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: December 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/December 2009 and link them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page. Feel free to improve the article yourself. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.

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: December 7 • List of Case Closed episodes (season 17) • The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest • Giapo December 6 • Battle of Yarmouk December 5 • The Climb (song) • Clarke Carlisle • Siege of Jerusalem (637) • Halley's Comet December 4 • Chronic periodontitis December 3 • History of Sesame Street • Theoren Fleury • Lightning Bar • Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 November 30 • Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 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] Current peer reviews

[edit] Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been working very hard on expanding, cleaning up, and adding sources and refs to it over the past few weeks, starting from a small stub. These changes have occurred since I began work.

I would appreciate any criticism, praise, comments, thoughts, copyedit suggestions, etc, that anyone has for this article. I'd like to eventually nominate it for GA.

Thanks in advance, I.M.S. (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 12 December 2009, 05:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Nathan Drake (character)

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

I am aware that this article is young (very, very young, as it was created yesterday), but I've listed it for peer review because, comparing it to other FA video game character articles, I believe it is close to the quality generally looked for. However, I generally have issues copyediting and finding problems within my own work, so I feel I need other, objective editors to come and tell me what is wrong with it ;). But really, I'd like to hear what others have to say about improving the article to that kind of level.

Thanks and Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Heh, thanks for the kind comparison to Master Chief, but I've been meaning to spruce that guy up for a while... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 11 December 2009, 19:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Australian Open Final appearances

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential for FL. I have expanded the lead, added references and changed elements of the list. I just need some general feedback on further improvements before I nominate it for FL.

Thanks, 03md 23:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 10 December 2009, 23:56 UTC)

---

[edit] SECR K and SR K1 classes

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the prose requires checking before submittal to the FA selection process. Also, any instances where text clarity can be improved to cater for the lay reader would be most welcome.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 10 December 2009, 20:58 UTC)

---

[edit] Territorial era of Minnesota

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

I am hoping for some feedback on this article because it covers such a broad and complex set of issues. I am still doing some polishing but before I went too far polishing I was hoping for a little feedback on the structure and content. Specifically,

• Organization and structure - I have gone for a largely non-chronological organization in order to allow each of the various themes to be discussed more coherently. Thoughts?
• Length - The article is pretty long at this point (some copyediting might cut it down some but not dramatically). Thoughts on that? Is it too long? Are there suggestions on content that is unnecessary?
• Data tables - There are tables regarding populations of different groups. I think these are valuable as they show demographic shifts over time and help illustrate the dynamics. I have debated about using the Show/Hide features so that these don't take up so much room. Also have debated about using graphs for one or more. Any thoughts?
• Other - As mentioned the article still needs scrubbing but any feedback on the writing is still welcome.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Any experts out there with observations on key content that has been left out or understated? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 December 2009, 15:16 UTC)

---

[edit] Marisa Wegrzyn

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

Something I made recently, has been featured on DYK, and I've exhausted my sources. I wondering what this takes to get to GA, whether it be prose, content, more sources, whatever. I'm working on getting a free picture.

Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 9 December 2009, 01:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Bizenghast

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved B-class and I would like to know how it can be further improved. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 23:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Eshmun Temple

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i watched it grow from a mere stub and am very proud it got to GA status, i think it can go further than GA, i need your suggestions on how i may ameliorate the article.

Thanks, Eli+ 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Great!, my request is invisible Eli+ 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 15:24 UTC)

---

[edit] RAJUK Uttara Model College

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major make-over but it needs more . i want wikipedia contributors to have a look at this article and provide suggestions regarding prose and other problems that the article has and also about what can be done to improve the article. Thanks, Souvik.arko (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 05:58 UTC)

---

[edit] YuYu Hakusho

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

I've listed YuYu Hakusho for peer review because I've tried to do extensive work on the article this past year. I'm relatively new to writing about anime articles, so I need some guidance. I lack pretty much any and all print material and have relied mostly on online sources for citation, so any feedback on how the article can be improved as is would be appreciated.

Thanks, Hibana 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) The article looks very good, I'll see what else I can comment:

• The encyclopedia section from Anime News Network is not a reliable source since it's user edited.Y
• Urls from amazon contain unnecessary parts: for example "http://www.amazon.com/Yu-Hakusho-Spirit-Detective-Yusuke/dp/B00005T30G/ref=sr_1_6/103-3991382-5456658?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1194325422&sr=8-6" can be changed to "http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005T30G/"Y
• The production section seems good so it doesn't seem to need the tag.Y
• Some references from the volumes need to be formatted in cite book template.Y
• In a recent GA, I have been told that Comipress is not a reliable source (though it wasn't discussed yet).

Comment: I've seen sales numbers ranging from 40 to 47 million copies, but all from unreliable sources. I will leave it until a discussion takes place or I find a more substantial figure. ~ Hibana 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Add alternate text to the infobox picture. Y
• Translate references titles into English using trans_title, making sure not to use square brackets cause it ruins it.Y
• Refs 44, 46, 47 need to say that they are in Japanese.Y
• adjacent wikilinks as seen in Nielsen ratings and Cartoon Network can be misleading to the viewer. Rearrange the sentence?Y

Comment from KrebMarkt
About File:YuYu Hakusho volume 1.jpg and only about it.

• Can you explain why replaced Japanese cover with English cover? I wonder on which guidelines you made that decision
• The FUR is screwed up as it was suitable for the Japanese cover and not for English cover. So it will fail in case of a GA review.
• For information replacing Japanese with English equivalent or the reverse without proper discussion and consensus to do so can be now reverted since that discussion.Resolved. --KrebMarkt 10:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 December 2009, 00:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Giapo

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be cleaned up for wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, Lukejtharries (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 22:57 UTC)

---

[edit] The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

Previous peer review

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

Just needs a few fresh eyes for copyediting before FA submission. Thanks, ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 22:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Peter Heywood

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

Peter Heywood has been described as the third man of the Bounty mutiny – less well-known than Captain Bligh or Fletcher Christian, but with a fascinating story of his own that combines exotic islands, piracy on the high seas, shipwreck, capture, court martial, death sentence...and rehabilitation. His story throws some fascinating light, too, on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century. Comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs) regarding images

• File:Nunnery Isle of Man.jpg - Pre-1.1.1923 publication (1913) is verifiably sourced, but where is the 1825 date from? I'm sure I've just overlooked it.
• File:Yasmina.Bounty.JPG - The OTRS ticket (which is one of the best I've seen in terms of documentation) releases this only as CC-by 3.0. It shouldn't be using a GFDL license (and certainly not one with a "self" modifier, at that). Just shouldn't be using the "self" modifier.
• File:William Bligh - Project Gutenberg eText 15411.jpg - Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years is only applicable to unpublished works in the U.S. This is a published work (per the source, a publication), so the license should be one based on a publication term (e.g. {{PD-US}}).
• File:Mutiny HMS Bounty.jpg - Source is a dead link (although sufficient information is present to support the license tag). Any chance of finding a working link?
• I tweaked a few of the others to remove bare URLs/add source links/etc. The above are minor issues; overall, images look well done indeed. Эlcobbola _talk 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above. I can't for the life of me find where I got 1825 from - I'll keep looking, but otherwise I'll amend this information. I'm not clear what if anything I should do about the Yasmina image details. I have replaced the licence on the Bligh portrait with PD-US and have found a live link for the mutiny picture. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• When a license has a "self" modifier, it adds "I, the copyright holder,..." as a header, a statement which reflects on the uploader. Therefore, when the uploader and author are different people/entities, it shouldn't be used. I've made the correction (here, so you can see the difference). Эlcobbola _talk 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• No luck with 1825. I have altered the date information to "Unknown, probably early 19th century" ehich is the best I can manage for the present. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Fascinating read. I knew the story in general. I imagine this is heading for FAC so you'll want me to work it over thoroughly.

General comments:

Is the fact that Nordhoff and Hall used Heywood as the basis for the narrator in Mutiny on the Bounty worthy of mention?

I don't think so. Nordhoff and Hall's semi-fictionalised account has a lot to answer for, and I'd prefer to leave such a non-historical source well alone. Brianboulton (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying use them as a reference. However, since many people get their impressions of the Bounty mutiny from N&H or the subsequent movie, would a mention that Heywood was the basis for Byam be untoward?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this. This article is about the historical Peter Heywood; the Byam business is a bit of fiction. If this is included, it may not be long before someone raises the Charles Laughton film and asks who played Byam in that (Franchot Tone, incidentally). Let me ponder this, and maybe seek other opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the point drop, but let me ask you this: Would anyone care about Heywood today if he wasn't the basis for Byam? The ship is never far from the narrative. Perhaps a footnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I put in a footnote, where do you think should I cite it to? Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any of your references mention it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You could try this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd forgotten that Dening (p. 330) mentions the Heywood/Byam fiction. I will add the footnote with appropriate citation. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede:

First sentence bugs me. I don't like leading in with the fact that he was condemned to death. I also think the paragraph should be a bit longer. Can we do it as three sentences, first mentioning that he was aboard the ship at the time of the mutiny, second mentioning that he was tried convicted sentenced to death and then pardoned, and the third dealing with his later naval career?

