegoer is a user forum as there's nothing at all to mention authorship or date the article; why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 12, the news article looks credible, but the source seems a bit odd to meet our standards. The front page of the website Starswelove.com appears to be that of some spam linker.
  • Ref 17 is a primary source advert/brochure.
  • Refs 14, 18, 19, 40 are to imdb; while some referencing like this is acceptable, there are just too many statements referenced to imdb.
  • Ref 23, referencing six reviews on RottenTomatoes seems quite odd.
  • Ref 29, fansite -- not reliable
  • Refs 30, 31 -- should do better than this.
  • Refs 37, 39, 39, product catalog refs to be avoided.
  • Ref 41, not a reliable source
  • Ref 42, not a reliable source
• I would suggest that the nominator work on these referencing issues to retain GA status. The article is also in need of a copy-edit, but that would have to follow rewriting based on reliable source references. Best of luck! -SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 November 2009, 09:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Black Eyed Peas discography

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on improving the article recently. The sourcing, formatting, prose etc and would like some further ideas on how to improve the article. There was a previous FLC discussion in which there was unresolved issues, these have now all been sorted.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 00:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to see it get to GA class. I nominated it a while back, but I believe that was a bit premature for the article. I've withdrawn it so I can work on it a little longer. Until then, I'd like to hear any comments, praise and criticism you have for the article - whatever helps me improve it.

Many thanks in advance, I.M.S. (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: First of all, congrats on all the progress this article has seen over the past couple weeks. Here are some suggestions:

Lead

• "...[Note 1]" --> "..., sometimes titled Kinks Part One: Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround,"
• "concept album" --> "concept album"
• Second paragraph uses "hit" a lot. Perhaps change to "which reached the top 10 in the US and UK, and 'Apeman', which peaked at number five in the UK."
• Second paragraph: combine with first paragraph

Recording

• Is the sub-heading needed? As the article's currently written, I suggest changing title of section to Background and recording
• Ray Davies --> Ray Davies
• "the next single the Kinks would release," --> "the band's next single,"
• "took especially long" --> "were especially long"
• Martin and National Steel: these links are disambiguations
• "The National Steel would play an integral part in many Kinks songs after that.": Short, stand-alone paragraph could use further explanation ("How so?", "Which songs?", etc.)
• "(see 'controversies' section)": not needed.

Songs

• In the caption of the "Lola" audio sample, I would clarify which two sections are featured. Also, Lola --> "Lola"
• royalty: this link is a disambiguation
• "(see 'Soundtrack appearances')": not needed.
• "with a B-side of 'Rats'.": not needed, as it's stated in the previous sentence.

Controversies and dubbing

• "A similar situation was encountered with the song 'Apeman'.": Explain.

Aftermath

• "The success of the single" --> "The success of 'Lola'" or "The success of the singles"
• which they named "Konk" --> "which they named "Konk",
• Chart Success: rename Chart performance

Soundtrack appearances

• Short, stand-alone paragraphs. I would combine them and expand if possible (has "Lola" been used for any TV programs or movies?)

Track listing

• I'd mention the "Introduction" here, since earlier it is noted that "Introduction" is often billed as track one.

Notes

• The notes need some cleanup, as many lack publishers, access dates, authors, etc.

• Overall, the article is well-written, and is an interesting read. Keep up the good work.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 2 November 2009, 20:26 UTC)

---

[edit] Smile (Lily Allen song)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I had worked on it for a month and made major improvements. It's not exactly finished, I still need to find a few reliable sources for some statements. After it is done, I intend to nominate it for FA, but I want to know what else I can do for this article in order to have chances of passing.

Thanks, 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the music video screenshot fits WP:NFCC#8. I would need some guidance over what scene to put. Music video is here. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Dbratland (talk · contribs)

Overall an enlightening article. I am pretty ignorant about music in general, and about Lily Allen, but I was able to follow along because there is enough context and an appropriate level of explanation in the article.

• I see many instances of duplicate Wikilinks. Most second occurrences should be removed as per Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links (not counting tables and infoboxes). There are exceptions, depending on how you feel about having too many links in the lead, re-linking a second time far down the page, and what in your opinion is a common enough word to not need a wikilink. I didn't edit these myself, I just noted my opinions below.

• Lead: Might want to consider adding more wikilinks for some jargon words: studio album, sampling, demo songs, ska, posse. I would unlink MySpace, MTV and music video because they are mainstream enough that everyone will know what you mean. Might want to also wikilink pop princess which redirects to Pop icon. While you're at it, I'd edit Pop icon to include "princess", since there is a difference between calling someone a princess versus an idol.

• Might want to mention critics by name here "Contemporary critics complimented the song, claiming it made the singer a "theoretical pop princess", although some did not consider it one of the album's best songs." Rob Sheffield is notable enough to have his own page so it would help clarify why his judgement is being cited in the lead if you named him there.

• Background: Regal Records already linked in the lead. Same with MySpace, LDN, Unlink Demo here, link it in the lead. Can you give specific names here: "Her label ^[who?] wasn't pleased with the sound of the demos, so they assigned the singer to top producers^[who?] and songwriters^[who?]"? My reaction is that if they are "top" people they must be recognizable names.

• Music structure and lyrics: Wikilink Sample in the lead, not here. RE: "...when Allen broke up with her then boyfriend, Lester Lloyd, resulting in a drug overdose and hospitalization for depression." Who had a drug overdose and depression? Allen or Lloyd?

• Critical reception: Wikilink Rob Sheffield if not added to lead. Is it possible to clarify what a theoretical pop princess is? Does he mean she's supposedly a pop princess but not really? Unlink LDN, second NME.

• Music video: unlink Music video, Sophie Muller, coffee shop, MTV.

• Live performances and promotion. Unlink concert tour, LDN. Lily Allen concert tour (2009) is already linked in the lead but I'd keep this one because it's so far down the page. "On 3 February 2007, the singer played this single and "LDN" on Saturday Night Live, for she was invited as the musical guest" is wordy.

Good work!--Dbratland (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 29 October 2009, 13:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Cavalera Conspiracy

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate this article for featured article candidacy, but I think in its current state, this article does not meet adequately the requirements listed in the featured article criteria page.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally looks good to me. With the exception of the lead, it's well-written, nicely illustrated, and interesting. However, it might not be comprehensive, and I'm not sure that things like Blabbermouth.net qualify as reliable sources. I made a couple of minor proofing changes, and here are some observations that might be helpful.

Sources from Blabbermouth.net were removed.--Cannibaloki 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wanted to know why some of the band members, including Igor, wanted Gloria to leave the band. Igor must have known that Max wouldn't like this idea. What was the reason for this drastic move?
  • Explained.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I couldn't help noticing some exact repetition of sentences in the lead and the main text. Here's one: " ...after a sold-out show at London's Brixton Academy, Igor, guitarist Andreas Kisser, and bassist Paulo Jr. told Max they wanted to replace numerous members of the band's staff, including his wife Gloria." Here's another that's almost an exact copy: "Igor appeared on the Sepultura's next four studio records before leaving in January 2006 to work on his DJ project, Mixhell, and spend more time with his family." Here's another: "Inflikted, named after the band's original moniker, was released through Roadrunner Records on 25 March 2008." I'd suggest re-writing the lead so that it summarizes without exactly repeating.
  • Rewritten.--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "before leaving in January 2006 to work on his DJ project" - Would it be helpful to spell out and/or link DJ? DJ also appears in the lead.
  • Linked DJ.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Inflikted

• "Max also said that he talked to Rizzo about going back to the roots of the mid-1980s thrash metal... " Thrash metal should be wikilinked here rather than lower down in the article.
  • Done.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Inflikted, named after the band's original moniker" - Wikilink moniker or use "nickname"? The word "moniker" also appears in the lead.
  • Done.
• "The Infliktour supporting the debut album began on 30 May 2008, where Cavalera Conspiracy played their first official concert at... ". - Use "when" instead of "where"? Use "its" instead of "their"? In other words, "The Infliktour supporting the debut album began on 30 May 2008, when Cavalera Conspiracy played its first official concert at... ".
  • Reworded.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• "During their tour, Cavalera Conspiracy... " - its tour?
  • Done.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

General

• Would it be possible to add information about album sales or any other statistics related to the band's popularity?
  • Added Billboard 200 chart and US sales.--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Has anyone published a critical review of the band's music? Do music critics have anything to say about Calavera Conspiracy?
  • See the section "Inflikted".--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• What are the lyrics like? What themes run through them?
  • Idem.--Cannibaloki 05:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Has the band won any awards?
  • I think not.--Cannibaloki 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful.

Finetooth (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 October 2009, 17:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i am tryin to get it to an FA i think it has the potential.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing...--Cannibaloki 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)

• "After being attacked by an octopus at the aquarium, Peter decides to become physically fit." Why Peter was attacked? Why he was in an aquarium?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• "After [Again the word "after"?] spending a mere fifteen minutes at the gym, Peter believes he is now fit, so when former U.S. President Bill Clinton's car breaks down outside their house, he attempts to lift it without a jack, which results in him getting a sudden severe hernia and being hospitalized." What happened after Peter left the gym? How he met Bill Clinton?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• "...after that, she leaves Brian alone to deal with Peter for the duration of the story." "...for the duration of the story." What is that sentence?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why "multiple versions of this episode" is in quotes?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• "When Peter says 'that guy is really horny' when Bill Clinton breaks down outside his house..." should be When Bill Clinton breaks down outside his house and Peter says "that guy is really horny"... or The scene that shows when Bill Clinton leaves his home and Peter says, "that guy is really horny"...--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes imdb.com, tv.com and entertainmentnow.wordpress.com reliable sources?--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:BillPeterFG.jpg does not meet the non-free content criteria. What is the use of this image, just decorate the infobox? According to WP:NFCI, copyrighted images may be used in film and television screen shots, for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.--Cannibaloki 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 October 2009, 22:45 UTC)

---

[edit] Rebbie Jackson

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

This is a short but comprehensive article that I feel could become a FA in the future. I feel that a peer review is needed first, to fix any problems that it may have.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and verifiable. I don't know enough about Rebbie Jackson to say whether it's comprehensive or not. I have quite a few specific suggestions, mostly about prose and style.

Lead

• "The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, the latter's contribution (the title track "Centipede") becoming Jackson's most successful single release." - Perhaps a bit stronger would be "The album featured songs written by Smokey Robinson, Prince and her younger brother Michael, whose contribution (the title track "Centipede") became Jackson's most successful single release."
• "Following a ten-year hiatus from the music industry... " - 10-year for consistency?

1950–1967: Early life

• "Father Joseph was a steel mill employee... " - Maybe just plain Joseph would be better since Father Joseph reads as "Catholic priest" at first glance.
• Spell out R&B on first use and wikilink, thus: "Rhythm and blues (R&B)"?
• "His wife Katherine is a... " - Katherine should be set off by commas unless Joseph has more than one wife.
• "Under the faith, the family were not allowed to celebrate Christmas... " - "Family" is singular but "were" is plural. Either "family members were" or "family was" would be OK.

1968–1973: Marriage

• "Katherine gave her daughter encouragement to proceed with the union... " - Tighten to "Katherine encouraged her daughter to proceed with the union... "?

1974–1983: Early career

• Perhaps something is needed early in this section to explain what caused her to change her mind about a singing career.
• "The initial run of the 30-minute programme... " - I think the U.S.-centric "program" would be more appropriate. Ditto for "programmes" a couple of sentences later.
• "The shows were the first time that an... " - Maybe "marked" rather than "were" since a show is not a time.
• "Prior to the series, Jackson had thought of singing as only a minor hobby she would partake in the privacy of her home." - Suggestion: "Prior to the series, Jackson had thought of her singing as merely a private hobby."
• "The Jacksons influenced the female to become a professional recording artist; she had received support from the show's producer, who informed her that becoming a singer would be a good move for the talented woman." - Tighten to "The Jacksons motivated her to become a professional recording artist, and the show's producer encouraged her to sing."
• "Jackson would serve as a backing vocalist for several musicians around this time, as well as a cabaret singer." - "served" rather than "would serve"? Wikilink backing vocalist? Wikilink cabaret?

1984–1985: Centipede

• "reaching number 13 on Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart and number 63 on their Top 200" - "its" rather than "their" since Billboard is singular?
• "and was subsequently certified gold" - Wikilink certified gold?

1986–1997: Reaction and R U Tuff Enuff

• "Duets were featured on the album, including one with Cheap Trick lead singer Robin Zander and another with Isaac Hayes." - Flip to active voice, thus: "The album featured duets, including... "?
• "not released as a single, despite receiving substantial airplay" - Wikilink airplay?

1998–2008: Yours Faithfully

• "believing that she had already been there and done that" - Slang.
• "which features a rap by son Austin" - Wikilink rap?
• "Aside from Austin, two of her other children featured on the album; Stacee and Yashi contributed backing vocals" - Tighten to "In addition, two of her other children, Stacee and Yashi, contributed backing vocals for the album"?
• "A duet with Men of Vizion's Spanky Williams on The Spinners' "I Don't Want to Lose You" was also featured on the album." - Flip to active voice, thus: "The album also featured a duet... "?

2009–present: Death of Michael Jackson

• I'd suggest dropping "present" from the head because it's not specific. "2009: Death of Michael Jackson" would be OK.
• "and featured as finales group renditions of the Jackson anthems" - I'm not sure something can have more than one finale. Maybe "and the finale featured group renditions of the Jackson anthems" would be better.

References

• "Terra Alta, WV" - I think it would be better to spell out West Virginia for readers outside North America.
• Can the place of publication be added for the other two books in the "Bibliography" subsection?

Images

• The lead image isn't bad, but 15kb is awfully small for a self-made photo. To head off doubts, you might search for other images. Perhaps an album cover and a fair-use rationale?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! All is either done or in the process of being done. Thanks again. Pyrrhus16 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 October 2009, 18:26 UTC)

---

[edit] List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it at WP:FLC and would like to receive creative feedback on what needs to be done to get it there. The article/list is modeled after the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures). PS: I know that the lead needs expansion and I am currently rewriting and expanding it. bamse (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The main list is a most impressive piece of work, and I congratulate you on it. There are, however, several issues related to the article and its overall presentation. First, this is a "list", and as such is subject to different rules from tose that relate to a prose article. In particular, the text does not have to be comprehensive, and should contain only sufficient information to make the purpose of the list clear. You say you think the lead needs expanding; I would say it is plenty long enough as it is, and could possibly do with some pruning, in fact. Whether you decide to do that or not, there are numerous prose fixes required, which I have listed below. I have also done some punctuation and minor prose fixes myself.

• Lead
  • The first sentence would read better if reworded and reorganised as, for example: "Religious paintings from the mainland first arrived in Japan in the mid-6th century, at the time of the introduction of Buddhism from Baekje."
  • "religious paintings like mandalas" sound weak. Suggest "religious paintings in the form of mandalas"
  • "An early example includes..." → "An early example is..."
  • "art form" is two words
  • Some date indications for the Muromachi period would be helpful
  • Similarly, for the Momoyama period
  • Citation required for first sentence of fourth paragraph
  • "dominant", not "dominating"
  • "most enduring" would be better than "longest lived"
  • What "previous trends" continued into the Edo period?
  • Last sentence of fourth paragraph needs a citation

    Japanese culture, H. Paul Varley, p. 223, [1]. ("The leading Japanese bunjin artists of the 18th century were..."). I'll add the ref later, when the copyediting is completed.

• Fifth paragraph: I suggest this is separated from the lead and made into a section of its own entitled "Definition and criteria"
  • "These paintings..." Be more precise, as in "The paintings in this list..."
  • "The items are selected..." I think "have been" would be be more appropriate
  • "This list presents 157 entries of paintings,..." I would prefer to see "This list consists of 157 paintings,..."

    This would not be correct. There are 157 lines in the table (="entries"), however some of these entries consist of more than one painting (albeit related paintings under a common name). That's why there are more than 157 paintings in the list. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The number of paintings is higher than what?

    See reply to previous item, "higher than 157" which is the number of entries (lines in the table).bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Statistics: second table. Would it be possible to align the numbers properly?

  I'll try. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The notes under the Usage heading all relate to the main Treasures table, and should appear as notes under that table's heading, not in a separate section

  Not sure, after all the whole article is about the main treasures table, so everything relates to it. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Treasures table
  • What is the rationale for the table's order? It would seem to me that chronological sequence would be the most logical default setting - is there a stronger reason for the present order?

    The order is the order used in the online-database. It traverses Japan roughly from North to South-West (as for the present location of the paintings). Ordering by date can be achieved with one click, so unless a it is a big deal I would not want to reorder items by date at this point. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I notice that up to about 20 of the images are missing. Rather than leaving the cells blank it would be better to have a short note: "Image not available"

    I still hope to find images for these entries. Help welcome.bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I see that one of the images is a 50 yen postage stamp. This sits rather oddly with the others. A note of explanation, perhaps?

    Of course the postage stamp is not the treasure but the underlying artwork. Indeed it looks a bit out of place, but I did not find any better source, so I asked the experts from the photography workshop for help. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

    User:penubag was so nice to extract the painting from the stamp. bamse (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you are able to use these points to improve the list. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the thorough peer review. The lead section is just now being copyedited by User:Truthkeeper88. I'll reply to your comments that are not language related above. bamse (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 October 2009, 09:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Could've Been You

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to see if it is written well and has all the possible criteria for a GA nomination.

Thanks, Kekkomereq4 (talk) 16:00, 422 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Liquidluck (talk)

Thanks for working on articles about older subjects, which I've always found are much harder. I would recommend visiting your local library to see if more information on this song is available in a book. I'm sure several Cher biographies have come out in the last 17 years. Onwards:

Lead

• Billboard magazine says here that "Could've Been You" is a cover of a single released by Bob Halligan off his album Window in the Wall: "The only single released from the album was "Could've Been You" (later cut by Cher), which, Halligan dryly notes, "lasted three weeks at radio. It came out to the sound of one hand clapping.'" (He's referring to his own version there, not Cher's). This info should definitely and obviously be added to the article. The first sentence would change from "by American singer-actress Cher" to "popularized by American...".
• Insert the names of the songwriters into the lead.
• In early 1992 for only ->In early 1992 exclusively for the European market.
• Remove "respectable" and "despite" from the sentence, per WP:PEACOCK. Simply say, "...mixed reviews from critics and peaked at number thirty-one on the UK Singles Chart. Love Hurts had already spent six weeks at number one at the time of the single's release." Also, say number one on what chart.
• "This was due to the promotion that the single received, such as a Top Of The Pops appearance and various performance during the Love Hurts Tour in selected venue." to "Cher promoted the song through an appearance at a Top of The Pops concert and her Love Hurts Tour".

Song information

• Per WP:SONGS, headers with the word song in them are discouraged, because it is assumed you're talking about the song. Change "Song info" to "Background".
• Add info about the original Halligan version to this section.
• "Asher who had previously worked with Cher on her..."
• Change "latest" to the year, I.E., "her 1991 UK number one hit single, "The Shoop Shoop..."
• You say the single was released twice; you should either state the time of the second release or make it clear that it was a release in a different format. If it is the latter, remove first and second, put a period before "while", delete while, and say "it was later released as a ______, with "Love and Understanding as its B-side."
• wikilink B-side
• You use " for inches; change those to the word "inch" and wikilink to Gramophone_record#Common_formats.
• used for both covers

Music video

• Change "music video" to "promotion"
• The entire second half of the section is not sourced. It should be easy to find a book source for this.

Overall, read the article outloud to yourself to catch grammar errors- there are a good bit of them, but you should be able to get them all. Thanks again for working on the article, and good luck with GA!

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 October 2009, 14:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Lisa Simpson

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see it to a fa. Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks to me like it is nearly ready for FAC, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

• Third paragraph of Voice section repeats the bit about Yeardley Smith not being recognized in public twice - I would combine these (and the second version with the whole quote and not just the word wonderful is better)
• Y Done

• There are a few places where a bit more context could be added to help the reader's understanding. For example I would give a very brief summary of the plot of "Moaning Lisa", perhaps something like Many episodes focusing on Lisa have an emotional nature, the first one being "Moaning Lisa" [in which her beloved saxophone teacher dies].
• Y Done

• I would put the Buddhist conversion in the Development section (as it is a change in character).
• Y Done

• I would be consistent about referring to episodes - in most cases the episode name, year and number of the season is given, but not always (Lisa's Wedding). For example I would identify the episodes where she became a Buddhist and threw paint on Krusty in the text in Lisa became a practicing Buddhist following her decision to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.[55] There have been several instances where Lisa has used extreme measures to get her point across, such as throwing paint on Krusty the Clown for wearing a fur coat.[56]

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the episode Lisa the Vegeterian is linked three times in three sections, and vegetarianism is linked twice in two consecutive sections
• Y Done

*The refs seem fine in all cases but this: Lisa has appeared in commercials for Burger King,[72] Butterfinger,[73] C.C. Lemon and Ramada Inn. (last two points need a ref (or two)).

• Y Done

• The prose is generally quite good, but it owuld help to print it out and read it out loud after a few days of no contact with the article (to catch some rough spots or tighten the prose).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 October 2009, 17:10 UTC)

---

[edit] Family Guy

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i would want to see this artical move to fa but i lost ideas on how to improve it Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I don't have the time to do a full review and suck at them anyway so I'll give a few points.

• It looks good, much improved. After the PR I recommend you get a couple of people from the league of copy-editors to check the grammar etc.
• "In 2009, a spin-off series The Cleveland Show, created by Seth MacFarlane, Mike Henry, and Rich Appel premiered on Fox. The series is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009." Change "The series" to "Family Guy" to avoid confusion that The Cleveland Show is in its eighth season.Y Done
• "In 2009, it was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series. This was a significant accomplishment considering that the last animated program to be nominated was The Flintstones in 1961 and that The Simpsons has never been nominated in this category." This is kinda self-serving but I do think it could be briefly mentioned that The Simpsons was submitted for the Comedy Emmy in 1993 and '94 but the Academy dinosaurs were hesistant to nominate a cartoon and subsequantly the staff gave up. If included, there are sources for this on season 4 page.
• Hallmarks section seems short, cut it be merged it a larger section? I don't know.
• Some of the references need to be fixed. Ref 67 needs Family Guy to be unlinked for example. There needs to be some co-ordination in linking: Tv Guide is linked, Manchester Evening News isn't.
• Ref 73 and 74 are not formatted properly.
• Reference title should not be in capital letters, even if they actual title is.Y Done

Overall it seems a fairly balanced article. Gran² 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some comments from  Chzz  ► 

• Sort out the references; the formatting and information is inconsistent - e.g. date formats, some are "November 23, 2008" some are "2009-10-03". And ref. 83 in particular, "^ "TV: Breaking Down the List". 'Entertainment Weekly' (#999/1000): 56. June 27 & July 4, 2008." - why is EW in bold? Ref.1 has some odd bold going on too, and lacks date/author etc. Refs 73, 74 have no details at all. References are vital for progressing towards FA - they all need attention, to use a consistent style and to add as much detail as possible.

• frequent "cutaway gags" - why the quotes?Y Done

• The link to Cartoon Wars is a disambiguation

• Re. video references, what actual broadcast are you referencing here? You may be giving the yahoo link as a 'convenience link', but what, exactly, is this reliable source? ie who broadcast it, when, etc...

• It needs lots of copyedit. For example, Family Guy has also been challenged with negative criticism, including three notable lawsuits and low reviews... - 'notable' according to whom, and what is a 'low review'? An unfavourable review? I won't pick holes through all of it, but I suggest getting as much copyediting done as possible - it certainly needs attention before approaching FA. I always recommend having a go through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. The Family Guy writing crew plot episode ideas together and decide which characters to use. - I had to read that about 4 times before I could work out what it meant; it could be "The (Family Guy writing) (crew plot)" ...etc.

*Infobox, picture format says about 2010 - is this really appropriate, as obviously it hasn't happened yet

• "Hallmarks" is an odd name for that section; perhaps "Recurring themes", or something more descriptive
• It is more of an sofistacated name for the same thing--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• External links to imdb, yahoo, etc - do these really add any information that could not be included (per WP:EL)?
• yes, they do --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• he replied "Make it a little less [...] annoying...and speed it up, or every episode will last four hours". - is there any reason why the first cedilla is in parentheses?

• Check redirects; whilst I am aware of the WP:NOTBROKEN idea, things like "the Seattle Times" instead of "The Seattle Times just seems wrong; similarly Ren and Stimpy instead of The Ren and Stimpy Show, and probably others.

*Mort Goldman, his wife Muriel Goldman and their geeky and annoying son Neil - all 3 of those characters are redirects onwards to the same place, viz. List of characters in Family Guy#The Goldmans. If they are unlikely to get their own articles in the immediate future, then this really is a case of excess links to the same place within a section.Y Done *Skyline images, alt tags, a) don't make sense - reduces in width as the stories are higher, and the right is comes to a point and b) the second one is not An animated version - it's not a moving image.Y Done

• Also, the above probably don't need a forced image size; thumbnail size (selected by the reader) should be fine. That's true of almost all images.

*"Characters" the latter part of this is unreferenced. (Also, just a mention, there is an odd ")" there; ...Quagmire".^[63]) Loretta Brown... should prob. be ...Quagmire)."^[63] Loretta Brown..." Y Done

• (I know I said that I wouldn't pick on grammar, but...) In a majority of the episodes of Family Guy, the plot will be interrupted by a cutaway segment. -> In the majority of episodes, the plot is interrupted...Y Done

Please note, the above is not a comprehensive review; there's lots that I didn't check out and comment on. I am not saying that "If you fix all these things, it'll be fine as an FA" - they're suggestions, and designed to be examples of the areas that can be improved. I suggest getting lots of copyedit, and working hard on the references, and then getting further feedback via another peer review or something, before going for FA. Hope this helps; I know it's critical, but then...that's what to expect when you ask for a review - don't take anything personally, and I wish you the very best in developing the article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the comments made above and think this needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FAC.

• The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I am not going to point out every place where this needs to be xopy edited, but find someone to give this a thorough cleanup. See WP:WIAFA
• There are also numerous WP:MOS issues - the creator's full name should be spelled out once in the lead and perhaps once in the artcle body (both first occurrence) then just referred to as MacFarlane.
• done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Provide context for the reader - if someone had never seen the show how would they work out who was who in the lead in The series centers on the Griffins, a dysfunctional family consisting of Peter, Lois, Meg, Chris, Stewie, and their pet dog Brian. (only the dog is identified by role) Try to think of a few words to describe each character so perhaps "overweight, dimwitted father Peter" (taken from his article)
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing, again Seth MacFarlane is linked multiple times in the article and only needs to be linked once in the lead, once in the body (first time each place) and in the infobox.
• Avoid words like now or currently, as they can become outdated quickly. So Family Guy is currently in its eighth season, which premiered on September 27, 2009. could be something like The eighth season of Family Guy premiered on September 27, 2009.
• done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Some WP:WEIGHT issues in the lead - this is an article on Family Guy, so we need to know the creators of The Cleveland Show in the lead?
• done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Also 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 Rich Appel seems to only be in the lead.
• This sentence did not make sense to me - is it from a version before the eighth season began? Family Guy returned to production in 2004, making four more seasons (for a total of seven) and a straight-to-DVD special, Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story.
• Try to avoid needless repetition - the series threatened cancellation in season two, actual cancellation in season three and renewal are told in both the history and the Production issues sections. Could these be combined?
• Reading this it seemed clear to me that the authors really like the show and do not like the Simpsons as much - while there is nothing wrong with those opinions, they mean that the article needs to be polished for WP:NPOV concerns.
• I would also look at WP:IN-U, though that seems not to be a major problem here.
• Agree that refs need to be cleaned up - for FAC every single detail of every aspect of the article has to be as good as possible

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 16 October 2009, 01:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Gregory House

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i would want to see it get to an FA.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting introduction to a character I've never seen on TV, though friends have said they like the show. The images need alt text, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

• A requirement for FA is that images have alt text for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it. You can look at recent alt text by visiting WP:FAC, and an alt text viewer is one of the tools in the toolbox on this page.

Character history

• House attended Johns Hopkins University and studied medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School, and was up for a scholarship at the Mayo Clinic. However, during his medical education, he was caught cheating by a co-student named Philip Weber, who ultimately got him expelled. House then attended the University of Michigan for the remainder of his study and met Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), his future boss, with whom he shared a one night stand. - I think this might be slightly more clear in present tense. This passage might read, "Before becoming a doctor, House attends Johns Hopkins University and studies medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School, and is up for a scholarship at the Mayo Clinic. However, during his medical education, he is caught cheating by a co-student named Philip Weber, who ultimately gets him expelled. House then attends the University of Michigan for the remainder of his study and meets Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), his future boss, with whom he shares a one night stand."

*Wikilink One-night stand? Add hyphen between "one" and "night". *"However, after he was put into a chemically induced coma to sleep through the worst of the pain, Stacy, House's medical proxy... " - She should be referred to as Warner rather than Stacy on this and all subsequent uses. *"At the start of season six, House gets off taking pain meds and finds other ways to deal with his pain." - "Gets off taking pain meds" is slang. How about "becomes addicted to his pain medications"? Or do you mean by "gets off" that he stops taking them? If that's the meaning, perhaps this would work: "At the start of season six, House stops taking pain medications and finds other ways to deal with his pain."

Personality

*"Leonard has said that Dr. Wilson is one of the few who voluntarily maintains a relationship with House, because his character is free to criticize him." - Shouldn't this be "because he is free" instead of "because his character is free"? *"Although House's crankiness is commonly misattributed to the chronic pain in his leg, both Stacy and Cuddy... " - Warner and Cuddy.

Conception *T-shirt takes a big "T".

General

• The disambiguation tool in the upper-right of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
• The link checker finds a dead link.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 October 2009, 19:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Hannah Montana: The Movie (soundtrack)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for GA in a couple of weeks, but I want to make sure the article is perfect and meets all the requirements. Anything is accepted: copy-editing, sources, etc. Please help with anything you can to make the album better.

Thanks, Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: The article looks very for good for the criteria, but I suggest one thing. I don't know what you call this bracket symbol: { but there are two references with that redundently cluttering it up. Otherwise then that, good luck for WP:GAN! ATC ^{. Talk} 02:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck (talk) Lead

• is a soundtrack for -> "the" soundtrack for
• Perhaps make the difference between Cyrus and Montana more clear. For example, take out the parenthesis and say in the next sentence, "Songs performed by Cyrus were credited to both herself and to her movie character, "Hannah Montana".
• mainly [...] Gerrard,the latter who ->primarily [...], Gerrard. Gerrard also produced Cyrus' hit "The Best of Both Worlds", a remix of which is featured as the album's closing track.
• various nation -> various nations
• Since it is an American album, shouldn't another country be listed as the highest international peak? You could say, "In the United States, the album spent a week at number one on the Billboard 200, thereby becoming Cyrus' fourth album to top the chart." The album also became Cyrus' first Top Country Albums number one in the U.S. Its highest international peak was (Blank). The soundtrack was certified platinum by the (blank) on (blank date).
• copy-edited: The lead single from the album, "The Climb", became Cyrus' best charting single at the time. Cyrus' "Hoedown Throwdown" is the album's follow-up single and reached the top ten on the Irish Singles Chart. The album was promoted through exclusive releases to Radio Disney and live performances at numerous venues, notably Cyrus' first worldwide tour, the Wonder World Tour.

Writing and development

• "The songs were written for the composers and eventually offered to Peter Chelsom, the film's director." This sentence is confusing, and it isn't sourced. Who are the composers? Why didn't the composers want them? If the songs weren't written by the composers, who were they written by?
• The citation for Cyrus only wrote Don't Walk Away is only a track listing- it doesn't say who wrote the songs. You can delete the "Of her songs" clause, since Cyrus did not write any of the other songs on the album.
• I think the fact that the Hoedown Throwdown was an ongoing collaboration between Jamal Simms, Chelsom, Cyrus, and the writers is a better fact to use. Replace?
• Climb section: You only need one citation, at the end of "offered it to Cyrus". Also, who is Jon Mabe? It isn't mentioned.
• Unless you know that Cyrus re-recorded Best of Both Worlds, just say "a remixed version of the BoBW... . I could be wrong, but I think remixes are usually done digitally rather than by re-recording.
• Find a source that says the songs performed by BRC and Rushton were promotion; otherwise, just say they were featured on their own albums. If these songs were included in the movie, they definitely weren't used as promotion- they just happened to be selected.
• Find a source that Crazier was intended for Fearless; the current source is just a track listing.

Music structure and lyrics

• Copy-edited: Musically, the album is country heavy, but merges contemporary (contemporary what?), country pop, country rock,[2] and teen pop styles.[1]
• Delete the on an interview with Just Jared sentence- it's unnecessary.
• "making a beat from from" -> delete a from.
• Change "throughout the week" to "in it's fifth week"

Nicely done on the rest, especially promotion. Overall, delink everything that has already been linked before, even if it was linked in the lead. The one exception would be song titles, esp. in the singles section. Image captions should be interesting facts related to the section, sort of tiny "did you knows?" per WP:CAP. Hope that helps! Liquidluck (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for all the help!! Did all that was requested. Please check and see if it's all right. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 October 2009, 20:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Madonna (entertainer)

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is an extremely complete article as a biography. The structure, content and feel of the article can definitely make it a Featured Article here on Wikipedia. Hence I want my fellow editors to comment on what can be improved in the article before we proceed towards FAC.

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief review by Charles Edward

• Overall a very good article and worthy of its current rating. It is a bit shy of FA quality though. Here are a few pointers:
• References needed
  • "Madonna performed cartwheels and handstands in the hallways between classes, dangled by her knees from the monkey bars during recess, and thought nothing of tugging her skirt up over her desk during class so that all the boys could see her briefs."
  • "However, she remained defiant and unapologetic upon publication of the photos for which she was paid as little as $25 a session."
  • "She later won her first Grammy Award in 1992 in the Best Long Form Music Video category for the lasrdisc relase of the tour."
  • ""Justify My Love" became a Madonna's ninth US number-one single"
  • "The deal was a joint venture with Time Warner as part of $60 million worth of recordings and businesses."
  • "After Lourdes' birth Madonna became involved in Eastern mysticism and Kabbalah."
  • "Records and a new $120 million, ten year contract with Live Nation in October."
  • "At the time there was even speculation about her relationships with other women, including Naomi Campbell and Sandra Bernhard."
  • ""[Madonna] has knocked the importance of talent out of the arena. She's made a lot of money and become the biggest star in the world by hiring the right people.""
• MOS issues
  • Ref #75 should follow the punctuation, not precede it
  • Ref #227 is not following puncutation
  • Double periods at Ref # 229
  • No ISBN for "Tetzlaff, David (1993). Metatextual Girl. Westview Press."
  • Several of your sources in the references section include page numbers. This is redundant with what is in your footnotes. You should remove the page numbers from the reference sections and ensure all the page numbers are in the footnotes only.
• "Clark, Carol (2002). Madonnastyle. Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-8874-9." is not used in the footnotes, should be moved to further reading or a footnote added.
• Images
  • File:Madonna&JohnBenitez.jpg has no fair use rationale for using it on this article. (I don't think there is one)
  • File:Remedios Varo (388484001).jpg. I don't see any evidence that this image is truely licensed by its creater - only by the author who posted it to Flickr. This is worth looking into.
  • Images where the subject is facing left should be placed on the right side of the text. (lead excluded)
  • Image size is forced on some images, this is not recommended by the MOS as it overrides user settings.
• Questions
  • "She is also "the world's highest earning female singer on earth" - according to who?
• Suggestions
  • I think the article hierchy might work better if you "Musical style and influences" Under a heading of "Music. Then use "Style and influence", "Videos and live performance", and "Discography" as sub headings.
  • You have references in the lead of the article, but you reference the same sentences later in the article. I would remove the references from the lead since it is redundant.
• The length of the article is verging on being too long as well. It might be worth considering splitting off the Musical sections into a sub article if you are going to add much more to the article.

The article is a good read, and needs very little additional copy editing in my opinion. Referencing is solid, although I personally prefer to see more of the details of her life referenced back to biographical works rather than news articles. Biographical works tend to give a fuller picture than just occasional news snapshots. I don't think this referencing will cause you a problem though at FAC, provided you are able address the above referencing concerns. I have not reviewed each of the links to check the validity of the facts they are supporting, but someone at FAC will, so make sure they accurate. If you haven't already done so, I would recommend fully reading at least one biographical book on Madonna before you take the article to FAC just to ensure you are not leaving out anything noteworthy.