I, too, wasn't happy about the opening. I've tried the three-sentence version you suggest - is that better? Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a modest change, change it if you don't like it.

Strictly speaking, PH wasn't a midshipman. He was mustered as a seaman but given the privileges of a midshipman or junior officer. As this point is made later, best to avoid confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are chronological difficulties with the lede. Bligh's return to England preceded the dispatch of the Pandora; though he was not in England at the time of Heywood's court-martial.

I've dealt with the chronology problem. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The one, unattributed comment about the three seamen being hung while Heywood was spared is an awfully thin reed for the treatment you give it in the lede. "And summed it so well that it came to far more/Than the witnesses ever had said". Carroll.

I am dealing with this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Later) Professor Dening has more to say about this. Hough's anonymous commentator was evidently quoting press reports to the effect that money was buying freedom. The same press reported (wrongly) that Heywood stood to inherit a large fortune. Dening sums up that "in the end it was class or relations or patronage that made the difference." I've dropped the Hough reference and included the Dening stuff in the text; I believe the sentence in the lead, which I have also amended, is now justified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, aren't you overstating it a bit when you say that Heywood benefited from the Christian family's activities? No particular benefit is mentioned.

He certainly benefitted. Their activities, specifically publication of the Appendix, did a lot to discredit Bligh and to make Heywood (and of course Fletcher Christian) appear as a victims. So we have senior naval people busting themselves to compensate by promoting Heywood regardless of their own rules and regulations. One of those who supported his application for promotion to lieutenant was Captain Cloberry Christian, Fletcher's cousin. I will add that tiny nugget to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the material on the fates of the Bounty men be drawn out into its own subsection? I refer to the material on Bligh and also to the "Oh dear" paragraph which ends the article? I realize you are playing with a limited number of cards, but the shifting focus between Heywood and his former shipmates is a bit confusing. Of course that has its own perils, looked at in isolation it may not be truly necessary to the article, but then you're going to wind up with a fairly short article. Can you find anything more about the specifics of Heywood's naval career?

I don't think a separate subsection for the fates of the Bounty men is necessary. As the mutiny and court martial were the main events of Heywood's life it is reasonable that a few lines be taken up briefly recording what happened to those closest to him in these events: Bligh who denounced him, Hayward and Hallett who incriminated him, Fletcher Christian the fons et origo (I have dropped Morrison whose story is rather separate from Heywood's). On a few occasions in the article I have had to stray from the strict Heywood storyline to fill in general details about the mutiny and/or other people, but I don't think this has been overdone. I could of course include more about Heywood's naval career, but this would be routine stuff. He was basically a hydrographer and saw little by way of action; this is a summary encyclopedia article not a detailed biog. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, a blah expedition or three will bore everyone, stick to what he is known for.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More later. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes on the aftermath of the court martial before I dig in (later today or tomorrow):

You indicate that the condemned sailors according to some accounts maintained their innocence and according to others maintained their manly bearing. According to the witness account on p. 283 of Hough (I have the American edition, there may be page differences) , Millward "confessed the errors they had been guilty of, acknowledged the justice of their sentences ...". And from what I recall reading of the court martial, Ellison at least pretty much admitted everything and blamed his youth. I'm wondering if that leaves the reader with the false impression the sailors were unjustly convicted (by the standards of the day). I haven't read Alexander, and she may take a much more impassioned view of things, but ...

Alexander identifies Hough's "unidentified fellow" as an officer of the Brunswick who reports much as per Hough's account. However, she says: "Accounts of the last words of these now forlorn mutineers differed widely...according to the popular press the men persisted to the last moment of their existence that they were totally innocent of the crime for which they were to suffer." So I have presented both possibilities, according to the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Lord Hood himself offered Heywood a place in his vessel? That is certainly a huge slap in the face at Bligh. Also, perhaps a mention of Bligh's involvement in the Nore mutiny, something often overlooked when reciting the litany of his "tyranny"? Also I'd be careful about calling the Tahitans who went to Pitcairn "volunteer". They were at the least deceived. I don't expect the huge Tahitan lobby at WP to rise up in horror at you, but it still might be a good idea to find a different word.

I have included a phrase about Hood's offer of patronage. The point about a slap in the face for Bligh is I think already made. Mention of Bligh's role in the Nore mutiny would be a little off-topic in this article. As to the last point, you are dead right. Only a few of the Tahitians were volunteers, they were mainly duped or coerced. So I've altered "volunteer" to "conscript". Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A more organized critique later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Early life:

"long-standing roots" An odd phrase. Possibly a mixed metaphor, or it may be redundant. Hmmm. I'd suggest a rephrase anyway.

Rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"before a change of fortune in 1781 brought them back to Douglas, following the father's appointment as manager of the Duke of Atholl's Manx properties." Wordy. Why not just say "before the father's appointment as manager of the Duke of Atholl's Manx property brought them back to Douglas"?

I'm always glad to cut the wordcount, so I've adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The various ways you refer to Peter Heywood Sr. are confusing. Perhaps stick to one? Also, the Heywood who went to stay with Bligh is obviously the teenager, but someone is bound to question that at some stage.

I've called him "Peter John Heywood" except where, to avoid close repetition, he once becomes "the father". I have clarified that it was the young Heywood who went to stay with Bligh. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been reading John Diefenbaker's memoirs, probably my next project. Anyhoo, here's the next batch:

Outward journey

"ten years previously". The reader has to either look back or look forward to see we are in 1787, suggest the year of Bligh's visit be stated.

"No mention ... ". Hmph. It's an interesting anecdote, but trying to use a negative to prove something is difficult. Would a sixteen year old boy mention this in a letter home to his parents? Imagine a sixteen year old kid today at boarding school mentioning his punishments in the letter (I suppose email, these days) home. If this had significance to Dening, it might be wise to attribute an opinion to him.

Can anything be put in this section about Fletcher Christian? Except for a brief mention of the distant relationship between their families, we have no mention of him yet, but the next section will find them farming breadfruit together. Or, alternatively, the previous section ...

In Tahiti

Heywood and Christian. Christian? Who's he? You haven't explained what was his position on the Bounty (I am laughing as I write this).

"a list that contained the names of Christian and Heywood, among others." If it was just a list of names, with no other information, suggest "a list of names, including those of Christian and Heywood". If there was other info on the list, you might want to say, but I'm guessing there wasn't.

"in Hough's words," Just wanted to comment, nice turn of phrase there, I'll probably steal it.

Mutiny

Just one comment: Is it worth having a main template to Mutiny on the Bounty? I know you've linked to it, but ...

Seizure of Bounty

"that the young man's treachery was as deep as that of Christian". Perhaps a little strong. How about "that Heywood was as guilty as Christian" (or complicit, if you like).

"report to his wife" It is a bit awkward that the account of Bligh's boat voyage follows after the report of the report to his wife. Perhaps a brief phrase could be put before the report to wife, saying how he got to Coupang? I don't know, it is a bit awkward either way.

I have reworded this bit, simply referring to Bligh's letter to Betsy. Readers know from the lead that Bligh survived after an epic open-boat journey, and I don't think we have provide more detail at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hayward". Perhaps have that he stated that Heywood said this thing. I'd also lose the near-namesake, suggest "shipmate" or "fellow midshipman"

Fugitive:

"group of native volunteers" suggest "a number of Tahitian men and women".

"some private information" Was this the message to Edward Christian Hough writes about?

No, Heywood did not divulge this information to anyone. In a footnote I have summarised Hough's conjectures about the nature of this information based on Ch. 12 of his book, but it is just supposition. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

More later. It's a good read.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your issues on the Outward journey, Tahiti, Seizure and Mutiny sections have been addressed per your suggestions subject to my couple of notes. Thanks for this help, and I look forward to more (if/when you can tear yourself away from Diefenbaker). Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for giving time to the colonies

Prisoner

Pandora voyage

"Tahiti fugitives". Odd phrase, I know what you are trying to say, but ... any other way I can think of will take several more words, so don't have any great ideas here.

"Captain Edwards vainly sought from the native population information concerning Bounty's whereabouts" The phrasing is strained, but again I have no great alternative.