Hope this helps a bit. Sorry I didn't have time to conduct a very throughout a review, but these are the things that jumped out at me. Good job so far and keep up the good work! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 October 2009, 12:17 UTC)

---

[edit] Jay Pritzker Pavilion

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review
Automated suggestions can be generated on demand (more info).

I've listed this article for peer review because WP:CHIFTD (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park is currently a WP:GT) now is only two FAs from a WP:FT after the third article passed yesterday. I think the next FAC has a good chance of passing, meaning that this article could take a topic from GT to FT if we can get some good feedback to clean it up.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Monday 28 September 2009, 07:58 UTC)

---

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] R. K. Narayan

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Featured Article status, and would like feedback on improvements that can and should be made to meet the necessary criteria. The article was recently assessed as a GA (the talk page has the GA review).

Thanks, -SpacemanSpiff 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel righteous enough to judge an article for FA standards, but I do think that this is a pretty fine article, and pretty complete (as far as I can tell). Being an English kind of person I'd like to see a bit more criticism, from a greater variety of sources. This guy was a writer, so I would hope for the incorporation of articles listed in the MLA index (a list of which I've emailed to the editor) and studies from reputable presses--the best press found in the current references is the U of Chicago P.(and that is a 1982 title) with the Michigan State UP second. Peter Lang doesn't hold much water in the profession, nor does Atlantic. But then again, I don't know if FA reviewers have the same standards as the professionals, so to speak (I'm not saying this to claim I'm one, mind you). Still, Narayan generates lots of hits in the MLA, and that accounts for something: incorporation of some of those articles would give a better appreciation of where he stands in the literary and cultural canon. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 04:45 UTC)

---

[edit] Rambles in Germany and Italy

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

I'm planning on nominating this article for FAC, so please evaluate accordingly. Also, please weigh in on Auntieruth55's suggestions regarding the "Risorgimento" section here. I would like several opinions on this matter. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 02:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Philip Larkin

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

This article is on its way to FAC, so please evaluate accordingly! Thanks in advance! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 October 2009, 18:47 UTC)

---

[edit] Grammatical number

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am concerned about the reliability of the sources cited for verification.

Thanks, Eldin raigmore (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of references by Charles Edward

Since you have only requested a review of the referencing, that is all I will review. You are correct to question it, because it is almost non-existant as far as WP:Citation is concerned. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, statistic, and paragraph should end with an inline citation. So in short, this article is almsot entirely without those citations, and the ones being used are not very good. Also see WP:RS.

• Ref #1 in my opinion this is a valid reference. It is third party and has a reliable publisher.
• Ref #2 is not acceptable, the publisher is not a reliable source. If the document can be found elsewhere it could be used
• Ref#3 and #4 are acceptable, two good book sources. This is the best kind of source for an article like this.
• Ref#5 is a wiki!! a totally unacceptabel source that should be removed. Not reliable at all.
• Ref#6 is ok.
• Ref#7 is marginally ok. There is bound to be better though
• Ref#8 is ok
• Ref#9 is ok
• In bibliography there are many books which are listed, but have no citation within the article. If they have been used to source the article, inline citations need to be added. Otherwise they need removed from the bibliography section and could be put in a further reading section instead.

Advice on how to improve the referencing

• I would get one of the books listed in the bibliography and read it. Then go through the article and add citations to page number (and correct innaccurate information) to bring the referencing quality up.
• Right now you should have aroung fifty inline citations for an article of this length. The Quadral section is currently the only section that has proper inline citation usage
• The references are also not entirely formatted correctly. I recommend using a "cite" template since that takes care of the syntax for you.

I hope this awnsers your questions and give you a direction to help improve the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 October 2009, 15:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] Watford F.C. season 2009–10

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

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)

(Peer review added on Monday 9 November 2009, 03:00 UTC)

---

[edit] The Final Fantasy Legend

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make a solid push for FA status, and want to know everything I need to fix and rewrite. The plot still needs some citing, but I plan to take care of that during this process. Just basically hit me with all you can.

Thanks, Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 November 2009, 15:26 UTC)

---

[edit] Bob Willis

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm eventually hoping to go for FA, and I want a peer review of this first draft to iron out initial problems before moving for GA. I am aware thus far that the Commentary section needs expansion, the context of his career needs expanding in areas where only his scores etc. are discussed, and it needs a copy edit for grammar and spelling.

Thanks, SGGH ^ping! 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 November 2009, 13:58 UTC)

---

[edit] Whiz Kids (baseball)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 16:40 UTC)

---

[edit] Suzuki Hayabusa

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping the article can be brought up to the standards of GA or even FA with a reasonable amount of additional work. It would be useful to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling to have at least one article on a model of motorcycle that can serve as a guide for what we'd like to see for the hundreds of other articles we have on individual bike models.

The article is fairly global in scope, with the main topics not touched being:

• The Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle crash [2], with perhaps some additional mention of other celebrities with custom Hayabusas. To me that topic is a little too lacking in substance, and the custom section does mention that celebrity customers boost sales, without dwelling on it. The coverage on his bio page Ben Roethlisberger#Motorcycle accident seems sufficient, also.
• Female speed record holders such as Trillium Muir and Leslie Porterfield [3] [4]. There are other pages that can cover them in depth.
• The prominence of the Hayabusa in Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing could be included, but I think perhaps efforts there should be focused on improving the page Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing itself rather than Suzuki Hayabusa.

Any guidance on these topics or anything else is most appreciated.

The other burning issue is the copyright status of some of the photos of custom bikes. In the Commons Custom Hayabusa category there is one image nominated for deletion [5] and another in the parent Hayabusa category [6]. The problem is the use of copyrighted and trademarked logos or characters, which you can see in the photos over there is very common on custom bikes. I can see the reasoning there, but for me it creates a dilemma. If I wanted to include a selection of customized bikes to show the range of styles, I'd want several that use copyrighted material.

If I put them here on Wikipedia, could I argue Fair Use on any one photo? I'd have to be saying I think that one is indispensable for purposes of discussion and criticism, but that's not really the case, is it? I could remove the Spider-man or Alien bike and use Superman or Transformers in its place, so there is no single image that can't be substituted. I don't need a specific one, but to properly illustrate the topic, there needs to be a few. What I'm hoping to have is 4 or 5 examples on Wikipedia and at least a dozen at WikiMedia Commons, to best give the reader a good survey, but I'm not certain what the best way to do that is. Purging all potentially infringing photos of custom bikes would give a distorted view of the custom scene; at least half the bikes I've seen use somebody's logos or characters without permission.

I've listed this under Everyday Life because that includes motorsport and other forms of recreation. Other relevant categories are Engineering and technology and Social sciences and society.

Thanks, Dbratland (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Midgrid (talk · contribs)

• Is there an article detailing the progression of fastest production motorbikes, like Fastest production car? If not, it could be worthwhile creation for the WikiProject.

• ⌛ Doing... I've added Fastest production motorcycle to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles, and it's on my own to-do list as well.

• On the copyright issue, perhaps these two discussions concerning a car modified to resemble a Pokémon character may be of use.

• Thanks!

• I think the image used in the lead infobox, whilst aesthetically pleasing, doesn't show enough of the bike itself. I presume the fact that the photo was taken at Bonneville refers to the bike's reputation for top speed, but this isn't immediately apparent.

• ✗ Not done ...yet. I'm going to wait for more feedback on this. Some other editors seemed happy with it. My defense would be that the two infobox pictures serve the purpose of being a basic illustration of what the bike looks like, while the lead photo tries to cover more broadly what the article is about: the quest for speed, motorcycle competitions, and customizing your bike, and it shows a rider. The inanimate bike isn't notable solely on its own volition, but because of rider/consumers who made it notable.

• The sentence in the lead that begins with "Media reported values from 299 to 303 km/h for the speed agreement..." sounds a little awkward to me. I believe that it should be changed to "The media reported..." or "Media-reported values ranged from...".

• ✓ Done Reworded as "Media-reported values for the speed agreement in miles per hour were consistently 186 mph, while in kilometers per hour they varied from 299 to 303 km/h, which is typical given unit conversion rounding errors." I realized I never mentioned the consistency in the mph number, they always get that right but disagree about what that converts to.

• It seems a bit odd to me that the precise speed record and its gain from the previous record are given in the lead, but not the main body of the article, especially given the presence of the sentence "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin".

• ✓ Done Changed to "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin, 10 to 14 mph (16 to 23 km/h), depending on which measured speeds the source was relying on for the CBR1100XX and the GSX-1300R."

• I believe that some more technical terms can be linked in the first and second generation infoboxes; at the moment the comparison between the engine and transmission/suspension fields is quite striking in this respect.
• What does "∅" mean in the engine field of the first and second generation infoboxes?

• ✓ Done That's supposed to be the diameter symbol, representing Bore (engine), but I see now that ∅ is more correctly the empty set. I was trying to reduce clutter but it only adds confusion.

• I think the use of the phrase "speed king" might be a touch on the informal side for an encyclopaedia.
• "...the Hayabusa's handling was considered excellent for a machine of this class". Are hyper sport bikes usually difficult to ride? Could do with a little clarification here.
• "Bragging rights" could be linked, as there is an article on it(!). It depends how idiomatic the phrase is, which is something I'm not too sure about. There are a couple of other phrases that I would consider to be borderline in this respect, such as "losing face", "[speed war continuing] underground", referring to the bike's internals as being "under the skin" etc.
• The sentence "The agreement between them and the other brands has never been officially acknowledged by the manufacturers, though media sources report it via unnamed informants, and by testing the top speed of motorcycles known to be capable of exceeding the arbitrary maximum" could do with a citation.
• "...so 2001 and later Hayabusas had a steel instead of aluminum rear subframe, adding 10 pounds...". The weight gain should be converted, as the other weights in the article already are.
• "...US$13,425 in 2009 dollars" reads awkwardly due to the repetition of "dollars". I would recommend changing the phrase to something like "at 2009 prices". Is there any information available for other countries?
• I think it would be useful if the "Performance and measurements" tables were sortable, so the range between claimed values can be identified more easily.
• "Competition in the hyper sport bike segment...". Surely "market" would be a more suitable word?
• "This increased competition led to Suzuki lightly revising the GSX1300R for the 2008 model year, but delivering a large horsepower increase by fine-tuning the old engine's head, pistons and exhaust." The wording needs to be improved, as it first glance this sentence apparently contradicts itself. I would suggest changing "but delivering" to "which nevertheless delivered".
• "A redesign meant to strengthen the appearance without departing much found approval when presented to dealers and focus groups." Another sentence in which the wording could be improved. Departing much from what?
• "The target was to produce at the crankshaft more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW)...". I would prefer "The target was to produce more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW) at the crankshaft...".
• "Design of the new Hayabusa was done by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...". I would reword this to "The new Hayabusa was designed by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...".
• The first instance of "custom", in the planning subsection of the second generation section, should be linked to Custom motorcycle.
• "Engine changes were an increase in stroke by 2 mm..." could be changed to "Engine changes consisted of an increase in stroke by 2 mm...".
• The technical revisions section for the second generation is written in a mixture of past and present tense, and there are quite a few unconverted units in there as well.
• I found a couple of sentences separated by three spaces when correcting typos; there may be more elsewhere in the article.
• The burnout image should be cropped to remove the border.

✓ Done.

• Are any Japanese sales figures available? I imagine that Suzuki's home market would be of great significance. On a similar note, is there any evidence of whether or not the Hayabusa has affected Suzuki's total bike sales since its release?
• In India, why is the Tata Nano directly comparable to the Hayabusa? One is a microcar, the other a hyper sport bike.
• "Another top modification...". Again, this is a bit informal: I would prefer "favoured" or "most popular" instead.
• I would move the Commons link for custom Hayabusas to the bottom of the page, with the other Commons link.
• "The very popularity of lengthened and lowered Hayabusas means boundaries must be stretched and rules broken in order to get noticed." What does this mean, exactly? That some of the custom bikes are illegal? Could do with some clarification.
• "Lotus Seven-based Megabusa" makes it sound as if the vehicle is a bike based on the car. I would recaption the image "Megabusa-engined Lotus Seven".
• The paragraph on land speed records could do with an introductory sentence, along the lines of "Hayabusa engines have been used in motorcycle land speed record attempts".
• I would put the Japanese character 隼 in brackets. To be honest, I don't think that section belongs in the article in its current state: the information about the bike deriving its name from the bird could be included near the beginning of the article, and the remaining information moved to the dab page, with the hatnote moved to the top of the article.
• Does citation [39] cover the whole table or just the 2010 row? If it's the former case, then I would recommend putting the citation in a more general place, perhaps along the lines of the qualifying and race tables in this article.

That's just about all I can think of. I hope these comments are useful!--Midgrid(talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I can do most of these tomorrow as soon as I'm feeling better (: .--Dbratland (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 November 2009, 22:01 UTC)

---

[edit] DAMS GD-01

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

Hello all, I have just created this article and I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 22:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Dbratland (talk · contribs)

• For the citation of Unraced...Formula One's lost cars, my normal practice is to use the |url= field of {{Citation}} and point to the book on Google Books i.e. |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gjnG3j5hOEwC&pg=PA105 where &PA### is the page number. Except in cases where the page you cite is not available, such as page 124 for example.

Unfortunately, only one of the pages I cite in the article is available on Google Books, but I've included it anyway.--Midgrid(talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, because this book is used several times, it's kind of distracting to see it cited five times in references just because the page numbers are different. One option is to have only one citation which says <ref name=unraced>{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Sam|title=Unraced...Formula One's lost cars|chapter=DAMS GD-01|publisher=Veloce Publishing|year=2007|pages=8-14, 122 |isbn=978-18458-4084-6}}</ref> and then for each inline citation, use superscript to give the specific page number, like <ref name=unraced/>^{p. 14}. I saw this done on a recent Featured Article; I'll point it out if I can remember which one.

Hmmm, call it personal preference, but I think I would find this option more distracting! Might the style of referencing used in Forti be an suitable alternative?--Midgrid(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) See below.--Midgrid(talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Alternatively, use Harvard style, aka Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. I like Harvard style a lot, using {{harv}} in combination with {{citation}}, but everyone else seems to loathe it.

I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who doesn't like the Harvard style of referencing.--Midgrid(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Ignore that, I misinterpreted how this system works. I'll have a go at reformatting the references later.--Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the infobox racing car, the usual practice is not to write Length Unknown, but instead to just leave any fields you don't have data for blank. It serves the same purpose and reduces visual clutter. "Unknown" is also incorrect -- the data is known, just not by us.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Use {{convert}} for all of the statistics like the capacity=3.0 L field, maximum power of 610 bhp, etc.

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with non-metric units. Which are the best choices for these two fields to convert to?--Midgrid(talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's cubic inches for displacement, 3.0 l (180 cu in) and kilowatts for brake horsepower, 610 bhp (450 kW). See Template:Convert#Parameters and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units.--Dbratland (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that I haven't done anything to "a new unit for the three-litre era of F1 that began in 1995" in the text because this isn't meant to be a technical description.--Midgrid(talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• This article leans heavily on Wikilinks to make sense. This is fine but it is a little challenging to the general reader to have to read many sub-articles to make sense of it. I would consider adding a little bit of gloss or explanation for some of the more obscure linked terms. For example, the lead could say:

  The DAMS GD-01 was an unraced Formula One (F1) car used by the French motorsport team, Driot-Arnoux Motor Sport (DAMS). The GD-01 was designed and built by a collaboration of DAMS and Reynard engineers from 1994 to 1995, and was intended to establish the team—which had achieved considerable success in lower categories—in Formula One, the premier FIA class. But a continuing lack of finance meant that the team never entered the championship, despite completing construction of the chassis and conducting some testing.

  The linked article says F1 is the premier class, but this gives you a little clue without having to click on the link. Another example:

  It proved to be off the pace due to its cautious bodywork and aerodynamic design, indicating that it would need a thorough development programme in order for it to compete effectively in Formula One, particularly with the introduction of the 107% rule, which eliminated drivers too far behind the pace of the pole position, for the 1996 season.

  Might do the same for a few more opaque terms, like Elf fuel, etc. It has Goodyear tires, but what size?

Done. Regarding tyres, the size isn't considered to be important during this period in F1 history, as Goodyear had a supply monopoly and all F1-specification tyres were the same size.--Midgrid(talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another strategy to deal with the thick forest of Wikilinks is to get rid of as many as you can. I'm thinking of French and British, for example. Everyone knows what France and the UK are and they can get by without Wikilinks for common words like this.--Dbratland (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I didn't think any of the links apart from those two were trivial enough to be removed.--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments!--Midgrid(talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! By the way... --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Sadly my knowledge of bikes is extremely limited, but I'll take a look at it from a layman's perspective when I have some time.--Midgrid(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Apterygial (talk · contribs)

Interesting article! Note that I am deliberately picky with my reviews, and the issues I raise are not necessarily problems I had, but are things which could create trouble in the future, depending on where you want to go with the article.

• First of all, I love the way this PR is filed in "everyday life".
• Perhaps change the first Formula One link to Formula One car, and link the second to the generic page. Could probably get away with moving the acronym there too.
• As laborious as it is, FIA should be spelled out on first mention.
• Link chassis.
• "conducting some testing." The word "some" always seems a little unprofessional. Maybe "limited"? By
• "In order to design and build a competitive Formula One car". A problem which is developing here is that you are switching between "F1" and "Formula One". Would it be acceptable to change all to "Formula One"?
• "...but progress was slow due to limited finance." Maybe "limited financial backing"? And again later? Something about that sentence bugs me.
• The second sentence of the Construction sentence is pretty long; you could probably split it off after "...its 24-hour race", and say "In addition, changes to the sport's...".
• Maybe hyphens to stop the sentence run between "regulations" and "as a", and "Grand Prix" and "further hindered" (if my convoluted way of explaining this is too convoluted, let me know).
• Get that Larrousse link in.
• If you are going to mention the Evin Law, you really have to explain it, which I think means that you are probably better off without it.
• "...due to the modifications it would have to go in order to comply with the rules." Maybe "...due to the modifications which would have to take place in order to comply with the rules."
• "Xtrac gearboxes were also used in the Minardi M195 and Simtek 951 chassis in 1995." Is this really needed?
• "to go racing" would probably be better as "to race" (NASCAR fans may disagree).