Found a slightly better wording. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"during the period of his captivity." Suggest shorten, "during his captivity" - Yes, OK, done.

"were allowed on deck only twice". I had to read this several times to guess that they were not actually in Batavia, but in a ship in Batavia harbour.

Clarified that they were held on a ship in Batavia harbour. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth

'his narrative contained what he later described as "the errors of an imperfect recollection".' Perhaps a little more info on why this was a problem. I'm gathering, with my lawyer hat on, that what he said then varied from what his lawyer and him agreed he should say later, and far worse than that, was in writing?

You are about right, there. I have expanded a little. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"of the Hector," This is the first time I've seen a ship name with "the" before it. I merely note it as something for the MilHist brigade member to look at.

For consistency I have delete "the" before ship names (I may have overlooked the odd one, of course) Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"ardent poems" Ardent carries to me a suggestion of romance, which of course was not the case. Perhaps another word?

I'm not sure you are right - read the stuff in here. Ardent means passionate, and the poems are surely that. Would "passionate" be a better word? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Court martial

Ah, the good stuff, when Queeg finally gets his. Oh sorry, wrong epic.

"Heywood opened his defence ..." Might want to mention he had his counsel read the statement. - Agreed & done

"Under cross-examination " Lawyer hat (wig?) back on. If Cole were called by the defence, defence questioning of him is not cross examination. Perhaps things were different in 1789. Perhaps "under questioning by Heywood" (or Heywood's counsel) Is it customary in Britlish to put a hyphen in cross examination?

Cole et al were prosecution witnesses - remember there were 10 defendents being tried together. Cole and Fryer may have partly exonerated Heywood but their evidence was crucial to the condemnation of others. We do put a hyphen in "cross-examination", but to avaoid difficulty I have removed the word. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Heywood also managed to cast doubts ..." Probably would be helpful to mention that Heywood was talking about Heyward's testimony that Heywood had laughed at Bligh.

Wording clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Muspratt. Wouldn't take many words to say that it was a legal technicality that reprieved him. OK, done.

"A belief that" Suggest "A report that" OK, done

Later life

Naval career

"facts in the Appendix were substantially accurate" Suggest "allegations" or "assertions" rather than facts (gets you a nice bit of assonance too!) OK. done

"In 1803, at the early age of 31, Heywood was promoted to Post-Captain". Does Alexander say it was an "early age"? It seems to me that promotion is always swifter in wartime! And the RN in that day had very hidebound promotion practices.

Alexander doesn't say earlier, be she draws attention to the fact that Heywood became a captain at a significantly earlier age that Bligh.

Adams and Pitcairn: From what I can see in a quick search, Pitcairn was rediscovered in 1808, not 1809, though the sentence is ambiguous, it may suggest that Adams gave that statement in 1809. Can you clarify? It is helpful to know when Adams gave the statement as a considerable period of time had passed, during which Adams had certainly had other things on his mind.

You are right about discovery in 1808. Thestatement quoted by Alexander was given by Adams much later, in 1825. This has now been clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Retirement and death

"wrote papers relating to his profession" Naval officer? Hydrographer? Mutineer?

Source doesn't say, but I guess not the last of the above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all I have. Very nicely done. Can we look forward to a series of mutinous articles? Back to Dief.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, most helpful. I had to use Google to tell me who Diefenbaker was, so well known is he over here (and I was a politics student, too). Further mutinies - well, not hte Caine, but...maybe. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I had time to kill at the airport in Regina and they had an exhibit on him, and my reaction is "Gee, wonder what his Wikipedia article's like". I don't think we have an FA for a Canadian PM yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 21:22 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)

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

I've listed this article for peer review so I can prepare it for a featured list nomination. Since my English has been noted to be bad, I decided to get the peer review done before I finished the episode summaries. I have done up to 513. I'm pretty sure most of my problems are found in the summaries.

Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 7 December 2009, 04:47 UTC)

---

[edit] Eastern Front (World War II)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I belive that this is a very important part of Human history and definied the next 40 of history (1950-1990). This article deserves to become an FA.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Although this is an interesting article about an important subject, I note several problems that will prevent it from becoming GA or FA in its present condition. Ealdgyth has mentioned the incomplete or malformed citations. Here's a short list of other significant problems.

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds 15 wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• The alt text viewer shows that the article's images need alt text. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. WP:ALT has details. Suitable alt text is required for FA.
• The link checker finds two dead urls in the citations.
• Large sections of the article lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except the lede paragraphs), every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged. A general bibliography or reading list can't substitute for inline citations that support the article's claims. WP:V and WP:RS have details.
• Image:Reichstag flag original.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article.
• Claims challenged by "citation needed" tags should be addressed.
• Links to external sites should be replaced by inline citations.
• The existing lead serves as an essay-like introduction rather than a lead as defined by WP:LEAD. Ideally, the lead should be a summary or abstract of the entire article rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text.

It's difficult to track down reliable sources for material added in the past by other editors, and it can't be done in a hurry. However, until the article is fully sourced, it's not stable. For that reason, it's probably too soon to do a detailed analysis of the prose and of all possible Manual of Style issues. After the problems above have been addressed, please bring the article back to PR. I'd be glad to do a follow-up review that looks more closely at details. Meanwhile, I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 21:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Greeks

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 seen substantial work and would like to improve it further. Looking forward to general hints and tips as well as comments on more serious errors I might have missed.

Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton: A few comments, not a full review, unfortunately:-

• A disambiguation link needs fixing (click on link in box top-right of this page for details)
• Dead links, refs [2] and [9]
• Some of your foreign language sources do not indicate the language used.
• Infobox confusion:-
  • "Total population" might be construed as population of Greece rather than of Greeks, so I think I'd change this to something like "World population of Greeks". But the question then arises: are the same rules as to who are "Greeks" being applied in all countries in the following list? For example, if 3 million in the US claim Greek descent, on what basis is the population figure of 1,350,000 arrived at?
  • "Regions with significant populations": first, you should specify significant Greek populations; second, what you have listed are countries, not regions; third, I don't know how you are defining "significant", but surely Turkey's Greek population of 2,500 can't be considered as a "significant" number (about one sixtieth of one percent of the world Greek population)? Same is true, I think, for all the countries in the list after Argentina.
  • Language: Greek – surely this applies to Greece rather than Greeks as a whole? Most of those outside Greece will speak the language of their countries of adoption?
  • Religion: "Greek Orthodox" is not a religion, it is a subset of Christianity. But I would question whether it is right, in any event, to assume that all Greeks, anywhere in the world, adhere to the Orthodox Church, even nominally. Most French people are Roman Coatholics, but some aren't.
  • Footnote confusion: in the infobox you are using a, b, c etc for footnotes. In the main text your first footnote is "1", but for your second you use "a", which means there are two footnotes marked "a" in the article.
  • Finally, is this the right infobox for the lead? It seems to me that the box in the Identity section, (together with the four photos) should be the lead infobox, with the population statistics incorporated somewhere else. Think about it.

Sorry I don't at present have time for more comments, but I hope these remarks are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, thank you very much for taking the time to read through the article and make the above comments. I will begin implementing them presently. Again thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 12:10 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Canaan episodes

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's good enough to be a featured list, and I'd like to get some feedback so that can happen soon. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Most FLs do not have "this is a list of blah episodes". Try "The episodes of Canaan is directed by Masahiro Ando."
• 428: Fūsa Sareta Shibuya de has been wikified too many times - linking it once is enough.
• Choose between Canaan and CANAAN and keep it consistent.
• Please alternative text to the pictures.
• Pictures should not be restricted to allow for user preference.
• A DVD release table should be created. Look at List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes#Volume DVDs for an example.
• The publisher field of references should be filled in.
• Translate the titles of the references into English where possible.
• Please use reliable sources for the list. What makes the following sources reliable?

• "【TGS2008】「428 the animation」TYPE-MOON監修シナリオ、TVアニメに" (in Japanese). 2008-10-12. http://www.gpara.com/article/cms_show.php?c_id=9929&c_num=56. Retrieved 2008-09-01. 
• "CANAAN (2009)" (in Japanese). All Cinema. http://www.allcinema.net/prog/show_c.php?num_c=334111. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
• "428 ～封鎖された渋谷で～" (in Japanese). 2008-09-10. http://blog.livedoor.jp/humanity6/archives/51207598.html. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
• "AT-X『CANAAN（カナン）』7月22日より放送開始。" (in Japanese). http://www.saiani.net/article/122033962.html. Retrieved 2009-06-23. 
• "MOON PHASE 雑記 June 6, 2009 entry" (in Japanese). 2009-06-06. http://d.hatena.ne.jp/moonphase/20090606#p5. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 

• Amazon is not generally seen as a reliable source and refs 16-24 are from Amazon. Please use publisher's refs or third-party refs if possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Extremepro (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Timothy Perper (talk · contribs)

The summaries are imprecise and need a lot of work -- see the Talk page for some examples. I can't do that since I have no idea what the author is driving at in a number of places. I also think there's too much detail, but that may be a matter of taste. It's a good first start, but it needs a lot of work. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 6 December 2009, 05:48 UTC)

---

[edit] The Climb (song)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It only needs some copy-editing jobs and minor details to take care of.