Just those little niggles. Apterygial 07:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'll make these changes when I have some more time.--Midgrid(talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 31 October 2009, 22:43 UTC)

---

[edit] St. Xavier's College, Mumbai

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have managed to rewrite this article. suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

Always nice to see work on topics, like this one, outside of the usual areas. Most of the problems I see in this article are with subtle points of English use, e.g. I'd venture it is better to say St Francis Xavier is "the 16th century Spanish Jesuit saint", & not "a 16th century Spanish Jesuit saint" -- "the" because we are using the listed qualities to define a specific person. I fixed a few of these points, but there are many which remain. (Are there Wikipedian copy editors who can help with a project like this?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• "St. Xavier's College has been rated among the top ten colleges in India year by year." This is a dated fact. The fact may be irrelevant after few years. State when was the ranking done by whom.
• The whole Invocation is WP:UNDUE IMO.
• WP:PEACOCK terms (glorification): These are claims of the college, may or may not be true. Explicitly state that they are claims of the college (WP:POV of the college) or view of say the NAAC.
  • "The College strives to form men and women, especially Christians and the marginalised, to build a more just and humane world. The intellectual endeavour it strives for, focuses on critical and creative thinking, with the aim of social transformation. This endeavor is inspired by the values of the Gospel - from the New Testament of the Christian scriptures - while it appreciates and promotes all the other religions, especially the rich religious heritage of India. The College seeks to give an all-round formation for the marginalised, inculcating both human and spiritual values."
  • "The College also takes measures to upgrade the skills of non-teaching staff by conducting workshops and training programmes during vacations, and conducting sessions on personality enhancement and financial management."
• What proves the accuracy of File:Layoutcampus.gif, state the reference for the image.
• "The St. Xavier's Villa in Khandala is a property of the college nestled in the hills of the Western Ghat mountain ranges, about two hours from Mumbai. It provides facilities for retreats, seminars, and educational conferences." is positioned out of place in Campus para. Re-organize the information in terms of a clearer distinction between the main campus and other facilities like cricket pitch, Khandala villa which are not in the main campus.
• "On 18 July 2009, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the college on her Mumbai trip as part of the college's 140th anniversary. She conducted an interactive session with its students regarding academics and education." is out of place in "Alumni and popular culture"
• Instead of Random subpage something similar to {{Indian image rotation}} can be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are people willing to do copyedits listed at WP:PR/V Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 October 2009, 08:47 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hopful I can get this to FL status. BUC (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Solid list. My #1 thing is that the Baseball-Reference refs and a good ways back on the Retrosheet refs list attendance figures for these games, why not include that info? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Because it has nothing to do with the starting pitcher. BUC (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Zambrano's ref as the most recent Opening Day starter should really just be a Baseball-Reference page like the rest, the Yahoo ref adds nothing useful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I originally included the Yahoo ref because B-R hadn't been updated for Opening Day 2009 yet. Rlendog (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, perhaps a little more detail on the starts in the WS winning years? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure there is much to add. The Cubs only won 2 WS (admittedly like the Phillies) but both years had the same Opening Day starter and were earlier than pitcher decisions are readily available. I suppose I could discuss the WS loss years, but there were more of those than the Phillies had, including several before decisions are available, which I think would make such a discussion clumsy. Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I think it's at least notable enough to mention Overall was the opener in both WS years. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 3rd from last sentence. :) Rlendog (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also per the Phillies list I would think about including the records for some of the more prolific opening day starters, at least Corcoran. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added Jenkins' record, as the record holder. Going deeper seems to be another situation where the Cubs are more awkward than the Phillies. Six Cubs share the #2 spot, and three of those are before I have access to all the decisions. And I personally think the Phillies wording for Alexander is already awkward, since I am not sure the information on the decisions is truly not available (there may be on some microfische of 19th century newspapers in some library) although they certainly aren't readily available. Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for your comments. I'll take a look at these, but I wanted to explore the first comment a bit more. Some of the FL Opening Day starter lists contain the attendance figures, others don't. I've always excluded them because I am not sure what they add to a list that primarily focuses on the starting pitcher, especially for away games. For example, why is attendence more useful than other pieces of information that could be added, such as the starting catcher? Also, the lists already seem to have enough columns that more could look cluttered. But since this issue has come up on these lists I am curious to hear more about why attendance figures should be included. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• A random interesting aside, one of the first projects Bill James ever undertook was trying to study if Nolan Ryan drew bigger crowds than the average pitcher. Anyways, I just think it'd be interesting information since it's available. If you don't want to include it it's certainly not a requirement. Starting catcher actually isn't a horrible idea, but that almost strays into an entirely new List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting catchers list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because it could be added in doesn't mean it should. I think unnecessary details need to be avoided at all costs. BUC (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, please check in at the Comeback Player FLC, your comments are the only open ones left! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Those comments were actually User:BUC's, not mine, but we are working together to try to get this article to FL. The reason I hadn't nominated it earlier was that, due to the reliance on older Retrosheet boxscores, there is no single source I can point to in the lead for some of the general comments (i.e., overall record) without having about 80 inline citations for each statement. List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers did make FL despite similar considerations, so I suppose it isn't an absolite obstacle, but if you have any comments in that regard I would approeciate them. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally Rlendog I'd highly recommend you at least give it a go and just see what happens. I can't do it myself since I'm not a major contributor. But I would be happy to help if you were to nominate it. BUC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry Rlendog, your indented response had no name, didn't know it was you. In the lead you are allowed to summarize data in the table without referencing. See that Comeback Player award page I discussed, for example, I mention many players who went to the All-Star Game but don't cite each win, that's within the table itself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Must have left off a tilde. Sorry about that. Rlendog (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed that now. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another note Should the Retrosheet refs be to "Retrosheet Inc."? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the ref publisher? Maybe. I am not sure what the rules are. But the top of the page you linked to just says "Retrosheet", as does the address listed in their "About Us" page [7] and the bottom of each of their pages. So at a minimum, just calling them "Retrosheet" doesn't seem incorrect. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 October 2009, 10:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Mattias Öhlund

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

Recently became a Good Article, and I'm looking to send this through to become a FA. However, it needs a good copyediting and general cleanup, something I'd like to get done prior to the FA nomination.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good to me. I did some minor copyediting; please revert if you disagree with any of my changes. Here are a few additional suggestions or comments.

• Citation 33 has a dead link.

Fixed that

Vancouver Canucks

• "Worth US$10 million over five years, including a signing bonus of $7.5 million... ". Combinations like $10 million should be glued together with nbsp codes to prevent the components from being separated by line-break on computer monitors. WP:NBSP has details.

Added the code. Let me know if there is anywhere else I should add it.

• "Öhlund thus played his first NHL game in Japan, playing in the first game of the season on October 3, 1997." - Maybe, to avoid repeating "play", this would be better: "Öhlund thus played his first NHL game in Japan on October 3, 1997.

Done

• "His 30 points, the fifth best total amongst first year players and highest by rookie defenceman... " - "among" rather than "amongst"

Done

• "After detecting bone chips in his knee in early March 2008, Öhlund underwent knee surgery on March 13 and missed the remainder of the season." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "After doctors detected bone chips in Öhlund's knee in early March 2008, he underwent... ".

Changed

• "Öhlund was designated the captain's traditional duty of taking ceremonial faceoffs" - Wikilink face-off? Add the hyphen?

I thought about adding the hyphen, however the source listed uses the term "faceoff" and there is really no consensus among ice hockey writtings. As such, I'd rather stay with what the source used.

Personal life

• "They resided in West Vancouver during the hockey season, but will be living in the Tampa Bay region, and return to Öhlund's hometown of Piteå, Sweden, in the summer." - Would it be useful to repeat the years of residence in West Vancouver and to say that they will be living in the Tampa Bay region during the 2009 season and returning to Sweden in the summer off-season of 2010? Also, have they always gone back to Sweden in the off-season? Can you add any more personal details about such things as non-hockey interests, involvement in charity work, pets, or retirement plans?

Theres not much I could find to add to the personal life section, though I will do some more looking. I realised that the section would become an issue if I were to bring it up to FA, so I'll see what can be done.

Images

• The images are a bit fuzzy, probably because of a combination of low light levels and rapid motion of the subject. Perhaps you can find at least one stronger free image on the Commons or Flickr, or perhaps a fair-use one from the Canucks, the Lightning, or elsewhere might be available.

These are currently the best available of Ohlund. Most NHL teams are reluctant to release images of players, especially of active players. However, over the course of the next few months I'm hoping that someone will create a higher resolution image.

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) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going over the article. If there is anything else needing work on, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 October 2009, 21:54 UTC)

---

[edit] D.C. United

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

We brought the article up to GA status this summer, and are looking for more areas of the text that could use some help. I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding the tables and lists, and on places that need more references. Best-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good article, but maybe a little more explanations would be helpful, such as the History section. For example, the caption to the image says "D.C. United won the 2004 Eastern Conference championship in what has been called one of the best games in MLS history" --- By who???...Also "Since 2006, United has played well against international competition, beating Scottish champions Celtic F.C. and tying Real Madrid in Seattle. In addition, the 2006 MLS All-Star Team, which included seven United players and was managed by United's manager Piotr Nowak, defeated English champions Chelsea" This should indicate that these are exhibition games. Later, "play by play" and "color commentary" should be Wikilinked (color commentator is Wikilinked later in the paragraph) as the average reader in non-US countries would not know what these are. I'm not sure what "Certain home matches" and "Select matches" are specifically? Does this need further explanation? Overall good work in the article...well done and best of luck for FAC later. Seth Whales (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Things that came up in the Seattle Sounders FC and Qwest Field peer reviews that seem to apply here as well:

• Per WP:LEADCITE the lead section should not require footnoted references since it should only be a summary of information listed in the body.
• List of seasons should be moved to a separate article and linked to from here
  • Based on a brief look at other WP:FA club articles listed in WP:FOOTY it looks like the "Statistics and Records" section may also need to be split out.

Overall, this article is well referenced has good coverage of the subject. Good work! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 October 2009, 20:20 UTC)

---

[edit] This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of hard work on it. For a player that has a relatively minor amount of coverage (Bako is no Babe or Albert Pujols), I think it is well-written, comprehensive, and fully referenced. I would appreciate reviewers giving input; my eventual plan for this article is GA. I don't know where else I could expand it (I don't have any info beyond what I've included), but I'd like outside opinion. Thanks in advance. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well, is stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and sourced. I think it could be considered broad in coverage if you expanded the 2005–2009 section to include the 2009 World Series and expanded the "Personal" section to include more details about family, hobbies, pets, work for charities, or anything else you can find that would flesh out his non-baseball bio.

• The link checker tool in the upper right of this review finds two dead links.

• Done. I hate link rot... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The images need alt text for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.

• I know how to do this; I just get lazy sometimes when I'm not doing FL work. Done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Bako is an example of the term "journeyman" - He isn't an example of a term; he's an example of a journeyman. I think "Bako is an example of a baseball "journeyman" would be better.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, it would be good to at least mention the high school and college subsection and the minor league subsection and the personal section, especially after you expand it.

High school and college

• "Bako led the Ragin' Cajuns to two consecutive conference championships... " - How exactly did he do this? Was he a catcher? Did he have a good batting average? Did he drive in a lot of runs? Was he a good mentor for younger players?

• He was a catcher; always has been. I clarified this as best I could and added some more detail about the seasons. I couldn't find any statistical sources for the 1991/92 baseball teams, though I'm still looking. Almost every player on the Ragin' Cajuns' athletic network website has a page about them, but of course, just my luck: Bako doesn't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor leagues

• "Brett Tomko, who played with Bako in 1996 and 1997, recalled a mound conversation with him in 2006" - This is a bit confusing because the mound conversation must have happened in 1996 or 1997 rather than in 2006. Also, which team were they both playing for? A better sentence might be: "Brett Tomko, who played with Bako in 1996 and 1997 as members of the XXXXXX, recalled one of their mound conversations."

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "recalled a mound conversation with him" - Wikilink mound?

• Done; linked to List of baseball jargon (M)#mound. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's generally conservative when it comes to bolding. (See WP:MOSBOLD for details). For this reason, I'd suggest using italics or even plain type for the speakers' names in the mound dialogue.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

2005–2009

• Blockquotes are used for quotations of at least four lines. The ones in this section are only two lines long on my screen. I'd suggest simply embedding them in the text inside ordinary quotation marks. MOS:QUOTE has details.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since the Phillies are in the World Series, this section would seem to be incomplete. Has Bako played any games in the playoffs? Will you add more data in a couple of weeks?

• Bako has not participated in the playoffs, which is why I haven't added any data. I was going to wait until the playoffs were complete and then add a statement regarding the outcome (whether he was a member of the World Series-winning team or just the pennant winner, etc.).

Personal

• This section cries out for expansion. Is Bako married? Does he have children? Does his mother come to watch him play? Does he have interests outside of baseball? Is there a Bako fan club? Can you find any published interviews with Bako? (I Googled "Bako wife" and immediately learned from a Phillies bio of Bako here that he has a wife, Laurie, a daughter, Abbey, and a son, Will). Maybe the Philadelphia Inquirer has run stories about Bako.

• I have scrutinized Google News and Google Books to see if I can find further information; I haven't been able to locate any. Backup catchers just don't seem to get any press... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:58, 1 November 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) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting until the World Series is over to add a further statement of some kind sounds good. For the "Personal" section, you could at least use the family info from the Phillies site. I don't know if it's possible to find more from any reliable source; you just have to go with the best data you can find. Finetooth (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. I do appreciate your comments; they were very helpful. If you find anything else, please let me know. Otherwise, I will likely close this peer review and move to a GA nomination within the next week or so. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 October 2009, 17:03 UTC)

---

[edit] Nintendo DSi

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

I've listed this article for peer review to avoid nuisances at FAC.

Parallel review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Nintendo DSi

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive to me, an outsider. It's stable, and reasonably well-written in most places, though I have some concerns, noted below, about prose and style issues. The images need alt text. The text is jargon-heavy in places, and this could be troubling for non-gamers who are trying to understand the subject. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Images

• Alt text for images is now a requirement for FA. It describes image content to readers who can't see the images and have to rely on machine read-outs of the text. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can see recent alt text in articles at WP:FAC.
• The source link on the license page for Image:Dsi closed traced.svg is circular; that is, it says in effect, "the source of the image is the image". Fact-checkers need to be able to check the source in a context that will allow them to verify that the image is free, as claimed.

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 says nothing about "Reception".
• Wikilink iteration in the first sentence of the lead?

Development

• "unveiled the console on October 2, 2008 during a Nintendo Conference in Tokyo" - Full dates like this one need a comma after the year; i.e., "October 2, 2008, during... ".
• "its predecessors which was shared among multiple members of a household" - Subject-verb agreement: "were" rather than "was"

Demographic and sales

• "After the success of its predecessor, the DSi is intended to help expand its market from "one DS per household" to "one DS per person".[17] Satoru Iwata, president and CEO of Nintendo, mentioned game consoles are shared by multiple members within a household. In order to narrow the gap between DS's owned per household and actual DS users per household, the company will attempt to make the DS a more personalized experience to appeal to each family member of a household." - I had a strange sensation of deja vu when I read this because it's repeated word-for-word in the lead and also because the idea of one console per person is also repeated in the "History" section. I'd suggest revising a bit for more variety and less repetition.

Hardware

• "The console has two larger TFT-LCD screens at 3.25 inches, instead of the former 3 inches... " - In the "History" section, you use metric for the primary unit and convert to imperial for the secondary unit. Here you give the dimensions only in imperial. I think it's OK to stick with metric as the primary in this article, but you need to be consistent and to add conversions. I like to use the {{convert}} template for these because it spells and abbreviates correctly as well as doing the math.
• "and it may be replaced by the user at the end of its useful life of approximately five hundred charge cycles" - "500" instead of "five hundred" for consistency?

Technical specifications and Features

• "such as the main CPU and the RAM" - Spell out and abbreviate these terms on first use as you did with Game Boy Advance (GBA)?
• Explain or link "Codec IC"?
• Spell out and abbreviate MHz, MB, SD, SDHC, AAC, Wi-Fi, WEP, WPA for readers unfamiliar with the abbreviations?

Software library

• "Both will utilize the DSi's camera." - "Use" is preferred to "utilize".
• "The applications are either free, or cost 200, 500, or 800+ (marked with a "Premium" tag) points." - How much do the points cost?
• "A DSiWare trial campaign offers 1,000 Points to each DSi that accesses its shop application." - "Accesses its shop application" is a bit mysterious and probably qualifies as jargon. Could this be rendered in plain English?

Reception

• "The Nintendo DSi received mixed to positive reviews soon after its launch, with many websites and reviewers differing as to whether it is worth upgrading from the DS Lite." - "With" makes a weak conjunction. Suggestion: "The Nintendo DSi received mixed to positive reviews soon after its launch. Websites and reviewers disagreed about whether the upgrade from the DS Lite was worthwhile."
• "significant new features, and is primarily a vehicle for DRM" - Another mystery abbreviation. Please spell out as well as abbreviate on first use.
• "General opinion showed disappointment with the absence of the GBA slot, although it was considered a reasonable tradeoff for downloadable content and accessibility to an SD card that will differ based on user preference." - Dangling modifier? It's not entirely clear from this whether you mean that users will choose different SD cards or that they will differ about the absence of the GBA slot.
• "Since this DS iteration has a similar overall design to and is similarly portable as its predecessor as well as add new features... " - Something's missing from this part of the sentence.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot were actually helpful. I expected such a detailed look (prose and style issues) at FAC, not the other way around. Thanks. « ₣M₣ » 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 October 2009, 02:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Seattle Sounders FC

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've exhausted all the resources I had been intending to use when adding content to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and depending on the outcome of the peer review I intend to nominate it for WP:FA review in the near future.

Thanks, SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 13 October 2009, 03:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Infamous (video game)

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review
Automated suggestions can be generated on demand (more info).

I'm looking to take this to a Featured article, and looking to get feedback on prose and the like. (Content is less an issue for this). I know I can segment the development section a bit more but any other suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 06:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not heard of this game before and do not write video / computer game articles. The content seems fine, but I agree the prose could use somework, and there are a few other MOS issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Prose needs some polish before FAC. Here are some examples from the first few sections:
  • Lead Is the second was needed (tighten prose): It was developed by Sucker Punch Productions and was published by Sony Computer Entertainment.
  • Fairly complicated sentence - could it be split into two to be clearer? Though the game's story follows Cole using his new abilities to restore some semblance of order to Empire City, the player is given several opportunities to use these powers for good or evil purposes in the game's Karma system, ultimately affecting character growth, the reaction of the City's populace towards Cole, and finer elements of the story.
  • word choice - inspired by sounds better than inspired from The desolate urban atmosphere was inspired from [by?] comics such as DMZ and No Man's Land, ...
  • "well receieved" is a bit more standard in The game was received well by the gaming press.
  • ... Radical Entertainment's Prototype, a video game released the following month with many similar elements of Infamous... would read better as something like ...Radical Entertainment's Prototype, a video game released the following month which had many elements similar to Infamous...
  • The Gameplay and Plot sections seem much better written
  • Development: missing phrase Infamous was developed by Sucker Punch Productions, with a team of 60 people working [on it] about three years.[7]
• I know that plot sections do not need references, but should the Gameplay section have refs?
• There are a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs (like the last one in Promotion and other products) and the Sequel section is only one sentence. Could these be combined with others or expanded to improve flow?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I made some copyedits to the first two sections to try and make the prose a bit smoother - please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse. Sorry I do not have time for more, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments The plot, gameplay and development sections seem long, the development section in particular. Though they are sourced, consider that the reader may become bored. Trimming is definitely needed in the development section. --Teancum (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 October 2009, 06:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] Kanhopatra

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

The article passed GA recently in October. The GA reviewer User:Nemonoman not only gave the article a through review but also copyedited the text and improved the article in the course of the review. This article about a Hindu saint-poet, who was a courtesan by profession and a prostitute's daughter. Only 30 of her poems have survived and little is known about her history. We know her only through legends and few poems left by her. Though the Prose size (text only) is 10 kB (1737 words) "readable prose size", IMO it is comprehensive due to the above reasons. I want the reviewers to examine the text for FA criteria WP:FA?. It was difficult to get English references that narrate her tale in detail, so references from Marathi dailies and magazines are used.

Thanks a lot, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comment: I haven't read the complete article yet, but looking at the sources, I think objections with regards to FAC criterion 1c may be raised. In particular, the following points would need to be clarified:

• Why is a newspaper article a authoritative enough source on the subject to be cited ~20 times. If you can argue that Madhavi Kunte is some sort of expert on the subject, then this should be ok.

If you notice the reference used for the legend, in places the reference is used with other references that tell the same legend ([1][10][11]) In these cases, [1] can be removed. Maharashtra Times is the Marathi newspaper owned The Times Group, who publishes the Times of India.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto for the Lokpraha (redlink!) article.

An red link does not meet that newspaper may not a reliable reference. It is a Marathi magazine published by Indian Express Group, which runs the The Indian Express, which runs Loksatta in Marathi. NOTE: Lokprabha article is hosted on Loksatta site. Other prominent Marathi newspapers like Samana and NAVSHAKTI and magazines like Maher do not have wiki-articles. The Mumbai University lists Prahaar, Maharashtra Times, Loksatta, Samana as the top media in Mumbai. [8]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are the Vithoba temple websites reliable sources for biographical information on the subject, or should they be regarded as reliable sources only for the devotees' POV, in which case they need to be cited with attribution.

As said there is no "reliable" history of Kanhopatra, her history is mingled with her legend - devotees' POV. It depicts a version of the traditional tale. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this website a reliable source ? Who is the publisher ?

Temporarily removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Same question for this website.

This reference can be replaced with the movies or movie cassette cover as the reference as they provide the same information. This reference was added to avoid trouble of the reader to go and find the movie cassettes. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sellergren lists Ranade (1988), Tulpule (1979), Vanita (1989), Ghanananda and Stewart-Wallace (1979), and Abbott and Godbole (1934-1935) as sources on Kanhopatra (and related saints). The article references Abbott and Godbole but doesn't use any of the other sources.

Ranade (Ranande, R.D. (1999) [1933]. Mysticism in Maharashtra. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=73vbTVsPga0C&pg=RA1-PA208&dq=kanhopatra&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a#PRA1-PA208,M1.) and Abbott and Godbole (Mahīpati; Abbott, Justin Edwards; Godbole, Narhar R. (1988). "39". Stories of Indian Saints: An English Translation of Mahipati's Marathi Bhaktavijaya.) are used. Bhaktivijaya and Bhaktalilaamrita - both by Mahipati - are the only primary written sources of the life-stories of Varkari saints apart from their own abhnaga poetry. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

These objections are not insurmountable (for example, it may be the case that Ranade's book doesn't contain anything that Sellergen's article doesn't, since the latter is based upon and possibly expands the former), but at an FAC review you'll need to be prepared to defend (1) the reliability and quality of the sources used, and (2) comprehensiveness of the sources (i.e., no significant sources have been left out.)

This is just a high level comment about an issue that is of increasing importance at FACs. I'll take a more fine-grained look at the article over the next few days and add my comments here. Abecedare (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Anish

• In the first line I would suggest replacing Maharashtrian with Marathi. Marathi makes more sense and the word Maharashtra and Maharashtrian coame in existence only after 1960s.
• The section on Life seems to be too long. I suggest that it be sub-divided into into something like: Early Life, Path to devotion and death. The heading Details of Kanhopatra's life are uncertain should come as a sub-section and merged with death sub-section. These headings are just suggestion as a starting point and something better can be incorporated.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Redlinks are looking a bit odd. I suggest that try to create atleast a stubs for these redlink.

The redlinks in Vithoba compelled me to start this article. Stubs will be created for links.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be giving more comments later as and when I find to review it.--Anish (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Nemonoman I was very pleased to be the GA reviewer, because it seemed to me that with very little additional effort, this pleasant article could be polished to be at GA status. To get it to FA status will, I think, be a bigger effort.

I'm not very familiar with the subject, but I'm with the editors above in seeing that there the sources are not very varied nor very impressive. I don't know if there are other sources that might be cited, but without a larger variety, I think FA will be hard. The content will probably need to be expanded if the article is to be an FA, answering through additional information some of the questions it suggests:

About the expansion: Ælfheah of Canterbury is much shorter and still a FA. FA demands only comprehensiveness, not length. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I wouldn't pass it at current depth, as it seems less substantial than most FAs. Compare with Vithoba: that's FA substance, IMO.. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Variations in the legends -- how the story has changed over time

No evidence that the story has changed over time. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, smartypants, you describe 2 versions of death . How did that happen? --Nemonoman (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Various sources tell various tales. They include Bhaktivijaya (penned about 300 yrs after her death) and oral narratives among the Varkaris. This is often the case in Hinduism, there are multiple versions of a legend, take the example of Ganesha - there are at least 3-4 versions of his birth. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• More (short) examples of her poetry -- and music snippets if possible

I can add more snippets of translations of her poetry. Where should I add it and how many more are needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To be used artfully: particular haunting or popular phrases, or something every Vakari might be expected to know and recite, or something that a scholar has commented on, etc. Her legacy is her poetry: let's show that off a bit...--Nemonoman (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• More pictures -- I'm sure SOMEBODY has a picture of the tree, forbidden as that might be

Photography in major Hindu temples is forbidden for a long, long time. Photography is only allowed in expectational cases such as for books and for creating photo frames of the principal deities.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but for my research I took pictures inside temples and everyone was too polite to complain about the ignorant balding middle-aged American tourist. I'm sure some exist. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: A small shrine is also dedicated to her in her home town Mangalvedhe. Nobody in Mangalvedhe has a cellphone camera? Surely an exterior shot of that is a possiblity --Nemonoman (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion of her literary or spiritual influence by scholarly sources

Her spiritual influence is covered in "Legacy and remembrance", she does not have her literary influence per the sources. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• More about her popular influence: Amar Chitra Katha, I'm sure. Etc.

Kanhopatra is not pan-Indian, she is restricted to the Varakari faith in Maharashtra. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then about THAT influence. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As is, the article whets one's appetite for information, but leaves me at least wanting more.

If additional content gets added, as I hope it will, then additional copyediting will also be needed to bring this article to the standard of "the best Wikipedia has to offer". I will be very pleased to lend a hand on that effort. RedT., I applaud you for your determination to get this article to GA, which took a lot of work, and I admire your initiative to try to get it to FA. For my own part, I regard the FA process as inherently flawed, and very frustrating. Do not take FA review comments personally -- not even mine! -- because in many respects FA reviewers talk about what they WISH they could see rather than what they is actually in the article. FA criteria are very subjectively judgemental -- what exactly is the best writing? -- and difficult to quantify. So you end up competing with the imaginations and opinions of editors, good or bad, and how is one to compete with that? Anyway--good luck and keep me in the loop. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 November 2009, 05:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Alexander the Great in the Qur'an

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

I've listed this article for peer review because:

• The article may be too long (may not be summary style) ... I would like some advice on this issue in the context of the article.
• It is difficult to convey the philological issues covered in the article without quoting the (obscure and rare) texts in question .... but the article may contain too many quotes. Suggestions on how to improve this situation are welcome.
• I would like to know whether people think the article is neutral and objective and if anything can be done to improve it in this regard.
• The article was originally part of the parent article Dhul-Qarnayn, which (after some years of edit wars) was splintered into Alexander in the Qur'an and Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an. I'm interested in people's opinion about the current situation and how it might be improved.
• I would like to know what people think about the use of pictures in the article.
• There are quite a few citations but the citation formatting may not be correct. Any corrections are appreciated.
• Dates ... Many dates are mentioned in the article (e.g. "550 AD"), but the formating is inconsistent and I suspect that the formatting is all wrong by Wikipedia standards. Help on this is appreciated.

Thanks, Semaphoris (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

llywrch writes

• A fascinating topic. Has your research touched on the fact that there exists an Ethiopian version of the Alexander romance, wherein Alexander is considered a saint? I think this is relevant, & including this variant of the story is relevant. (Ethiopian Christianity was heavily influenced by Syrian & pre-Islam Arab practices.) If you need help finding sources about the Ethiopian story, drop me a line & I will provide a few.
• More to the point. While it probably isn't too long, & appears to me to be objective, the problem I have with this article is that it feels disorganized. I was left confused because I have no idea how all of the material you present -- the story of Gog & Magog, especially -- relates to this issue. It would help if you explained to some degree just who Dhul-Qarnayn is/was, & the similarities (& differences) of this personage to Alexander in fact & fiction. (Even the article on Dhul-Qarnayn isn't very clear about his story -- or can everything that is known about him be set out in a few sentences?)
• The numerous quotations don't bother me, but then I am an advocate of providing excerpts of primary -- & relevant secondary -- sources when they are relevant & well-written.
• The image of the T-O map & its text is irrelevant to the article. However, the images of the two coins are very useful because they help explain one theory why Dhul-Qarnayn could be a legendary personage based on Alexander.
• As for your dating system in this article, the solution is simple: pick one system -- either AD/BC or CE/BCE -- & use it consistently through the article. I think using either could be defended, although CE/BCE might be a little more palatable to some.

Hope these comments help. -- llywrch (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 08:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Andrew Sledd

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review
Automated suggestions can be generated on demand (more info).

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

[edit] National Youth Leadership Training

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added substantial content to it over the past few weeks. It is comprehensive, well-sourced, relatively well-written, and otherwise appears ready for a GA review. But I'm sure there remains room for improvement.

Thanks, -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 November 2009, 00:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Court of Session (Scotland)

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

I have extensively rewrote this article, and would welcome feedback on how it could be further improved. Comments that also address the question of whether it could achieve FA status would be especially welcome. Thanks, AGK 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit of the infobox text appears wrongly written. "Composition method: Appointed by Monarch with name presented Prime Minister—with the advice of the First Minister of Scotland..." What does that mean? Names of possible appointees are presented (i.e. submitted) by the Prime Minister, or the names of the appointed are submitted to the Prime Minister for final approval? There is a big difference in the two. And either way suggests they are all political or royal appointees, which they are not (I hope). Meowy 16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That should be "presented by the Prime Minister". Vacancies in judicial office are filled by the Monarch, so that parameter of the infobox is otherwise correct (if clumsily worded). Cf this web page. Thanks for contributing, Meowy; most peer reviews take some weeks before they are given attention! AGK 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to help a little. For the infobox, isn't it really only a symbolic Royal appointment, and also only a symbolic presentation? The Queen can't decide to say "no", and the Prime Minister hasn't personally decided "I want so-and-so for the position of judge, but I don't want what's-his-name". Shouldn't the text be changed a bit to reflect that (same for the High Court of Justiciary article)? I'm just thinking that the impression shouldn't be given that senior judges in Scotland are political appointees. Meowy 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Cptnono

• I don't know much about different court systems so am not the best judge of such an article. As someone who knows so little, this article appears to be a great backbone with factual sources and is well linked to other pages discussing the overall system. However, some of these Wikilinks might be better explained in the text to provide a one stop read for the reader. You obviously don't want to go into too much detail but I found my self navigating away from the page more than I would have liked.
• I noticed that there is information covered in the lead and not the main body of the article.
  • Should a new section be devoted to judges or can that be worked into the existing prose?
    • In particular, 4 women judges is made to look remarkable. Could a line be added explaining the situation (how, when, etc)?
    • Are the other note worthy aspects of the judges?
• History seems too light. The court has been around for sometime and you make it clear that it has mainly stayed the same but the summary of that many centuries in such a concise manner was surprising. You only have so many sources available, of course.
  • Does a source go into detail on why King James V started it? What was the first case? Any response to its founding?
  • Any big cases in its time?
• Location. What other physical buildings has it occupied?
• Does source #3 need "(in English)"
• I didn't see a manual of style for structure of such articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. They do list some current GAs that might help with ideas: Oregon Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Indiana, Gun Court.

Nice work and good idea on the recent rewrite.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 November 2009, 22:59 UTC)

---

[edit] University of Valle

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

Greetings. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to continue improving the article to FA status. I'm not a native English speaker, so there might be some issues with redaction. I count with enough bibliographic material to improve the contents of the sections. I think the weakest ones are the History, Organization and Research sections. Also, I would like to know what information should be added and if what kind of figures should be included. Thanks, Andremun (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 October 2009, 03:16 UTC)

---

[edit] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it reviewed before I submit a Good Article nomination. Key questions: is it complete, is anything missing or covered in insufficient detail, are the references up to scratch?

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

As you said above that you woulod like to take this article to GAN, I am going to make comments here that I would if I were reviewing the article for that status.

• The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, 2-3 paragraphs (each about as big as the current one) is appropriate. Also, the lead should be a summary of the entire article, but should not include information that is not in the body of the article.
• Refs 72 and 73 (UN OHCHR), as well as the third external link, are all giving me error messages when I try to access them.
• All of the short paragraphs in the Reservations section are jarring. Could these be combined into a few paragraphs of more flowing prose? Same with the Jurisprudence section.
• Is it likely that all of the redlinked cases in the Jurisprudence section are notable enough to have their own articles in the future? If they do have this notability, they can stay redlinked, but if they are not likely to be notable enough for their own article, they should be delinked.
• While information on the convention itself and the parties to it is presented admirably, what is missing is outside analysis of the convention and its effects. This convention has been in effect for over 40 years - someone must have done an analysis of it, either in book or article form. Has it actually reduced racial discrimination? What do various religious/ethnic groups have to say about it? The book and two journal articles you reference may have something to say on this subject, and there must be more out there on a convention that has been around for this long. What effect has this convention had on responses to genocides in various European and African countries over the past decades? How about continuing racial discrimination in Middle Eastern countries? This analysis section doesn't need to be huge, but some thoughts on how it has affected the world over the past few decades is necessary for the article to be complete.

Some things that are not required for GA but that you may want to do include:

• Fixing the dab links. See here for a list.
• Adding alt text to the image. See WP:ALT.

Overall, this is a very nice article, but needs a bit more research before it goes to GAN. However, what is in the article so far is very good, and only some minor prose and reference tweaks are needed. If you have any questions, please let me know (I have this page watchlisted), and good luck on your quest to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 24 October 2009, 23:15 UTC)

---

[edit] History

[edit] History of Hertfordshire

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what else I need to do to achieve FA standard.

Thanks, —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 November 2009, 11:47 UTC)

---

[edit] Premiership of John Brownlee

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

This article's making its meandering way to WP:FAC, and I'd appreciate some help along the way. I know the prose isn't there yet, and I think I can fix that on my own given time, but I'd certainly appreciate comments from outside eyes on that front. Besides that, I'm especially interested in comments about how well context is established (i.e. is the article understandable to somebody with no knowledge of Alberta and maybe a passing acquaintance with Canadian government?), whether I keep an appropriate tone throughout (I probably don't), and whether the organization is intuitive. But really, all suggestions for improvement are welcome.

(A note on sourcing: I plan on diversifying the sourcing somewhat before FAC, but the Foster book is so indisputably the authoritative source on this subject that it's inevitably going to be leaned on heavily; most other "secondary" sources on the subject reference Foster's book extensively, so citing more from those would really only give the illusion of source diversity.) Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] S Marshall

• Remarks on first reading follow.
• I've made a few minor tweaks, Steve, mainly around establishing a little more context.
• I've never been to Alberta, I know nothing about it, and I know nothing about Canadian government. (My only visit to the American continent was a brief trip to Ontario to attend my brother's wedding.) If I were researching Brownlee, I would frown a little about the lede; it seems to present information chronologically, rather than in order of importance. I would think the first paragraph should encapsulate the whole subject in as few words as possible, i.e. mentioning the economic difficulties over which he presided and the controversy surrounding his resignation. (I do understand that you get to that very shortly; all I'm questioning is the order in which the information is presented.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Remarks on second reading follow.
• I'm finding I have little to add. I want to commend you on dealing with political matters in a NPOV way; I can't tell from the article on which side (if any!) you fall.  :)
• You're already well-aware of the referencing issue, so I won't belabour the point.
• At some point on its journey to FA status, the article might benefit from a political map showing which areas of Alberta supported Brownlee and which opposed him.
• It wasn't immediately clear to me that the UFA was a political party. Maybe this is because I need more coffee, but that could also benefit from some explanation, as well as identifying Brownlee's opposition parties more clearly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review. As you've gathered, I've made some modifications following from some of your comments. I'll see what I can do on the map front, though I may be at the mercy of somebody who, unlike me, isn't totally inept at these things. As for the UFA being a political party, the trouble is that it kind of wasn't. In the 1920s, the rules for what constituted a political party were somewhat less ironclad than today; I'm pretty sure anybody could have whatever they wanted stuck next to their name on the ballot. The UFA was actually primarily a lobbying organization and one that provided services to its members; I'm leery of stating outright that it was a political party, and I'm concerned that any kind of depth on the question of what the UFA was would be out of place in this article. But I'll put some more thought into it; thanks again for your review and kind words. Steve Smith (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 November 2009, 22:34 UTC)

---

[edit] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have followed the WikiProject Museum instructions and would like to nominate it for Good Article consideration. Please review all of the changes if possible. Any suggestions and advice will be welcome.