Thanks, ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 22:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Clarke Carlisle

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it must be fairly close to Good Article standard, so just looking for any general comments and improvements that people might have to get it to GA.

Thanks, -- BigDom 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• One quick drive-by comment - "As of 2009, Carlisle lives in Ripponden with his wife, Gemma, and his two children" Stating "his children" as opposed to "their children" could be read as implying that they are his children but not his wife's (i.e. they are from another relationship). Can you confirm either way.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, changed to make it clearer. -- BigDom 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 21:14 UTC)

---

[edit] Zygoballus sexpunctatus

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

I've listed this article for peer review because although I believe it is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, there's always the possibility that someone else could come up with ideas for improving it. I'm especially interested in discussion of how/if it is possible to get subjects with very little information available up to featured article status.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I too will be interested to see how this does at FAC... personally, I abstain from submitting anything less than 20k of Wiki text to avoid any possible "too short" mentality, but I'm rooting for ya here. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Sasata (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• shouldn't the authority be Peckham & Peckham, 1888, and the authority for the older synonym (not included in the taxobox) be Hentz, 1845?
  • The convention (in zoology at least) is to list the authority as the author of the earliest description. If the name is changed from the original, the authority is listed in parentheses, otherwise it is listed plain.
• where was the first species found? (ok, I see it later in the hab & dist section)
• range map needs a caption
  • Done.
• link specific name, subgeneric, classification
  • Done.
• any more info on the subfamily Dendryphantinae? How many species does it include? What characteristics are common? What source tells us the subfamilial placement?
  • Dendryphantinae includes hundreds of species. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to describe the subfamily in a species article, as it is neither immediately above or below the species taxon. It would make sense to describe it in the Zygoballus article, however, so that the reader can understand why all Zygoballus spiders are classified under Dendryphantinae, otherwise we would be duplicating the same text across every Zygoballus species article. I should also note that Dendryphantinae is not easy to describe. It would take at least a paragraph (with lots of jargon) to give a basic explanation for what Dendryphantinae consists of. I've added a source for the classification though.
• make sure to put a non-breaking space when using the abbreviated genus name (including the figure captions) to prevent unsightly line wraps
  • Good idea.
• images needs alt text
  • Done.
• spider anatomy jargon words needs to be better explained so that a reader doesn't have to click other articles to get the gist of what's being described. This is especially true in the lead.
  • See if you like it now.
    • Much better now... even a high school student could understand it. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Mouthparts of male Z. sexpunctatus" figure caption: tell the reader what kind of view this is (frontal? overhead?)
  • Done.
• "...and as wide as long." sounds odd to me... I would use "...and as wide as it is long."
  • Done.
• femora in Description needs relinking (and explaining)
  • I've described the femora in the lead and relinked it in the description.
• "The female can best be distinguished by the form of the epigyne." Yes, but how is it different?
  • No source describes the difference so I'm not sure there's anything I can do about this vagueness.
• "Drawing of Z. sexpunctatus epigyne" figure caption... what am I looking at here? What are the circular things?
  • No source describes the epigyne, so I would only be speculating if I tried myself.
• what's a sweep net?
  • Linked.
• link courtship display
  • Linked.
• Any more detail about the courtship displays or agonistic behavior?
  • Probably not. See discussion on article talk page. The only information available is a one-paragraph abstract which mentions the species. I could add a lot of info from the videos linked in the External links section, but I'm afraid it would either be considered original research or not a verifiable source.

• Anything from here? Sasata (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's the same source as the videos mentioned above (David Hill). Do you think I could claim it's a reliable source without getting ripped to shreds at FAC? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes (even definitely yes), seeing as he appears to be the general editor of a scientific journal about jumping spiders. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, see Talk:Zygoballus sexpunctatus#David Edwin Hill videos and webpages as reliable sources. More to come. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• link sexual maturity
  • Done.
• re: life cycle - when are the eggs laid? How much time from laying to hatching?
  • No information is available on this. The entire life cycle section is derived from a single row in a table in one article. All the information it is possible to glean from the table is included in the article.
• book references needs locations (else you'll get nailed by Fifelfoo at FAC)
  • Ack.
• need more consistency with capitalization of journal titles... maybe just stick with sentence case
  • Good point.(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 20:25 UTC)

---

[edit] 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt

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

I'd like to add this to my queue of future FACs. I think it's not far from there now, and would appreciate whatever thoughts people are willing to provide about improving it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Thorough account of a now rather distant political cause celebre which makes entertaining reading. No dablinks, no broken external links, all alt text in place. For obvious reasons I have largely confined my comments to the prose, and many are no more than suggestions that you might consider.

Steve Smith response: Outstanding work as, always; I'll implement most of these suggestions in the next few days. In the meantime, I've responded to a few points/requested some clarification below (my comments in bold). Steve Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lead
  • I have resized the lead image - no reason for it to be so small. Is it possible to identify the cabinet members, at least those who appear in the story?
    • They're all identified on the image description page. I could add them to the caption, but you say below that my captions tend to be too long already. Thoughts?
      • It's not a major issue. If it was me I'd put the names in and make an exception of the caption length, but it's your decision. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • First sentence - confusion towards the end. And MLA should have an appropriate link. I suggest, for clarity, "...by a backbench group of legislative assembly members (MLAs) from his Social Credit party."
  • "...before being elected in 1935." suggest "...before his election victory in 1935."
  • Perhaps "insurgents" is too strong a term for parliamentary rebels? Could they not be termed just "rebels"?
  • (amused aside) A political party that calls itself "Social Credit" wins an election, then has to call in experts from Britain to show it how to implement Social Credit! You would have thought they mght have found this out a bit earlier.
    • You'd think. Aberhart was a bit of a catastrophe.
  • Overall, the lead could do with a bit of expansion if it is reflect the whole content of the article.
• Background:
  • Suggested rephrase: "he repeated them so often that..."
  • Link caucus - it's not much of an article but better than nothing
• Genesis of a revolt
  • "...Aberhart would not or could not implement that system on which they had been elected." Suggest rephrase: "...Aberhart would not or could not implement the policies on which the party had been elected."
    • I'm concerned that "policies" might imply too much specificity; they really weren't elected so much on policies, per se, as on a vague promise of ending the Depression through the magic of "social credit". Mind you, "system" might be too strong too. Maybe "promises"?
      • Yes, promises looks right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Awkward prose: "...began to meet in Edmonton's Corona hotel to, as Ernest Manning biographer Brian Brennan puts it, "plot Aberhart's downfall". First, did they "begin to meet" or did they "meet"? Secondly, we haven't been told who Manning is. Thirdly, I'd place the comma after "hotel", and thus run the sentence as "met in Edmonton's Corona hotel, to "plot Aberhart's downfall" according to Canadian author Brian Brennan, biographer of future premier Ernest Manning."
  • Repetitive phrasing: "Ross resigned over ... Cockroft resigned over" I'd make the second "left", and I'd say "a combination" rather than "some combination".
  • Full ministerial titles are considerable mouthfuls, and make reading arduous work. Do we really need to know the full portfolios of Chant, Cross and Fallow? Maybe they could ne just "ministers"? There is also one and too many in the sentence dealing with Manning's illness.
  • "It limited its commitment...": both these "its" need specifying. ("The speech limited the government's commitment...")
• The dissent becomes overt
  • Not really a Wikipedia section title - these don't normally begin with "The..." and are usually telegraphic, e.g. "Open dissent"
  • "...this call was endorsed by Social Credit backbencher Blue." Reads oddly, suggest call him Albert Blue. I'd also give Ansley his first name when reintroducing him to the story.
  • "...they began a filibuster" Specify who.
  • We need a reminder of who "Brown" is.
• Sideshows: coronations and recall petitions
  • Not an encyclopedic heading, I'm afraid. There was one coronation and one recall petition The main subject of the section is the recall petition, and I'd title it just that.
  • Pronoun confusion: "Douglas, challenged by Hargrave for the leadership of the social credit movement and under attack by some of his followers for a lack of cooperation with the world's first social credit government, offered to host him..." It is not clear who is meant by "his" and "him".
  • More repetitive phrasing: the words "the petition" at the end of the section are not necessary.
• Manoeuvring and negotiation
  • Isn't "maneuvering" the US spelling (which I believe this article uses)?
    • I aimed for Canadian spelling, rather than US (hence "rumour", "favour", "labour", "travelled", "channelling") or British (hence "emphasized", "authorized") - we're a bit of a schizophrenic lot. I'm actually not positive about the Canadian spelling of that one, though - I'll check it out.
  • For clarity I suggest "...and the motion itself was defeated."
  • Social Credit Measures Act in italics?
  • Why the confusion over dates? Here, April 8 or 12, earlier March 11 or 12
    • My best explanation is that scholars of Alberta political history are sloppy. I don't know - I'm just repeating what the sources say, and the sources can't seem to get their shit together. I might resort to some primary sources to settle the discrepancy, if I can find them.
  • Final sentence lacks clarity on Brown's warning. A slight tweak would give "The bill was passed, and the insurgents were placated, though Brown made it clear during a cross-province speaking tour that they were determined to see social credit implemented, and warned that 'if anyone gets in our way, he's going to get into trouble...we must choose between principles and party, between Social Credit and Premier Aberhart'."
• Social Credit Board and commission
  • "was composed of" → "comprised"
  • What is the "Executive council"? Is this another term for "cabinet"?
  • "MacLachlan ... arrived in London May 9, where he met with Douglas at his fishing lodge." A fishing lodge in London?
  • "Douglas refused to come himself..." Say where he refused to come to.
• Aftermath
  • Who is Joe Unwin?
• Images
  • In each case we are told "author unknown" and in the licenses that the author died more than 50 years ago. How do we know?
    • I think you misread the license - they're in the public domain because they're of Canadian origin and were taken before January 1, 1949. Life of the author has nothing to do with it (Canadian copyright law as it pertained to photos used to be kind of odd that way).
  • Do we know that the images are PD in the US? Only the last of the images has a license which indicates that this is the case.
    • All are in the PD in the US by virtue of being in the PD in the country of origin as at the date of restoration. I'll tag that to make it clear.
  • In most cases the captions are rather too long, and should be shortened.
  • Trivial point: if the depicted archdeacon is an Anglican, his title is "The Venerable" not "The Reverend".
    • I know less than nothing about this sort of thing, and am just copying the sources. Is there any denomination that has Archdeacons that would be called "The Reverend"? Would it be correct if I just left it as "Archdeacon S. H. Middleton", or is the honorific mandatory?
      • I don't know of any other denomination that has archdeacons. It would be fine to omit the honorific. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help. As I am not able to watch individual PRs, please use my talkpage for any queries, complaints etc. Thanks anyway for an interesting read on a subject entirely new to me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 16:45 UTC)