Thanks, Mst48 (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is outside of my usual area of editing and reviewing, which is historical political biography, but there doesn't seem to be any of that up for peer review at the moment, and I visited this a few years ago and found it at once moving and haunting (as I daresay anybody who has visited has). Since you've expressed a desire to bring this to Good Article status, I'll conduct my review with the Good Article Criteria.

By far the biggest thing preventing this article from being a Good Article in its present state is the referencing. There are several unreferenced paragraphs but, more importantly, the majority of the references that do exist are to the museum's website, which is a primary source affiliated with the article subject. Wikipedia's policy is to use mostly third party secondary sources. The good news is that there are what appear to be quite a few excellent such references listed under "Further reading"; I'd suggest working on referencing the article's current content to those as much as you can, and then adding new content based on those as well. As long as you're changing the referencing, you might consider using reference templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc.; it's not required for GA, but it's an easy way to make sure that your references are properly formatted.

There are some neutrality issues as well. Portions of the article are written as if from a tourist brochure, and there are some non-neutral statements as well. Some examples:

• "...has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994." (Something like "has been visited by..." would be better, especially if rearranged to be worded in the active voice.)
• "Under Ms. Bloomfield’s leadership...", "She has also played leading roles..." ("Leadership" is a very positive word. Something like "management" would be more useful.)
• "Since its inception, the USHMM has been under constant threat of violence from extremist groups." (Do we know that there has been a constant threat? Might it be more accurate to say that it has been targeted by anti-semitic individuals on more than one occasion?)
• "The outside of the building dissappears into the neoclassical, Georgian, and modern architecture of Washington, D.C."
• "the CoC recently has established itself as a leading non-partisan commenter..."
• "The prestigious Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Conference for Teachers..."

The prose still needs quite a bit of work. I've made some copyedits and stylistic fixes. There are a few outstanding items that require attention, however:

• the lead does not really summarize the article so much as it provides basic data about the museum. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should give a brief summary of the material covered in the article.
• the article says that the collections include "more than 200,000 registered survivors"; I imagine those survivors would object to being kept in the museum's collections.
• the Committee on Conscience is first mentioned in the History section, but isn't explained until quite a bit later.
• when using wikilinks, please make sure that you are linking to the intended target. For example, compare where Ground Zero leads to where Ground Zero leads, and consider which one belongs in the article. I've fixed some of this, but there's room for much better linking in this article.
• the last sentence of the third paragraph in History is long and convoluted; consider rewriting it.
• this sentence doesn't really make sense: "Upon entering, each architectural feature because a new element of architectural allusion to the Holocaust."

Otherwise, the article is well on its way to being a Good Article. Its organization is excellent, though it might be worth considering merging "Exhibitions" and "Collections", since there seems to be a fair bit of overlap between the two. The pictures are excellent, and all appear to be properly licensed, though all of the ones outside the infobox lack alt text, and the alt text of the one in the infobox could use a lot of improvement.

A few miscellaneous things:

• the "See also" section is likely too long, as is the "Further reading". The first should include only links directly relevant to the subject of the article but which are not linked elsewhere in the article, while the second should include material that deals with the subject at a depth or from an angle that a Wikipedia article couldn't or shouldn't (as noted above, ideally much of the material in "Further reading" could make its way into the "References" section).

I'd recommend putting in the work needed to improve the above issues, and then putting it up for another peer review. Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 02:33 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…The beginning paragraph is relevant to the article. All information stated includes footnotes, books (references), along with external links. And on top of that, there are categories, articles that are linked to this page related to it, and over 10 pictures.

Thanks, Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not really understand your stated reasons for listing the article here. I assume that you want this to become a WP:FL and see that it has already had an unsuccessful FLC. With another possible WP:FLC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I would look at the coimments made in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive1 and take them very seriously. The living veteraqns part is a self-deleting list, and the recent deaths part seems arbitrary (what is the criteria for inclusion) and almost certainly incomplete. I think the suggestion made in the previous FLC to just make a list of ALL the members of Easy Company is the only way to go here.
• As it is, the article on E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) lists many (if not all) of the members and so this could be seen as an unneeded content fork.
• I would look carefully at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, this has several places that it needs to improve to come close to meeting those criteria too.
  • From WP:WIAFL: Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. How does the current lead do this?
  • I also worry about 3a (comprehensiveness) and 3b (not a content fork) here
• This definitely needs a ref: Easy was (and is still) recognized as the best known company of the entire United States Army during World War II.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• What makes this http://www.military-art.com/mall/profiles.php?SigID=1278 a WP:RS?
• Need to explain / spell out abbreviations like the one in the title (506 PIR)
• Headers do not meet WP:HEAD
• External links do not all seem to meet WP:EL

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 _><>°^° 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 October 2009, 02:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Heraclius

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has had an extensive rework and I want input before attemping to move it to GA status.

Thanks, Esemono (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward

• ✓ Done - There are a couple places where notes and references precede the punctuation point, they should be after it. WP:Citations
• ✓ Done - The article lead is a bit underdeveloped. Given the length of the article you should probably break the lead into two paragraphs and add a bit more information too it and fully summarize his entire life. WP:LEAD
• ✓ Done - If you have references in the body of the article for the facts mentioned in the lead, it is not necessary to put references into the lead. (If items in the lead are not in the body, then they should also be put into the body). WP:LEAD
• Article could use a modest copy edit. Some sentences are somewhat unwieldy and lacking in commas. Example: At his request Pope John IV (640-642) sent Christian teachers and missionaries to the Dalmatia, newly Croatian Provinces settled by Porga, and his clan who practiced Slavic paganism. Would be better as At his request, Christian teachers and missionaries by Pope John IV to the Dalmatia, new Croatian Provinces settled by Porga and his pagan Slavic clan.
• As a pointer, I don't see that you have used Byzantium: Three volumes (or the abridged A Short History of Byzantium) by John Julius Norwich. Probably the best book on Byzantium written in the three decades. There is a full chapter dedicated to Heraclius with a some information not currently incorporated into this article, and would help in beefing up the inline citations. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not by choice, just don't have it on hand -- Esemono (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are lots of places that could use a citation. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, event, statistic, and paragraph should end in with a citation. See WP:Citation for more.
• ✓ Done - There is some room to tighten up the text in places. Anything that says the same thing in less words is better. For example:

Heraclius was born into an Armenian family from Cappadocia, although beyond that, there is little specific information known about his ancestry. He was the son and namesake of Heraclius (generally referred to retrospectively as Heraclius the Elder), who had been a key general of Emperor Maurice's in the 590 war with Bahram Chobin, usurper of the Sassanid Empire. His mother was named Epiphania.

Becomes

Heraclius was born the son of Heraclius the Elder and Epiphania, an Armenian family in Cappadocia. Beyond that, there is little specific information known about his ancestry. His father was a key general during Emperor Maurice's war with Bahram Chobin, usurper of the Sassanid Empire, during 590.

• ✓ Done - There are some terms which could be linked in the article, like Emporor Phocas.
• ✓ Done - You introduce Khosrau II in the text, but use Chosroes as his name thereafter in the text. This is a bit confusing. You should stick to just one name or fully explain the reasoning for the difference.
• ✓ Done - "...damaging the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and capturing the Holy Cross and Egypt in the process." The persians captured Egypt in the process of invading Judea? I think "...and afterwards capturing Egypt" would be more accurate.
• ✓ Done - I would recommend adjusting your article sections to be more heirarchal. For example, Make an "Early life" section, and place "Origins" and "Revolt.." as sub headings. Place additional sub headings under the first sections of the "War with Arabs" and "Legacy" Section. This will place your ToC more visually appealing, and improve article navigation by better defining sections.
• ✓ Done - The family section would be better broken up. I recommend moving his wife and children back into the article and add them chronologically about where they were married\born. The rest of the info, including his will and the family tree, would best be made a sub heading of the legacy section.
• ✓ Done - You have a gap between 1 and 2 in your annotations.
• ✓ Done - Some of your book sources, like Baynes and Kazhda, are not used in your footnotes. Those should be moved into a seperate further reading section. If you did intend to use them, you should add citations to show where they are being used.
• ✓ Done - Some of your references are listed as Last Name, First Name. While other are First Last. These should be made uniform.
• ✓ Done - You should add a portal template to Portal:Byzantine Empire in the see also section.
• ✓ Done - You are forcing an image size on several images, this is not recommended by the MOS. See WP:Images. It is better to not force an image size because it overrides users individual settings. (It is ok to force sizes on images with text that needs to be read)
• ✓ Done - You do not have any alt text for you images. See WP:Alt for more information.
• ✓ Done - A point worth including: It was during Heraclius' reign that the total defeat of the Persians occured. It was essentially the end of the war that had lasted nearly eight hundred years between the romans and the Persians. He ended it in favor of Rome.
• ✓ Done - Another point, there is no mention of the internal problems in the empire concerning religion. He was able to have an altered godhead formula adopted and assented to by four of the Patiarchs. It reconciled the monophysites, but just before his death lead to schism with the Papacy in Rome.

The article is definatly of a B quality. A little work, like that mentioned above would get it to GA quality. You will need more extensive work, primarily in referencing and copyediting to get to FA. So far though a very good and interesting article. Thanks for you time and research in working it. Keep up the good work!—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

One point I'd add to Charles Edwards' extensive review is that you omit any mention of one of the best known historians of this period -- Edward Gibbon. Not because I think that he wrote the definitive word on Heraclius, but because he casts such a large shadow over the subject of Roman history -- & provided what is still a readable account. (I remember one scholar stating that his account of the Byzantine Empire in the 9th thru 11th centuries is still one of the best in print.) It is far more important to quote him for opinion & interpretation than, say, Henry Hart Milman, because he is so well known & because so many Byzantists write in response to what he has written. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion I've added some citations from the book -- Esemono (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 October 2009, 23:32 UTC)

---

[edit] Geography and places

[edit] Republic of Macedonia

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I don't know where to start! The article is finally stable - the conflicts have died down. Reading through, I think one of the issues is weight in the various sections - some might be too heavy, and others too light. I can see a vague case for restructuring the headings and forming larger sections out of the smaller ones, but without an idea about the weight of some of the subsections, it's a bit tricky. I'd like some outside views of this so that we can proceed. GA is a first target step, with a longer-term view to FA, so any related comments (sources, depth, etc) would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 November 2009, 19:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Lincoln Park Conservatory

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…1) I want to learn about peer review (my first), 2) I think the changes I have made have substantially improved the article, 3) The Conservatory is an important part of Chicago's History, 4) I would like to create a featured article.

Thanks, Buster7 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)--

Comments

• The WP:LEAD is quite thin. After you finish writing an article. Consider its structure. Then make sure each section is mentioned in the summary in the LEAD.
• See WP:CAPTION#Wording regarding ending periods.
  • Please reread.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Find an infobox will improve
• Make sure your article is structured so that each paragraph has a distinct topic and make sure each paragraph has at least one inline citation.
• Convert the bullet points to regular prose.
• Go to OpenStreetMap and create a map. (See Loop, Chicago or Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)). Went to OpenSreetMap but not sure how to get it here.--Buster7 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Is this in Category:Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois for a reason. Is it a Chicago Landmark, National Historic Landmark, or National Register of Historic Places listing?removed landmark staus for now...not sure
• If Schiller is famous link him. .
• Link Industrial Revolution, Victorian, vestibule--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the future let me strike when I agree an issue has been resolved. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here is how I make the maps. It is roundabout but it works.

1. Find a Chicago map on WP from OpenStreetMaps.
2. Click on it to go to its description page
3. Click on its source link
4. Zoom out a bit
5. Move the map so it is centered on where I want
6. Zoom in.
7. Use the export feature to save the map to my hard drive
8. Use microsoft paint to add black borders
9. Note the permalink will give you the source link
10. Upload the map to commons with all the same templates as the original map --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Saturday 7 November 2009, 23:06 UTC)

---

[edit] Manitoba

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it passed GA a while ago and I'm looking for some suggestions to (hopefully) get it to FAC sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Mindmatrix

I think that the list of hospitals is misplaced (link at top of "Economy" section). Perhaps a public services section could be created, highlighting health care, education etc. In my opinion, there is undue weight given to the official languages and armed forces sections. The latter may warrant a CAF presence by province article, splitting that section off as appropriate and leaving only a short section paragraph in its place. I also think the education section is weak - there's no mention of student demographics, number of schools or their sizes, role of private schooling, etc. (Aside: I don't like the phrase "the provincial education system" linking to Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Manitoba).) The intro needs work, especially the second and third paragraphs. Mindmatrix 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: there's a History of Manitoba that could benefit from some of the material at Manitoba#History. The main article's history section is far too long, and portions of it should be merged to the more specific article. Mindmatrix 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Steve Smith

This is not the sort of article I generally write/review (historical political biography), so I'm slightly outside my comfort zone, but I think I can make some useful comments. Because of my general lack of familiarity with this type of article, I've identified three current featured articles that I think are comparable in subject matter: Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia. I'm letting those articles inform my thoughts on this one.

In general, I think this article needs improvement before it hits FAC, though there's obviously been enormous amounts of good work put into it so far (this is a tough kind of article to write, which is why I generally stick to biography). Many parts of the article emphasize listing facts rather than incorporating them into the kind of prose I'd expect of an FA

Organization and other high level stuff

• The lead is too short, leaves out many important pieces of information (for example, the only thing said about the history is the date it entered Confederation), and contains other information that probably doesn't belong there (that the BNA Act, 1867 was rechristened the Constitution Act, 1867, could not possibly be one of the things about Manitoba that it's more important for a reader to know).
• The Geography section could stand to be better organized. All of the non-climate physical geography is found under the main heading, and information about human geography is limited to a single table listing the largest cities. I'd suggest emulating the state articles, and dividing it into "Geology and terrain/Topography" (possibly with a subsection for Hydrography, if you think it's warranted), "Climate", "Flora and fauna" (a subject not currently covered in the article), and "Human geography". These are only suggestions, obviously, and there are any number of legitimate ways that this section could be re-organized. Though the presence of a link to List of Manitoba parks is well-taken, I think they also merit mention in this main article.
• I'm inclined to agree with Mindmatrix that history is relatively over-emphasized, and I find some of the choices of what to include and exclude a little strange. In the last two subsections, political and especially electoral history seem slightly overrepresented. I also think that Manitoba's role in scuttling Meech Lake could stand to be trimmed. More could be said about the Great Depression; right now all that's mentioned is that it produced the Manitoba Social Credit Party and the Manitoba CCF, the former of which I don't think is important enough to be mentioned in a survey article about the entire province. Information about economic history is sorely lacking; while there's a subsection devoted to it later on (I think it should be integrated into "History" rather than "Economy", but that's subjective), it only goes up to 1853; I'd like to see information about the history of agriculture in Manitoba, for example. I don't know a great deal about Manitoba's history (and what I do know is mostly on the political side), so I don't have much more in the way of specific suggestions, but I hope that general stuff is helpful.
• I'm not sure "religion" merits its own subsection, since the article doesn't have a great deal to say on the subject, and it's not as though the "Demographics" section is long enough to require extensive subdivision. I'd like to see some information about language here, especially given what we learn in the "History" section about Louis Riel, the Manitoba Schools Question (which was nominally about religion, but which was closely tied to language), etc. There's a brief mention of the concentration of the population in Winnipeg, but little further about urbanization, etc. This might also be a good place to include a paragraph about the current condition of aboriginals in Manitoba. In contrast to "History", I think "Demography" needs expansion (I think Virginia does this especially well).
• "Transportation" is fundamentally sound (I'll have some nitpicks when I get to that part of the review, but I don't think it needs to be overhauled).
• "Economy" does a good job of explaining the components of Manitoba's economy, but there's all sorts of data that should be included. How prosperous is Manitoba relative to other parts of Canada? What are the typical unemployment rates? Does reliance on agriculture make for an especially cyclical economy? What is the typical approach of government to the economy? In light of the 1919 strike and the strength of the NDP, what's the state of organized labour in Manitoba? As noted earlier, I think "Economic history" should be integrated into "History", especially given the redundancy currently in there (especially surrounding the fur trade, etc.)
• "Government"'s not too bad (though what's with that single sentence about MERLIN tacked on to the end of it?), I'd like to see more about the "politics" (possibly in a separate section, if you'd rather not mix politics and government): the three main parties are listed, but we're not told much else about them. Does Manitoba change governments often (more often than Alberta, at least)? What issues dominate politics there? What role does Manitoba play in federal politics? A little bit (a small-ish paragraph?) about the law of Manitoba might also be good, just briefly describing the court system to go along with the descriptions of the legislative and executive branches already in there. There should also be something about municipal government. I'm also wondering if the bit about official languages isn't a little over-emphasized, and wouldn't be better dealt with in a section of Demography devoted to language in general. Finally, I have to note that the article's somewhat inaccurate in its description of the Westminster system ("The executive branch is formed by the majority party").
• "Education"'s pretty good, though I'd like to see something about how schools are organized (are there school districts? How autonomous are they?) and maybe something about how educated Manitobans are relative to national averages.
• "Sports" is generally fine. In light of its brevity (which I think is appropriate), I might suggest incorporating it into a new "Culture" section (information on non-sport culture is conspicuously absent from the article), though I note that both Oklahoma and Virginia keep their "Sports" sections separate from their "Culture" ones. Minnesota takes a different approach, combining its "Sports" section with one about outdoor recreation in the province (I assume that outdoor recreation is big in Manitoba, since it has so much outdoors).
• "Armed Forces" is good. I'd almost suggest incorporating it as a subsection of "Economy", since the importance of the Armed Forces to Manitoba specifically seems to be primarily economic (broadly defined).
• Besides culture (definitely) and outdoor recreation (maybe), all three state articles include sections about health, media, and state symbols. The only one of those that I think absolutely must be included is media, and it could be incorporated into a culture section. Provincial symbols are adequately dealt with in the infobox, I think, and unless you can think of something to say beyond what they are I'd advise not creating such a section. Health could be created, or some health-related information could be added to "Demographics".