---

[edit] Halley's Comet

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

I've listed this article for peer review because while I think I've patched up most of the major holes, I would like it checked for scientific accuracy and also any stylistic or similar issues before taking it to FAC

Thanks, Serendi^podous 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 14:03 UTC)

---

[edit] Venues of the 2016 Summer Olympics

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 FLC.

Regards, Felipe Menegaz 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu (talk)

Lead:

• "will be an international multi-sport event to be held in Rio de Janeiro..." – Unlink "international" and remove "to be";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Choose between "pre-exisiting" or "existing", when referring to the venue status;

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why are golf and rubgy sevens frequently capitalized?

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any developments on the IGF decision concerning the golf venue?

No. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Rio de Janeiro is planning to hold all the competitions inside the city..." – Rio de Janeiro or ROCOG?

Both. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But ROCOG already includes city officials, no? In my opinion ROCOG suits better, but I won't make a fuss over it.

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• "...officialy known as Jornalista Mário Filho Stadium..." – Forgot an "l" in "officially";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

General:

• I don't see the need to explicit in every section title that they are competition venues, unless you also have sections for non-competition venues, which you don't;

Based on List of 2008 Summer Olympics venues. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I think that the Beijing page should have that dealt with in some way, as well. Actually, I don't know why there aren't any mentions to the non-competition venues, such as the Olympic Village, MPC and IBC in these pages...

Working on it. Felipe Menegaz 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the Olympic venues were already used for the 2007 Pan Ams, so you should add some adequately licensed images of those. If you do, don't forget to add a proper alt text;

What about add pictures (some non-free) to the tables? Felipe Menegaz 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, provided the tables are kept simple and their layout isn't majorly disrupted. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove that "Pic." header and place the image column under the "Venue" header. It's a pity that they appear so small... If you didn't add images for all venues, then you could place those images outside the tables, but I prefer to have pics if they are available. We gotta find a way of having them all, but bigger. I will think of something. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking to add lots of iformation such as coordinates, building cost, constructions years, location (Olympic zone), etc. We gotta find a way of having them all... Felipe Menegaz 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are plenty of redirects and some of them should be fixed.

Working on it. Felipe Menegaz 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Carioca (talk)

Red links:

• There are several red links in this page. Are you planning to create articles for each one of the red links?

Yes. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• There is a typo in the Notes section: 'Although the official opening of the games is scheduled to be on August 5, 2016, football matchs will begin on August 3" – Forgot an "E" in "matches";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Competition venues:

• Are you planning to add images to all the competition venues (the following sections lack images, at the moment: Existing competition venues, Temporary competition venues and Competition venues outside Rio de Janeiro)?

Yes. I stopped because I was thinking in adding the non-free images to the existing venues. These venues will be renovated and would be interesting to use the non-free images to show how they will look like in 2016. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 5 December 2009, 00:19 UTC)

---

[edit] Tchaikovsky and the Five

Previous peer review

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

This is an article on a known and important but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and determine his course as a creative personality. Since the last peer review this article received, it has been improved considerably, thanks in no small part from the input received. However, it still needs work and input before it is ready to be submitted to FAC. Therefore, I am submitting this article for a second peer review in hope and expectation to make it FAC-ready in the near future and would greatly appreciate help from readers and commentators to reach this goal.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick point: I am reading this, and will have more points later. One initial thing: the caption to the lead image should surely read "anti-clockwise", not clockwise? Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this out. The caption has been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

Doing... Ricardiana (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Overall, the lead reads much better than before - it was not bad before, but assumed a more knowledgeable readership. I think this version is much easier for the average reader to follow.
  • Thank you. This was exactly my intention in drafting the new lead, so I'm glad it succeeds in this respect. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• endemically - ...except for this word! -which I had to look up. Can you rephrase or wiktionary link?
• "Tchaikovsky wanted to write compositions in a style that would transcend national barriers while remaining endemically Russian, and of a professional quality that would stand up to Western scrutiny." -- this reads a little awkwardly to me. Could you put the end at the beginning, so that the references to the West are together rather than sandwiching Russia, something like "Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions in a style that would stand up to Western scrutiny, transcend national barriers, and yet remain uniquely Russian" ?
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• "lead composer Mili Balakirev considered academicism a threat rather than a help to musical imagination" - this seems redundant - could you just say "a threat to the musical imagination" (if it is a threat, it cannot be a help)
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Early years

• "After the first opera was presented in Russia in 1731" - this makes it sound like there is a "first" opera - do you mean "after the first presentation / performance of an opera"? Also, the semi-colon later in the sentence should be a comma (tho' 19th c. texts certainly did use semi-colons this way)
  • Yes, I meant the first presentation of an opera in Russia. I've made this clarification in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

More comments ...

• "As the minimum age for acceptance was 12, Tchaikovsky was required to spend two years boarding at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence's preparatory school in St. Petersburg" - was this required, or could Tchaikovsky have spent those two years at home? I'm not doubting your source, I've just never heard of a school that requires you go to another specific school first.
  • That's a good question. Brown, Holden and Warrack all mention this fact but do not go into detail on whether this was actually a requirement. I'll have to look into it. Jonyungk (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Music was not considered a high priority at the School" - this seems wordy and could just be "music was not a priority at the School" - unless by considered you mean "considered by current critics".
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "From 1855 the composer's father, Ilya Tchaikovsky, funded private lessons" - you refer to T in the next sentence as a "potential composer", so the switch in time frames threw me momentarily. But maybe that's too picky a concern.
• "Its objectives were "The development of musical education and the taste for music in Russia and the encouragement of native talent." " -- I assume that this is from the source cited in the next footnote, but I think it would be better to add a footnote after the direct quotation as well.
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Difference in Russianness" - the beginning of this section confuses me a little, only because I don't know what is being referred to. I mean, I am not sure what essential Russianness is or what Europeanness would be. These concepts become clearer by the end of the paragraph, but I think iit would be helpful to add some more explanation earlier - perhaps a non-musical example of each (such as these salon and ballroom habits) would help to explain what these concepts mean more broadly before the rest of the article goes into detail about what they meant musically.
  • I've addressed this to a small degree but am concerned into going into too much detail due to concerns about the article's current length. Please let me know whether this is enough detail or if more is needed. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

With the "Five"

• The first paragraph of this section seems too short. Could you perhaps remind readers of what you are introducing and why Balakirev ties in? Perhaps the beginning of the next section could be moved to the end of this, to that end.
• "In context, Tchaikovsky discusses" - I'm not sure what you mean by "in context" here.
• "To Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company ...." - the sentence a few sentences up also starts with "To Modest," and since the phrase is a little confusing (I keep reading it against my will as "too modest"), I would change one or the other to avoid the repetition.
• "Tchaikovsky's analysis of each of The Five is unsparing. " - I'm not sure why you switched to present tense in this paragraph. I think present tense is proper when referring to literary fiction, but not non-fiction.
• "He went into some detail about Rimsky's epiphany" - should this be Rimsky-Korsakov?