I'll have more to say later about things like referencing and prose, and pictures/visual layout, but I thought I'd start with the big stuff. I hope it was helpful. Steve Smith (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I'm of two minds on the referencing. On the one hand, the article seems to break a lot of Wikipedia's policies on the matter, relying as it does extensively on primary sources. I'm a firm believer in using secondary sources, because they're able not only to verify facts, but also to frame these facts in a meaningful way and allow us to assess relative importance of various facts and views, and this article doesn't do that.

On the other hand, this is an extremely broad topic, which makes high quality secondary sources dealing with the entire subject rare (what scholar publishes an academic paper on Manitoba as a whole)? Moreover, in this broad an article, framing facts is often of less importance than providing them, which makes reliance on primary sources somewhat more acceptable. Finally, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia all make more extensive use of primary sources than I would expect a featured article to do, which suggests to me that this is an accepted approach to this sort of article. All sources do seem to be reliable for the claims they support.

Even so, I'd encourage the use of secondary sources independent of the subject wherever possible, and especially in cases where the facts are something other than indisputable statistics. Steve Smith (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Images and graphic layout

Not much to complain about here. Image choices range from good to excellent, and those that are not free seem to come with adequate fair use rationales (though the one in File:G manitoba.gif could use some beefing up). A couple of specific concerns:

• File:Carberrydesert.jpg could use more information (author, date, description, etc.)
• Likewise File:Winnipeg skyline from 55 Nassau.jpg
• Also File:Parliamentwinnipeg manitoba.jpg

I'm also wondering if it would be possible to have text wrap around some of the thinner tables, as occurs in (for example) the "Demographics" section of Virginia; some of the tables currently disrupt the text a little. Alt text isn't really my forte, but what's in there seems pretty good to me. Does Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada not support it yet? Steve Smith (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 6 November 2009, 03:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Mount Fuji

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to do some work to improve the article to possibly FA, in honor of a deceased colleague, but am not myself familiar enough with articles of this type to be able to say what sections and areas are or are not acceptable.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 November 2009, 15:13 UTC)

---

[edit] Gulfton, Houston

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to featured article status. Please consider the comments made in the last failed FA nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulfton, Houston/archive2

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 06:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Blackburn

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

I've listed this article for peer review because a year ago this article failed GA and now a year later I would like to see what has been improved on this article and to see if it could go for GA again soon. As a member of WP: Lancashire and Cumbria this article is a top priorty article under our scope, and it would be great to see it go to GA.

Thanks, 93gregsonl2 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and well-illustrated. It lacks sourcing in a few places, and it has a few problems with prose (mostly minor) and layout. It seems close to GA to me, but if I were the GA reviewer I'd insist on a few more fixes. I did not do a sentence-by-sentence critique: even so, I have quite a few suggestions for further improvement.

• The link checker tool in the upper right corner of this review page finds two dead links in urls and is having trouble connecting to several of the others, mainly the cotton town links.

• The images lack alt text, meant to explain the image content to readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

• The dabfinder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

• "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." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention many of the lower sections such as landmarks, sports, community facilities, and education.

• "Whilst" and "amongst" are a bit archaic. The preferred words are "while" and "among".

• The Manual of Style advises against wikilinks in direct quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." The George C. Miller quote has links in it as does the quote from John Bartholomew's Gazetteer.

• "Blackburn. parl. and mun. bor., par. and township, NE. Lancashire, 9 miles (14 km) [14 km]" - The conversions in this quote look odd. I'm guessing that the bracketed conversion is what you want since it's probably not in the original and that the conversion in parentheses is a mistake. A similar pattern recurs in the next sentence.

• "This decline occurred more rapidly in areas closer to the centre of Blackburn, with handloom weavers continuing to make up a sizeable portion of the workforce in outlying rural areas." - I'd be wary of sentences that use "with" as a conjunction. They often sound better when re-cast slightly. Suggestion: "This decline occurred more rapidly in areas closer to the centre of Blackburn, while handloom weavers continued to make up a sizeable portion of the workforce in outlying rural areas.

• Date ranges and pages ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; e.g., 1850–1870. When preceded by "between", it's better to say to say "between 1850 and 1870".

• In the "Coat of Arms" section, I have no idea what this means: "The arms displays Argent a Fesse wavy Sable between three Bees volant proper on a Chief Vert a Bugle stringed Argent between two Fusils Or. On the crest, a Wreath of the Colours a Shuttle Or thereon a Dove wings elevated Argent and holding in the beak the Thread of the Shuttle reflexed over the back and an Olive Branch proper." Could this be rendered in plain English?

• I notice that the "Coat of Arms" section lacks a source. It certainly needs one. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph in an article as well as every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every claim that is unusual, challenged, or apt to be challenged. Other large blocks of text lacking sources can be found in "Geography", "Geology and terrain", and "Transport".

• "became a focus for far-right politics. BNP town councillors were briefly elected" -- BNP should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first reference.

• The layout becomes cluttered in the Landmarks section. Generally, the Manual of Style recommends placing an image entirely within the section it illustrates. Images normally should not displace subheads or overlap sections. One solution is to use fewer images; another is to combine two or more short subsections. Since these subsections are so short, that's what I'd try first.

• The Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs as well as extremely short sections and subsections. Two solutions come to mind: expand or merge the orphans.

• The formatting in the citations should be consistent. For example, the dates should either be all yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y but not a mixture.

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) 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 October 2009, 11:14 UTC)

---

[edit] Leeds

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some idea of where the article has excessive detail or what is missing. I fear the article is too bloated and a separate City of Leeds article should be created, so I would like some input on that or some indication of how the article should cover both things.

Thanks, MRSC (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on the lead which is in serious need of revision. The lead is supposed to summarise all of the article and to only contain information which is in the rest of the article. Currently it concentrates, over selectively, on areas such as population, some of which is probably not relevant with a split article. The lead should also not have many references as these should appear in the article where the information is extracted from in the first place. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Looks like the automatic tools could be of some use here.
• In terms of overall structure; we really shouldn't be suppressing the table of contents. If it's overwhelming, it's something we should address via editing, not syntax tweaks. For instance, considering there's a History of Leeds article, the History section could be trimmed and the subheads largely removed.
• Also, when you've got Main articles, really all you need to do in the parent article is summarize it. Consider it essentially a nested lead. So since there's a Transport in Leeds article, I would simply collapse all those subheads and cover all the major points in say two paragraphs, maybe three at most.
• The "Music and theatre" section is entirely unreferenced, which is part of the reason why I think it seems to skew to mentioning laundry lists of artists. That's not really helpful.
• Generally I would think that "Governance" sections should come after things like demographics and geography (the "natural" city aspects, as it were).
• Second MRSC's comments about the lead.
• Suggestion: Axe the "Notable people" section entirely. It's nowhere near as important as any other section in the article.
• The citation scheme is hard to figure out--what seperates notes from refs? Not all the citations in bibliography are used in the article, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 October 2009, 15:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Skye

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a stable GA for a while and I am intending an FA attempt but am a little rusty.

Thanks, Ben MacDui 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This has improved a lot since I reviewed it for GA, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• The lead is OK as is, but seems a bit sparse to me - this may just be personal style, but could it be expanded a bit?
• Avoid use of words like today / now/ current as they can become outdated, so in the lead, could the actual year of the data be given instead of "today" in The events of the 19th century had a devastating impact on the human population, which today numbers around 9,200.
• Wikipedia:MOS#Percentages suggests spelling out per cent instead of using the symbol (except in tables)
• Should the inside or outside quotation marks be consistent in such as the "winged isle" or "the notched isle"[8]?
• This just seems awkward, but I am not able to suggest a good way to rewrite it In the Norse sagas Skye is called Skíð, for example in the Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar saga[14] and a skaldic poem in the Heimskringla from c. 1230 which contains a line that translates as "the hunger battle-birds were filled in Skye with blood of foemen killed".[15]
• Also wonder if the metric equivalent can somehow be added / noted in ...and W. H. Murray that "Skye is sixty miles [(100 km)] long, but what might be its breadth is beyond the ingenuity of man to state".[1] I tried adding it in square brackets, but that looks odd. In a separate footnote perhaps?
• In Prehistory, should Neolithic be linked?
• Same section, could a clearer indication of the location of Sand be given, perhaps something like ...occupation is probably linked to that of the rock shelter [on the mainland] at Sand, Applecross on the coast of Wester Ross.
• Is there anything else that could be added on Norse rule? Skye is mentioned in Etymology for example
• WP:HEAD says not to use characters like & in headers, so change Clans & Scottish rule to Clans and Scottish rule
• I think there needs to be more context provided for the reader in some places - for example, in the Clans section a brief explanation of the clans and how they actually ruled in Skye would help, or the Clearances section never really explains what was going on in the clearances (though it is wikilinked) or what crofters were
• Or in Overview of population trends (could this just be Population trends?) say explicilty that people moved off the land (small farms / crofters) and into villages
• History section seems very sparse in terms of 20th century events
• WP:MOS#Images says that pictures of faces should look into the text if at all possible, so could the picture of Charles Kennedy MP be right justified instead?
• It also says not to sandwich text between images, but the Skye Bridge photo and the Cuillin ridge from Portree harbour photo form a sandwich on my monitor
• The Transport section has two paragraphs in a row that start with the Skye Bridge linking the island to the mainland - watch WP:OVERLINKing (it is linked once in each paragraph) and could these be combined somehow? Perhaps start with the ferries, then go on to the bridge?
• The Culture section (but not The Culture of another Scot) starts with three one-sentence paragraphs - could these be combined or expanded to improve flow in the article?
• Give years or centuries for the two long quotes in the Wildlife section
• The {{Panorama}} template might be a nicer way to display File:Loch Fada Storr Skye restitch 2007-08-22.jpg
• I read this with some distractions (so it might just be that) but it seemed to need a better flow from section to section in places - more of a collection of interesting facts and less a coherent whole than it probably shopuld be for 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 _><>°^° 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Colin

A good article. I haven't studied the sources but here's some comments I made as I read:

• Not sure the comment on the Gaelic name is important enough for the lead paragraph.
• "The events of the 19th century" -- Immediately wondering "what events". Could you say here "famine and the clearances"?
• "today" probably should be "as of 20XX". Or rephrase to be "In the XX years since the census of 1991..."
• "now linked" drop the now. If you want to indicate how recent, then say "since XXXX,"
• I would question "abundant wildlife". Is there more wildlife on those barren hills than any other rural part of Scotland?
• Is the lead an adequate summary of the article, or just an introduction with a few select facts?
• "Etymology" wouldn't be my first choice of section. It is an erudite subject to lead with. Possibly too much weight given to this aspect compared to others.
• The article isn't consistent wrt Clan Leod, Clan MacLeod, Clan Donald, Clan MacDonald.
• Some passive voice coupled with indirect facts: "In April 2007 it was reported in the media that the island's official name..." and "On 21 December 2004 it was announced that the Scottish Executive had purchased the bridge".

Colin°^Talk 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. Ben MacDui 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 24 October 2009, 16:30 UTC)

---

[edit] East Riding of Yorkshire

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been expanded and restructured ready to be sent for GAN. The editors would like feedback from a "fresh pair of eyes" on any further improvements that are needed, please.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally well-written and certainly broad in coverage, nicely illustrated, and stable. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, it should probably include at least a mention of renewable energy, sports, education, and other topics to which whole sections are devoted in the main text.

Arrangement of sections

• Would it be logical to move "Administrative history" down and to combine it with "Governance"?
• Would it make sense to move most of the geology information in the "History" section to the "Geology" subsection of the "Geography" section?

Abbreviations

• "despite producing the best set of GCSE" - This and any like this should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, thus: General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).

Metric conversions

• In the financial year 2004/05 210,112 tonnes of municipal waste was collected by East Riding and 154,723 tonnes by Hull." Generally, Wikipedia articles express quantities like these as both imperial and metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions; e.g., 210,112 tonnes (206,794 long tons). The tonnes and long tons are similar but not identical.

Sourcing

• Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced even though they contain information that is not common knowledge. The entire "Media" section is an example. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every direct quote, set of statistics, or claim that might reasonably be questioned. The entire "Climate" section is another example.

Images

• The images need alt text for readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.

External links

• The link to "Photographs of modern and historic features... " is dead.

References

• Rather than listing an url as a publisher, the publisher should be listed by name. Citation 64, for example, should list Yorkshire Water as the publisher. It's also customary to include the date of publication, if known. In this case, it's 2008, according to the copyright notice at the bottom of the web page. Citations to internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of these can be found. To take another example, the Driffield Online pages all have the same author, Stephen Harrison, and the same publication date, 2000. That information should be included in the citations.
• What makes Driffield Online a reliable source? What makes Wilgilsland (citation 21) a reliable source? Personal web pages and other self-published sources usually do not qualify as reliable. WP:RS has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 October 2009, 10:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Puyehue-Cordón Caulle

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

Hellow, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status, but there is few other contributors editing this article so its difficult to get feedback. I have worked a lot on it now and would like your opinion to futher improve it.

Thanks, Dentren | ^Talk 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article, nicely illustrated, about an interesting set of volcanoes. However, much of the article lacks sources and doesn't yet satisfy WP:V. Here are a few other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections, and the lead should include no important information that is not developed in the main text.

• I dont know if this is suggestion to the current lead or it a remainder of how a good lead should be. I think the information there is relatively fine.Dentren | ^Talk 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Most abbreviations need to be spelled out on first use. I'd suggest spelling out directions such as N or SE as words on every use. Something like "ka" should appear as 1,000 years (ka) on first use; then ka by itself will make sense to all readers on subsequent uses. Ditto for MgO and 9.5 Mw. Most readers are not scientists.

• I looked into Mount St. Helens (FA) article and decided to use 1,000 instead of 1 ka. This has been changed now all over the article. I agree with "MgO rich basalt", this is to geologically, so i changed to pimitive basalt with a link in primitive to fractional crystallization (geology). "9.5 Mw" is not longer included in the lead, but it is in the 1960 eruption section. To use "moment magnitude" spelled out is ok, it not to technic and is used in several FA and good earthquake articles (2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, 2005 Qeshm earthquake). Dentren | ^Talk 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography

• "Cordón Caulle occupies the center and Cordillera Nevada lies at the NW end of the alignment and owes its name due to often being seen with snow from the relatively dense populated Chilean Central Valley." - Tighten slightly to "Cordón Caulle occupies the center. Cordillera Nevada, at the northwest end of the alignment, owes its name to its often snowy appearance from the relatively densely populated Chilean Central Valley."

• thank you for the improvement.

• "The three volcanoes are coalesced with Puyehue being the southern and easternmost one." - Suggestion: "Puyehue is the most southern and eastern of the three coalesced volcanoes."

• Improvement done.

• "The lower parts of the mountains are covered by an alpine association of Valdivian temperate rainforest, with species such as Chusquea coleou and Nothofagus dombeyi being common." - "With" plus "being" constructions are usually less direct than alternatives. Suggestion: "The lower parts of the mountains are covered by an alpine association of Valdivian temperate rainforest, where species such as Chusquea coleou and Nothofagus dombeyi are common."

• Included suggestions.

• What is an "alpine association"?

  Changed alpine association with alpine plant association"

• "The tree line lies around 1500 meters." - Wikipedia articles generally give measurements in metric and imperial units. A North American audience may be left out if only metric is used. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions since it handles spelling and abbreviating automatically as well as the math; e.g. 1,500 metres (4,900 ft). Ditto for areas and temperatures throughout the article.

• Put convert template on all places where units of measurment are used (except time!).

• The first paragraph of this section lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any statistics or claims that are not common knowledge and might be doubted. Ditto for all of the other unsourced paragraphs in the article.

• Put one new sourced sentence into flora. It will be difficult to source everthing in the article with quality (that the source says exactly what is said in the article) and sources of quality (no-self publications, newpapers, cientific articles, official websites of nationapark or government office)

Geologic history

• "although to older parts of Cordillera Nevada and Mencheca are older than that" - "the" rather than "to"?
• I'll stop commenting line-by-line on prose and style issues from this point on except to say that a bit more copyediting would be a good idea.

Images

• The map of the volcanic zones is helpful, but the source information on the license page should include a source for the base map as well as a source for the additional information added to the base map. Ditto for the ASTER map.

• will deal with the item soon.

• Image:Caullehotspring.jpg lacks a description on its license page.

• License added.

General

• The dabfinder tool in the upper-right-hand corner of this review page finds three links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

• Fixed all except hiatus because in the disambiguation page there is desciption of what a hiatus is in geology put not a link to page about that.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 October 2009, 00:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Engineering and technology

[edit] Electronic cigarette

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well developed article that I believe is worthy of a C or better class.

Thanks, FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 05:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a history of the device, based on what I could source. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 11:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 November 2009, 05:32 UTC)

---

[edit] Mercury-Atlas 8

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

I went through quite a comprehensive GA review with this article over the past month, and a couple of people commented to me that it has FA potential. I've not made any attempts to work at that level before - not in the past few years, anyway - and I'd appreciate a few more eyes looking at it before I take the plunge.

Parts of the article that I'm most worried about are the lead (it's short; how to expand it without being overly loquacious?) and the flight's context in both the Mercury program and the whole early-60s space race; I'm not sure this is covered as well as it ought to be. (The last section may also be a bit clumsily constructed, but I think I'm too glazed over by the writing to make any real judgement there.)

Thanks all - any comments appreciated. Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 November 2009, 01:09 UTC)

---

[edit] List of HOT and ETL lanes in the United States

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very thorough list, and is very detailed.

Thanks, --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I assume that you might want to eventually try for featured list, so here are some suggestions for improvement based on the WP:MOS and WP:WIAFL.