The Belyayev circle

• "Before this visit he had spent much time keeping in touch with Rimsky-Korsakov and those around him,[92] a group called the Belyayev circle after their patron, timber merchant and amateur musician Mitrofan Belyayev; and during this visit he spent much time in their company." --there are several clauses within clauses in this sentence, which can be hard to keep track of. Could you break it up?

More later... hope this is helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Brianboulton

I was going to wait for Ricardiana, but it may help if you have my remarks on the early sections, with more to follow later.

One general point: the article is pretty long, at 9,000+ words. Absorbing though it is, and very well researched and prepared, I'm not sure it needs to be that long. In some of my comments below I have indicated where I think points could be expressed more concisely, but I believe it would benefit from an overall streamlining. I always do this with my own articles, and always manage to lose around 10 to 15 percent of the words without any loss of significant content.

• Lead
  • Wordiness: "...Tchaikovsky was schooled at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence in St. Petersburg, the political and cultural capital of Russia at the time, and was engaged in a career as a civil servant in that city when he decided to study music professionally." Can be reduced to "...Tchaikovsky decided to study music professionally only after three years' employment as a civil servant" (15 words instead of 43)
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "...to compose in the same manner as Joseph Haydn,..." → "...to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn,..."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "19th century Western European composers of conservative leanings." This seems a rather ill-defined category. Also, with its political connotation, "conservative" may not be the best word, perhaps "traditional" would be better? But I think the phrase needs explanation.
    • I meant conservative in musical practice, as opposed to the progressive musical practices of Wagner, Liszt, Chopin and Schumann. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • How can something "transcend national boundaries" and remain uniquely associated with one nation?
    • If the music is of a quality and meets a standard of compositional excellence that could be measured universally yet have melodic or other characteristics that are unique to one nation. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary link on "composers"
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Describing Balakirev as the "lead composer" makes the Five sound rather like a pop group (The Dave Clark Five?). Could he be described otherwise?
  • ...a specifically Russian kind of art music". Why "art music" rather than just "music"?
    • "Art music" as opposed to "folk music" or "popular music". Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the "unique" properties of Russian folk music. All national folk music has particular identifying characteristics; is there something else about Russian folk music that distinguishes it from all others?
    • Brown, Figes and Maes all discuss that there are stylistic and compositioanl qualities of Russian music that hold true only for it. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "He took pains to ensure his musical independence from them as well as from the conservative faction at the Conservatory—a course of action facilitated by his acceptance of a professorship at the Moscow Conservatory." Tchaikovsky's musical independence, which is what was facilitated, can't be described as a "course of action". I suggest the phrase is replaced with "outcome".
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do Glazunov and Lyadov turn up in the final sentence - what's the connection? And why the teaser "at least on the surface" in relation to Rimsky?
    • Glazunov and Lyadov were part of the Belyayev circle, a St.-Petersburg-based compositional group that took up in the 1880's where the Five left off. The circle was headed by they and Rimsky-Korsakov. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Early years (intro): "...the greater number of concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and was likewise dominated by foreigners." No doubt this is grammatically correct, but it reads awkwardly. I'd try "...most concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and were likewise dominated by foreigners"
  • • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tchaikovsky: This subsection ends prematurely. It needs to have added most of what is at present the last paragraph of the "Rubinstein and the St Petersburg Conservatory" subsection.
  • • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• The Five
  • First sentence: this is first mention of Glinka since the lead, so I think his full name should be given.
    • Glinka is actually first mentioned in the brief lead-in before the Tchaikovsky section. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Same sentence - in Spain? Unless his being in Spain is relevant I suggest you omit this. Otherwise people (like me) will wonder: What was he doing in Spain?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Same sentence: Suggest omit "two men" and run on: "Around Christmas 1855, Glinka was visited by Alexander Ulïbïshev, a rich Russian amateur critic,..." etc
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "young composers through which..." Shouldn't that be a "whom"?
    • Yes. My bad. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "All the composers in The Five..." They hadn't been dubbed "The Five" at this stage, so I would call them "the group"
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Describing Borodin as "the old man at 28" is not really encyclopedic language. Perhaps "the oldest"? But - do we need to know all their ages? Maybe it would be enough to say: "All the composers in the group were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This paragraph needs a bit of repunctuating to improve the flow; at present it has a staccato feel with some very short sentences, e.g. "They were all self-trained amateurs." and "Borodin combined composing with a career in chemistry."
    • I've remoed the second half of this paragraph and merged it with the following one. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "All five of its composers was essentially self-taught" This point already made in the previous paragraph ("self-trained amateurs").
    • I removed the first of these references. Jonyungk (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "The fourth was the use of, and incorporation of compositional devices linked with, folk music." Surely these two things are the same? We can avaoid the awkward commas by simply saying: "The fourth was the incorporation of compositional devices linked with folk music."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rubinstein etc
  • "He also came to realize the essentiality of serious professional musical training..." The word "serious" is probably superfluous. The wording is anyway rather stiff. "He had come to realize that professional musical training was essential, and that higher..." etc
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "on his return" not necessary
    • Removed.
  • "Musical life had flourished everywhere in those places;" - "had" and "everywhere" are redundant, thus "Musical life flourished in those places;"
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• St Petersburg firestorm
  • Is "firestorm" your own metaphor? I suspect it is, as the word doesn't appear in the text. It is a rather loaded word, definitely not neutral, so unless it can be cited to a quote I think it should be replaced with a less florid term. Sorry about that.
    • Since I merged this section into the previous one, the heading (and the term) is gone. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical progressives and conservatives—or, to label these groups more accurately, radicals and traditionalists" could easily be "Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical radicals and traditionalists." Why use the less accurate labels at all?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that "mentor" is the best term here - I think "inspiration" is the meaning intended.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The radicals have broken into two factions, and now we have "Each of these three factions..." I suppose the third is the traditionalists, but this is not clear, since the traditionalists are not really a "faction". I'd choose another word, and add an explanatory phase: "Each of these groupings—two radical and one traditionalist—championed a different aesthetic ideal..." etc
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the essence and function and music." Typo? ("of music"?)
  • "According to musicologist Francis Maes, one thing that should be stressed, given the negative connotation of the term conservative, is that Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity." This is rather cumbersome, and I don't follow the internal logic of the sentence, unless there is an general assumption that musical conservatives must lack artisitic integrity. Could this be simplified to "According to musicologist Francis Maes, Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reading on in this section, I found myself wondering whether this level of detail (Balakirev and Rubinstein attacking one another, Serov attacking both of them, Balakirev savaging Serov's opera, anti-semitism etc) is really necessary in this article about Tchaikovsky and the Five. I can see that you want to establish that Rubinstein was an early target for the Five, and that Tchaikovsky's association with the Conservatory and therefore with Rubinstein brought him into the line of their fire. But I'm not convinced that we need this much detail, and am inclined to think that the essentials could be incorporated into the previous subsection.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Differences in Russianness: Stravinsky quote
  • Enclosing the quotation in a box rather cuts it off from the prose flow. Is there any reson why it shouldn't be a simple blockquote?
  • As to the quotation itself – what on earth is he going on about? It's about as crystal clear as much of his music, and as tortuously expressed. And did he actually say "popular Russian melos"? Sorry, but I simply can't work out his point.
    • Yes, he actually said that. Rest assured, though—I've removed the quote. Jonyungk (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a bit to be going on with, so I'll post the rest later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing

• Balakirev; Initial correspondence
  • "Tchaikovsky included a note to Balakirev concluding with a request..." phrasing doesn't read smoothly, suggest "that ended with a request" etc
    • Thanks for the suggestion, which I have used. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ironically,..." Is this the source's word or your intrepretation?
    • My interpretation but I have since removed the word. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Writing Romeo
  • Perhaps the title should give the full name of the work?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the first sentence covered by the source, or is it editorial comment? The phrasing "As Tchaikovsky would soon find out" doesn't seem encyclopedic. If covered by the source it could begin: "Tchaikovsky soon discovered that Balakirev could be strong-willed..." etc
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Later in the same paragraph, the word "Still" at the start of a sentence has they same informal effect. I would start the sentence "While Tchaikovsky..." etc
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you consider condensing the content of the second part of the paragraph? We don't really need two long quotations from Tchaikovsky's letters to Anatoly, and the first rather disrupts the logic of the paragraph. Why not reduce to: "Tchaikovsky had initially written of Balakirev to his brother Anatoly: '...I just cannot get into full sympathy with him. I don't like the exclusiveness of his musical views, or his sharp tone.'[51] Later, however, Tchaikovsky told Anatoly that Balakirev was '...a very honorable and good man, and immeasurably above the average as an artist.'"[51]
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Second para, second sentence; the second "he" needs to specify Balakirev
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "...he used his extraordinary catalytic power..." Whose wording (I note the sentence is uncited)? The sentence has a distinctly non-neutral feel and needs to be specifically referenced if it is to be retained.
    • I've removed the sentence in question. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The phrase "at Balakirev's suggestion" should be relocated at the start of its sentence.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "It was Tchaikovsky's idea to reduce the plot of Romeo to one central conflict and combine it with the binary structure of sonata form." Does "it" refer to the plot or the conflict? I'm also a bit puzzled by "combine". Does the sentence mean: "Tchaikovsky intended to reduce Romeo to one central conflict and represent it musically with the binary structure of sonata form."? (the last sentence would require a small adjustment to follow on)
    • Yes, that is what I meant. I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Learning from failure
  • Another of those section titles which is vaguely POV/interpretative.
    • I've removed the heading and allowed this sectin to merge with the previous one. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • New section, so we need to know the first version of what.
    • See above. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose between "Stung by this rejection" and "dramatic catastrophe" is strongly written but has a single citation. Can you confirm that all this content is citable to p. 74 of Maes? If any of the terminology comes from Maes I think it should be in quotes.
    • It is citable but the phrasing is mine. Suggestions? Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If it is all supported by Maes p. 74, no problem - it's a fine bit of prose. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rimsky-Korsakov
  • First sentence: "Not too long..." I think "too" is redundant. Also, whose summary is "a doubly-ironic twist of fate"?
    • The sentence in question has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "When Rimsky-Korsakov underwent a change in attitude on music education and began his own intensive studies privately..." When did this change happen? Was it as a result of his being offered the professorship, or did it happen after he assumed this post?
    • It was, I suspect, the result of his being offered the professorship, though Rimsky-Korsakov may have already been aware of his musical shortcomings by this time. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pronoun problems: I've noted this problem on occasion before, but there is considerable confusion with: "Rimsky-Korsakov added that "during the following years, when visiting St. Petersburg, he usually came to Balakirev's, and we saw him." Both "he" and "him" actually refer to Tchaikowsky, but this needs to be made more evident. Further confusion in the same paragraph with "he was impressed" and "he was too balanced an individual" - in neither case is it totally clear who "he" is.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave it here but will return to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuing (again)

• Furor over The Little Russion
  • "Furor" is quite a loaded word, implying something more than just a fuss (uproar, frenzy, rage etc). Are you sure it is justified as a neutral observation?
    • I've changed the heading but am open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The first two paragraphs of the section have nothing to do with The Little Russian
  • "Those meetings": as this is a new section the meetings need to be defined. It isn't clear what meetings these were – meetings between Tchaikovsky and the Five? I'd also begin the section a bit more cautiously, removing "proved an unqualified triumph for Tchaikovsky", which reads as editorial judgement. The nature of the triumph is fully evident from the quoted letter.
    • This sentence has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "transcribing" → "who had transcribed"
    • Where was this located? I can't seem to find it. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "hermetic" means air-tight. I think "hermitic" is the word, or maybe "hermit-like"
  • "was not there when Tchaikovsky was present." Need to be clarified: "...had left the gathering before Tchaikovsky's arrival."?
  • (Note: from this point on I will do non-controversial fixes myself, to stop this list getting longer and longer.)
  • Last two paragraphs: where's the furor?
    • As stated above, I have removed "furor". However, I have also removed the second paragraph as it seemed to go off the subject of Tchaikovsky and the Five. Should it have been retained? Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Parenthetical note has nothing to do with "Tchaikovsky and the Five"
    • Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• To Mme von Meck: this title does not reflect the substance of the section. I can't come up with something pithy immediately, but it needs thinking about. I have made minor text adjustments
  • I have chenged the heading but a better one would be nice. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Balakirev returns
  • "Tchaikovsky passed on the project" means different things in American and British English. In America it means he declined the project, in BritEng it might be read as meaning he passed it on to someone else. Best find a phrasing acceptable all round.
    • I have changed the wording to state that Tchaikovsky declined the project initially. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This sentence needs work: "Two years of effort, along with Tchaikovsky's re-reading Manfred for himself while tending to his friend Iosef Kotek in Davos, Switzerland, nestled in the same Alps in which the poem was set, finally changed Tchaikovsky's mind." Two many commas, too many clauses, too much unexplained info. "Two years of effort along with..." suggests that the effort was on something other than the activities in the rest of the sentence. Needs complete reconstruction along the lines: "Tchaikovsky's mind was changed after he spent two years in the Swiss Alps, tending to his friend Iosef Kotek and re-reading Manfred in the milieu in which the poem is set."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • First sentence of final paragraph is unnecessary; the substantive content is sufficient.
• Belyayev circle
  • Having read this section, my earlier concern about its relevance is rather confirmed. I think there is far too much detail here. In an article on Tchaikovsky and the Five I don't believe we need fairly lengthy subsections about Tchaikovsky's relationships with Glazunov or Lyadov. I know it's hard to discard well-researched material, but I would recommend the section is reuced to a fairly brief summary accounr indicating that Tchaikovsky's somewhat fraught relationship with The Five has melded into a more harmonious one with the "Belyayev circle". We should, incidentally, be told who Belyayev was, and why the circle was named after him. I have not prepared detailed comments on this section, though I have regularised the spelling of Belyayev, which needs watching.
    • Two questions. First, is it not clear that Belyayev is mentioned in the first paragraph as the patron of the group, hence the reason it is named after him? If it needs to be spelled out further, please let me know. Second, I have cut the section back to the first three paragraphs, but are we talking about cutting material or a complete rewrite to make it a proper summary? Again, please let me know as I ould use some direction here. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with the last part of the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement. I agree that this looks much improved and think it is nearly there for FAC. I am also glad Brianboulton knows counter-clockwise from clockwise - sorry for the error.

• I noticed that it is usually spelled "The Five" (both words capitalized) wherever it occurs in a sentence (obviously if it is the first phrase in a sentence, "The" must be capitalized). However, there are also places where it is spelled "the Five". It has to be consistent.
• Would it make sense to add the word "musically" before conservative and progressive in the lead, so to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and 19th century Western European composers of [musically] conservative leanings. and ...they focused on works by [musically?] progressive contemporaries such as Frédéric Chopin...
• One "critic" too many in Along with critic Vladimir Stasov, a critic who supported The Five, Balakirev attacked ...
• In "Early years" could some years be added to Glinka so we know when he was active as a composer?
• Would this be a bit smoother? Tchaikovsky was born in 1840 in Votkinsk, a small town in present-day Udmurtia, formerly the Imperial Russian province of Vyatka. A precocious pupil, he began piano lessons at the age of five, and could read music as adeptly as his teacher within three years.
• The Five section - would this be clearer? "They became known as the kuchka, [variously translated as] the Five, the Russian Five and the Mighty Handful..."
• Logical quotation is not one of my strengths, but it seems this does not follow it (last period should be inside the quotation marks since it is a complete sentence) At the same time, historican Orlando Figes writes, they were also Europeans, with both their cultural identities—Russian and European—"intertwined and mutually dependent in a number of ways. However hard they might have tried, it was impossible for Russians such as these to suppress either part of their identity".[40]
• The header With the "Five" does not match the rest of the article, where they are referred to as The Five. Why are quotation marks needed?
• "Initial correspondence" section - Similarly the only place in the whole article where it is written as "The Five" (with quotes) is At this point "The Five" as a unit was dispersing. Be consistent
• In the Furor over the Little Russian section, there is To Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and Madame Rimskaya-Korsakova begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet".[72] Should that be "To his brother Modest, he wrote..."? to avoid confusion with Mussorgsky?
• Since Little Russia is the Russian word for Ukarine, would it make sense to mention this in As for the piece that had initially captured Stasov's attention, what endeared the Little Russian to the kuchka was not simply that Tchaikovsky had used Ukrainian folk songs as melodic material.
• In the To Mme. von Meck section, can Cui be mentioned after In addition, the Five's finest days had long passed.?
• I asked for the Legacy section and it is much longer than I expected. I am not enough of a musical expert to know if it needs to be trimmed, but do make sure the focus is kept on Tchaikovsky and the Five as much as possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 18:53 UTC)

---

[edit] Battle of Yarmouk

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. I did a mistake previously by directly putting it for tht status. I was given some suggestions to improve the article. They are all done now, so hows it look now ? any suggestion to improve it further ?