• Lists are not supposed to start with "This is a list of ..." anymore.
• The current lead is two one-sentence paragraphs, which does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example High occupancy/toll and express toll lanes is linked twice in 2 setneces in the lead.
• Also watch dab (disambiguation) links - hybrid is one. There is a tool for finding dab links in the toolbox on this page.
• Avoid the use of words like currently - use "As of 2009" instead or something more date specific. Now /current/etc. can get out of date quickly.
• WP:HEAD says that section headers should not repeat the name of the article if possible. What if the one header were "High occuoancy/toll lanes" and the subsections were Current and Planned or Current and Future?
• I would not have a header "Current ETL lanes" with the only information under it that there are none. Here could it just be "Express toll lanes" ?
• Have you thought of making this into tables and then making those sortable?
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I am thinking of making a run for FL, and these comments certainly will help. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I am not sure, but some people might object to the specific toll / pricing information per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Another useful thing is to find an FL or two that are as related as possible and use it/them for a model article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 October 2009, 03:19 UTC)

---

[edit] Facebook

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is so close to being a featured article. So if you can please review it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks, Robert9673 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in the lead it says that Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook while he was a student at Harvard University, it would be good to have a date in there. Also please address the Platforms' section message. The article has a lot of references, but I did notice some "citation needed" messages. Good amount of content. Tsange ^►talk 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I see several problems that would need to be addressed before the article would have any chance at FA.

• If you use the tools at the top of this review page, you will see that the article includes several links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• The link checker tool finds a nonexistent url in one of the citations and a dead url in another.

• The alt text checker shows that none of the images has alt text. Please see WP:ALT for details about how to write alt text for readers who can't see the images.

• The article has a cleanup tag at the top of the Platform section that will need to be addressed in some way.

• Some of the sections are extremely short and should either be expanded or merged.

• "The case is believed to be the first successful invasion of privacy and defamation verdict against someone over an entry on a social networking site.[198][199][200][201][202][203]" - Does this claim and some of the others in the article really need more than one or two supporting citations?

• Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if they are available.

• I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 October 2009, 01:17 UTC)

---

[edit] Senedd

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try for the second (and hopefully last time) to get it through to Featured Article status. It has already had one Peer Review.

Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the possibilities I see for improvement:

• The introduction should give some sense of its size. I was immediately curious, but couldn't get a good sense of it from the picture. It took me a while before I found the square footage buried under the heading of "second phase of construction."
• The construction story is lengthy and dominates the article. I suppose that may be normal for a new building, but I would prefer to see some of this split out to a subarticle and summarized here. The first six sections could all be subsections under a single level 2 heading called "Construction," or sections of the subarticle.
• The construction story should start by establishing the need for the building. On first reading, I completely missed the fact that the Welsh assembly is a new government and thought they were just moving to a new building.
• If the building was so advanced and won so many awards, I would think that some engineering journal articles would have been written about it. I did not see any in the citations. Did you search for these?
• Do you think Template:Infobox Modern building would be useful?
• I believe the section "Building details" should be called "Architecture"?
• The first sentence of the "National Assembly complex" confused me at first, because I didn't understand why the complex was relevant. I think it would be clearer to say "The Senedd is part of the National Assembly complex, along with..." to clearly establish the link.
• The "National Assembly complex" could give more context of the site within the city. Is this downtown? A historic district? Is it accessible by public transit or highways? Close to hotels and restaurants? Rundown or vibrant?
• I like to see article sections in order of importance, so I think that "Building Details"/"Architecture" should come first. The overbudgets and fatality will be forgotten with time, but the architecture will be used and remembered.
• What was the media's and the public's reaction? A new seat of government usually gets people's attention, especially when it goes overbudget. So far the story is told as if lawyers and bureaucrats were the only ones who showed any interest in the building.
• What's a "Cwrt"? Is that a Welsh word?

--Yannick (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 October 2009, 12:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics

[edit] Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

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

I've listed this article for peer review because while I want to see if improvements can be made to it in order to move it up to at least GA, I'm wondering about the major differences it has compared to some of the other dog breed articles.

For instance, it's health section is massive - should those enormous paragraphs be culled and potentially moved into their own relevant pages?

Also I'm always wondering if a gallery generally has any place in such an article.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 November 2009, 20:18 UTC)

---

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through some structural and text improvements and the citations have been made more uniform. It is GA for years and it has not received any peer review or FAC in over a year. Most or all of the current results of the automated peer review are because of words in citation titles or inline quotations. Any advice as to how to suppress that would be appreciated (as opposed to just regurgitating its output back to here). Can I somehow URL-ize the strings and thus defeat the tool? Are there any more respectable ways?

Thanks, Findaknow (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by Seegoon

I'm just going to go through this line-by-line, essentially, at first.

Lead

• Two consecutive sentences in the lead start with 'he'.
• "He popularised the gene-centred view of evolution, and the meme." is basically repeated two sentences later: "He came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme."
• "well known"→"well-known"
• "Dawkins is one of the most widely publicised atheists." seems like a fragment of a sentence to me; you can't use a term like this without a frame of reference. For instance, "the world's most widely-publicised".

Early life and education

• "During the second world war, he was called up into the King's African Rifles, based in Kenya, returning to England in 1949, when Richard was eight." I'd venture that there's a neater way of wording all this so that you don't use his first (almost said Christian) name.
• Citations aren't well-distributed throughout the first paragraph; they all simply come at the end. Some specificity would be nice, because it's just not clear which references are for which statements. The same actually applies to the second paragraph too.

Career in academia

• See above re: citations.
• The entire second paragraph needs citations.
• In fact, the whole sections seems a little aimless. What does the last paragraph and quote have to do, specifically, with his career in academia? I'd argue that the answer is nothing.

Career as a popular science writer

• Again, consider structure. Why is the first paragraph located where it is? I'm beginning to feel that his strictly biographical history might be better served in its own section.
• "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales" quotes-within-quotes should use apostrophes.
• See the {{citation needed}} tags I've inserted.
• "Some such as Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett accept the latter." could do with being "Some, such as Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett, accept the latter."
• "Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year." doesn't need four separate citations. However, the first clause "Dawkins... relationship" could do with citation, I feel.
• "Reductionist" could do with linking.
• The meme section is a touch short.
• "Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement and has involved himself with the corresponding organizations." this sentence could do with splitting.
• "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations, published by the American Humanist Association." in what way did he 'sign' it? What is/was it?
• Reading through this section, it's clear that it's basically an exploration of his positions and philosophies; it doesn't really fit under the banner of his 'Career as a popular science writer'. This galvanises my belief that this article needs re-organisation.
• "Dawkins anti-religious stance prompts a wide variety of response."→"Dawkins' anti-religious stance has prompted a wide variety of responses."
• "Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion)" book titles should be in italics.
• "Christian philosopher, Keith Ward explores" needs a comma after Ward.
• I really feel that 'Atheism and rationalism', as a section, is too long. That's not to say that any of it is irrelevant, and I don't think there's any repetition – but it could do with subdivision at least.
• "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion." that's a spaced em dash; it should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em. However, as the whole article uses British English, I'd argue for the former.
• That last paragraph, on the bus campaign, could also do with some distribution of citations.
• As for the first paragraph of 'Criticism of creationism', see above re: citations.
• ""it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." needs a closing quote and consistent ellipses (i.e. a...b a ... b or a... b – I think the second is preferable, although [...] is the least ambiguous form)
• "In 2009, Dawkins expanded on his ideas about purpose, positing archeo- and neo-purpose." this is totally esoteric. Some further explanation would help.

Awards and recognition

• "The Richard Dawkins Award has, since 2003, been award by the Atheist Alliance International" 'awarded'

In general, the article seems damned comprehensive and is a fascinating read about a fascinating bloke. However, I feel it could do with some reshuffling and clearer structuring, perhaps with one about 'beliefs and philosophies'. Your citations look perfect by any standard. If you'd like any further clarification or discourse, I'll be glad to help out. Seegoon (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 November 2009, 22:51 UTC)

---

[edit] Objections to evolution

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

I think this article is close to FA quality, I want to better identify issues that may stop that. Such as:

• Missing objections
• Re-org of objections if confusing/overlapping
• More/better citations
• I've worked hard on Objections_to_evolution#History_of_objections this year addressing Talk:Objections_to_evolution#GA_Review issues, but it could be too large now

With appreciation. - RoyBoy 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments: Overall this is a really nice piece of work. However, I do have a few suggestions that I hope are of some use:

• There is widespread use of the double quotation marks in the text. Are these meant as specific quotations, intended to be ironic, or to signal unusual usage? I'm not completely sure that the current usage is properly encyclopedic. For example, are quotes needed in the following? Are they specifically quoting somebody?
  • Biologists do not consider any one species, such as humans, to be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another.
  • The scientific consensus of biologists, not popular opinion or "fairness",...
  • ...to make them scientific "alternatives" to evolution.
  • The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the "higher ground" biologists claim...
• "...evolution than calling it a "theory" is." It's usually not considered the best form to put an "is" at the end of a sentence. The wording would look more polished if this was addressed.
• "...apparent design of snowflakes is." Ditto.
• "...enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in." is ending a sentence with a preposition.
• "...beneficial to be selected for." Ditto.
• "Critics also state that..."; the 'also' here is an additive term that is redundant, per User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy. Perhaps this can be re-worded in some manner?
• "One of the most recent major objections..." may be considered unnecessary vagueness. How recent was this?
• In the sub-sentence, "...defined by how dogmatic, closed-minded, or zealous its adherents are...", are the 'closed-minded' and 'zealous' statements appropriate or necessary? The text here is only comparing religion to the supposed dogmatism of evolutionary supporters. It says nothing about them being 'closed-minded' and 'zealous'. Thus the wording appears to be deliberately adding extra emotive weight to one side of the argument.
• I think the statement that "...certain fossils, such as polystrate fossils, are seemingly "out of place"." could use a counterargument.
• The paragraph "In addition to complex structures... ...biological origin of these phenomena either." is missing a citation.
• "Many still object to the idea ... have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theistic evolution." Ditto.
• From a readability perspective, I might suggest that a few of the later paragraphs are on the overly long side. Inserting an extra paragraph break or two would make for more pleasant reading.
• An objection I didn't see mentioned was the early but important issue, raised by Lord Kelvin, that evolution hadn't had sufficient time to work because the Earth couldn't be more than a few hundred million years old. (Subsequently refuted of course.) But perhaps you didn't want to delve into that much detail.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm working my way through this article to see if I can add anything to what RJH has noted above. Clicking on the tools in the toolbox on this review page, I see that the link checker finds seven dead links in the citation urls, the dabfinder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets, and the alt text viewer shows that all of the images lack alt text. The latter is meant for readers who can't see the images. Please see WP:ALT for details. All of these things should be fixed before taking the article to FAC. I'll come back in a while and post a few more comments. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting, certainly broad and illuminating. The prose is of professional quality and should be fine at FAC. I made a tiny number of proofing changes, and I have some further thoughts and suggestions.

"Heads and subheads"

• Objections might be raised regarding the section heads, which repeat the main words of the article title over and over again. WP:MOSHEAD says in part, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Although I can usually think of short, snappy heads and subheads to replace long, repetitive ones, in this case I'm unsure. Perhaps (1) "Definition", (2) "History", (3) Scientific acceptance, (3.1) Just a theory, not a fact, (3.2) Controversial or contested, (4) Scientific acceptance, and so on would be better, but this may be a case where the usual guidelines do not apply.

Lead

• "A number of objections to evolution have been raised... " - Tighten by deleting "A number of"?

Defining evolution

• "Humans are led to believe otherwise by our tendency to evaluate nonhuman organisms according to our own, anthropocentric standards, rather than more objective ones." - Wikipedia generally avoids using first person pronouns except in direct quotes. For that reason, I'd suggest using "their tendency" and "their own" rather than "our tendency" and "our own". WP:MOS#First-person pronouns has details.

History of objections

• "as this conflicted with First Vatican Council's (1869-70)" - All date ranges and page ranges in the article should use an en dash rather than a hyphen; e.g. (1869–70).
• "This position has been adopted by denominations of Christianity and Judaism in line with modernist theology which views the Bible and Torah as allegorical removing the conflict between evolution and religion." - Tweak slightly for better flow by adding ", thus" after "allegorical"?

Evolution is unfalsifiable

• The Manual of Style (MOS) advises against using blockquotes for any quotation of less than four lines. The Darwin quote in this section is only two lines on my computer screen. I'd recommend embedding it in the text with ordinary quotation marks. See WP:MOSQUOTE for details.
• "Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than it can currently answer." - "raises" rather than "raised"?

Evolution cannot create complex structures

• The Dawkins' blockquote is only three lines on my screen. It's pretty close to four, so it may be OK.

Evolution cannot create information

• The Answers in Genesis quote is only two lines. I'd suggest embedding this one.

Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

• "teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, immorality, wars, etc. are caused... " - I'd either drop the "etc." or complete the list.
• "Kent Hovind's son Eric Hovind has now taken over the family business while his father is in prison... " - Is it relevant that his father is in prison?

Notes

• Citation 3 has a line of all caps that should be rendered in title case even though the source uses all caps. WP:ALLCAPS has details.
• I see minor variances in the citations that should be eliminated. The date formatting, for example, should be consistent. Most are yyyy-mm-dd, but I see some in m-d-y format. In some citations "page" is abbreviated "p.", but in others it appears as "Pg." They should all be the same. Several of the citations are incomplete. When possible, it's good to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for Internet sources.

References

• The Kitcher ref should take the same form as the refs in "Further reading".

Images

• The license page for Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg lacks a source that can be verified by fact-checkers. You might be able to get the information from the original uploader and add it.
• It's not clear from the image license page for Image:Haeckel drawings.jpg whether the drawing was scanned from the Richardson and Keuck book or whether the book is being cited to support the incorrect attribution claim. In either case, what is the provenance of the original? When was it published? How can a fact-checker be certain that the copyright has expired if no date of publication is included in the description? (Date of creation is not the same as date of publication.)
• What is the source of Image:WilliamPaley.jpg? The given source link is self-referential, and won't be of any help to fact-checkers.

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) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 1 November 2009, 20:58 UTC)

---

[edit] Gray Wolf

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the higher importance Wikiproject Dogs articles, is a former FA and has now dropped down to a B class. A fair amount of edits have occured since the drop and I'd like to get it back up to GA and eventually FA once again - however I'd like to know where to start as I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 31 October 2009, 23:41 UTC)

---

[edit] SENSOR-Pesticides

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a while, and I'm trying to be accountable and make it the best-quality article possible. I expanded and modified the page at the request of my supervisor, who is the head of the program. I've already posted a COI notice on the talk page. However, I firmly believe that the article is neutral and informative. Ultimately, our goal is to have the article reach GA or A-class status, so it's in our best interest to have it be balanced, informative, and good quality - I am NOT interested in creating a promotional piece!

I don't think it will need much copy-editing, but feel free to make any necessary grammatical changes. What I mostly need is commentary on content - whether there is too much or too little detail, whether more explanations or more sections are needed, if anything needs to be expanded or explained, etc. Obviously I encourage anyone with any knowledge or experience in medicine or surveillance to contribute. I also need input from anyone who is well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines or standards (as I am fairly new here).

All I request is that you detail any major changes you make so that I can have a chance to address them.

Thanks, Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 30 October 2009, 19:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Anna Bågenholm

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on taking it to WP:FAC (if it's good enough) and I'd like to get some second opinions and comments before then. Thanks, Theleftorium 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting story, quite new to me. A couple of general points:

• Ref 18 is a dead link
  • Y Done Theleftorium 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• For FAC purposes, all images will require alt-text. If you aren't sure what adding this involves, go to WP:Alt for information and instructions.
  • Y Done Theleftorium 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Prose review (I have made numerous minor fixes; these are the ones I haven't done.)

• Lead
  • "got stuck" is inelegant. I suggest "became trapped"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Values over ten are normally written numerically, per the Wikipedia Maual of Style. Thus "80", not "eighty", "40" not "forty".
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "before", not "until" she was rescued.
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggested sentence reorganisation: "Bågenholm was able to find an air pocket under the ice, but after 40 minutes in the water became clinically dead."
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Although not wrong, the mdash is a bit intrusive, and could be replaced by a simple comma.
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bågenholm woke up paralyzed from the neck down on 30 May 1999, and recovered in an intensive care unit for two months..." No need to repeat the year, and "woke up" can be simply "woke". The end of the sentence is awkward. A more streamlined phrasing for the whole sentence might be: "Bågenholm woke on 30 May, paralyzed from the neck down; she subsequently spent two months recovering in an intensive care unit."
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "she still suffers" and "is currently working" are time-specific statements which should be dated, e.g. "Although she has made an almost full recovery from the incident, late in 2009 she was still suffering..." etc. And: "at the end of 2009 Bågenholm was working..." etc
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Background and incident
  • "29" not "twenty-nine"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bågenholm is an expert skier and usually skied after work." Awkward mixture of tenses, and again, time-specific. Suggest: "An expert skier,[5] Bågenholm usually skied after work" - perhaps "usually" should be "often"?
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Rescue attempts
  • "When Bågenholm struggled in the cold water, she found ..." Needs small revision, e.g. "As Bågenholm first struggled in the cold water, she found..." etc
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ketil Singstad led..." not "lead"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Rescue and recovery
  • "...proceeded the resuscitation attempt." Word missing? (proceeded with the resuscitation attempt")
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Idiomatic English is "operating theatre", not "operating room". However, I'm slightly worried about the large number of doctors (more then a hundred) that apparently got into the theatre in the time indicated. How could such a huge number of medical staff be involved in a single case at the same time, however unusual?
    • N I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think. Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ...."she had to recover in an intensive care unit for two more months. After twenty-eight days, she was flown to Sweden in an ambulance helicopter for the remainder of her recovery..." Can you clarify - was she flown to Sweden in the middle of her two months of extensive care?
    • N I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think. Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Write "Dr" rather than "Doctor"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "According to the journal Proto Magazine by Massachusetts General Hospital, ,..." What does "by" mean here?
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aftermath
  • First sentence: needs full stop, not semicolon, after "brain damage"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...and got to meet..." Awkward, informal. Just "and met"
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "As of October 2009, Bågenholm has made an almost full recovery, although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains.[8] She is now working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved." Same problem of time-specificity as in the lead. Encyclopedias, unlike magazine articles, are long-term accounts which can't be tied down to the here and now. Suggested rephrasing: "As of October 2009 Bågenholm was working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved, having made an almost full recovery although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains."
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The sentence following, about her personal relationship, is not relevant and should be removed.
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Where is Tywyn?
    • Y Done Theleftorium 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think you "appear" in The Lancet. I suggest "...and her case has been discussed in the leading British medical journal The Lancet."
    • Y Done