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You need more bibliographical details on the two Treadgold references, they should match the other references given.
  • Alphabetize your references
  • Note that for the Runciman ref, it was originally published earlier than 1991. You should note that the edition you're using is a reprint. Double check your other references to check this.
  • Your Elton ref is a review article of a book, this isn't the most high quality source available, suggest replacing it.
  • Your book references need publishers for all of them, at the very least.
  • Your ISBN for the Akram ref is incorrect. It's this work, correct? I'll note that this isn't exactly held by a lot of libraries, both editions only show one library holding each.
  • Using gibbon is not a good idea. We're talking a source that is over 200 years old, history has advanced quite a bit since then. Strongly suggest replacing.
  • You've got the wrong publisher with the Haldon isbn, it's Stroud, not Arcadia for that particular ISBN.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done.
  

any thing else ?? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• • You should wait for comments on the prose content. This may be a few days' coming. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be waiting.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Siege of Jerusalem (637)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. This article have gone through a peer review of wikipedia military history task force, the suggestion given there are followed and now i wonder if it is ready to be send for the nomination for feature article. Comments and suggestions please ...

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please alphabetize your references.
  • As I pointed out in the Yarmuk article, using Gibbon is not using the best quality sources. He's out of date, and at this point should only be used as a source for articles about the history of history.
  • Your book references lack details to allow them to be verified. They should have year of publication, publisher, etc. at the very least.
  • Decide if you want the sources author last name first or author first name first, (suggest last name first as it's much more common in history articles)
  • Again, the Runciman works are before 1987, should note that you're using a reprint edition of a much earlier work (first published 1951). Like the Gibbon, Runciman is starting to get a bit outdated and should be used with care.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done.

Any other suggestions ???

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:07 UTC)

---

[edit] Siege of Damascus (634)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it for feature article nomination, i need all types of comments and suggestion that would help me to further improve this article so that it may pass the feature article criteria.

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please alphabetize your references.
  • As I pointed out in the Yarmuk article, using Gibbon is not using the best quality sources. He's out of date, and at this point should only be used as a source for articles about the history of history.
  • Also, you've managled the Gibbon, it should be "Gibbon, Edward (revised by Henry Hart Milman). Although I'm not sure how much "revision" happened, as it doesn't look any different than a scan of a much earlier printing of the work (Victorian era, I'd guess.) Milman died in 1868, so this isn't a significant recent revision

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• wht should i do ? except for gibbon there is no other source tht illustrates siege of damascus in such a detail.

by the way almost all the references given to gibbon in the article are further supported by modern sources, so is it all right using gibbon since wht ever he stated is now supported by modern historians as well.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:BirgitteSB

• General: I found this article to be interesting and informative, but it still needs work. This needs major copyediting. The grammar is often strange (Early Muslim armies lack siege equipments and therefore usually avoided siege warfare until it was inevitable as in case of Damascus, Emesa and Alepo, during the conquest of Levant.) and in some places incomprehensible (Blocked of the city cut off the supplies of Damascus.). Some of the wikilinks point to disambiguation pages instead of good targets; all links need to be checked. Is it "Byzantine" or "Eatern Roman", pick on and stick with it. Also be careful that you use "Rashidun Caliphate" and "Rashidun army" consistently. Was the "Thomas Gate" called this at the time before Thomas made these significant sorties from it?
• Intro: Need to be a more complete summary of article per WP:LEAD.
• Background: While this is nicely informative of where the offensive action is coming from, it neglects to give the background of the Byzantine side.
• The siege: The tone in this part is too dramatic at times. Also this narrative seems to have been broken during rewrites and never repaired. A subsection begins: After all hopes of the reinforcement from Heraclius were finished, Thomas decided to launch a counter offensive to drive the Muslims away. The following morning, . . . No time is established as the day of this initial decision to put "the following morning" in context. This would be best fixed by moving further away from a dramatic narrative and closer to encyclopedic tone. Bulleted lists should be avoided and worked into prose. While the events of the siege are laid out chronologically there is little context regarding the timing. How long they waited for relief? Between sorties? One way to fix this is to change the subsections here to chronological labels if the information of exact dates is available (i.e. see Siege of Malakand). It would be nice if there were more information on events within the city. Can we discover what festival was being celebrated when the city fell? I'm confused by the pact of surrender. It is formatted somewhat like a quotation but it has two separate references within different parts. This should be clarified.
• Aftermath: This gives the near-term battles and the long-term campaign aftermath. But nothing about the aftermath for the city itself. How was Damascus administered in the near-term and how did life change for the remaining residents?
• Images: A map showing Damascus in relation to Antioch, Bosra, and Ajnadayn would be helpful. File:Mohammad adil rais-siege of damascus.PNG use a font that is too small to be legible and the key calls for a Black marker for "Besieging armies" that is absent in the map. Captions should put the actual picture in context rather than contain an ancient narrative under a modern picture. The caption about the city rising so that the wall is now only 7m above street level is really great, but check the others.
• Notes and References: I don't know a great deal about how to make these work but I notice some here do not add up. There is a note b in the intro without ever seeing note a. There was a reference that I could not match to the Bibliography (number 36). These all need to checked. It bothers me to have the Bibliography split labeled "Primary Sources" and "Modern Sources". "Ancient" and "Modern" would be better. These aren't exactly first-hand accounts given the dates 100-300 years after the siege.

Good luck.--BirgitteSB 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your excellent peer review and suggestion,

You wrote....

• The grammar is often strange........etc

Will fix it shortly..

• Some of the wikilinks point to disambiguation pages instead of good targets; all links need to be checked.

Checked them all, Thomas was disambiguation, removed it.

• Is it "Byzantine" or "Eatern Roman", pick on and stick with it.

Its byzantine now.

• Also be careful that you use "Rashidun Caliphate" and "Rashidun army" consistently.

i have worked on it, now using muslims and muslim army instead of repeatedly using rashidun caliphate and rashidun army.

• Was the "Thomas Gate" called this at the time before Thomas made these significant sorties from it?

yes it was called so, its after the name of one of the 12 apostles of jesus.

• Intro: Need to be a more complete summary of article per WP:LEAD.

done, please check it if its fine now.

• Background: While this is nicely informative of where the offensive action is coming from, it neglects to give the background of the Byzantine side.

Done.

• The siege: The tone in this part is too dramatic at times. Also this narrative seems to have been broken during rewrites ..........

Done, cant label it chronological as no fixed dates are available. tone fixed.

• it would be nice if there were more information on events within the city.

No info is available on this.....

• Can we discover what festival was being celebrated when the city fell?

Birth of a son to a high priest. this has been added in the article.

• I'm confused by the pact of surrender. It is formatted somewhat like a quotation but it has two separate references within different parts. This should be clarified.

Both reference gave the same text of the pact, i hv fixed them putting both of them side by side.

• Aftermath: This gives the near-term battles and the long-term campaign aftermath. But nothing about the aftermath for the city itself. How was Damascus administered in the near-term and how did life change for the remaining residents?

added info about damascus city's later life.

• Images: A map showing Damascus in relation to Antioch, Bosra, and Ajnadayn would be helpful.

will try to make one as soon as possile.

• File:Mohammad adil rais-siege of damascus.PNG use a font that is too small to be legible and the key calls for a Black marker for "Besieging armies" that is absent in the map.

I see on most of the maps tht front is usually of this size, making it bigger may be look uglier.

In the military maps, the key usually have a black and white image of the boxes that refers to cavalry and infantry (Infantry is shown by a black box, while cavalry by a half black and half white box), It wasnt appropriate to give both cavalry and infantry symbols on info box for a siege, so i put only one by tagging it as "Besieging armies", you can suggest me some thing rather more appropriate, it will be helpful.

• Notes and References: I don't know a great deal about how to make these work but I notice some here do not..........

done.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 17:02 UTC)

---

[edit] Carucage

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm branching out from bishops and horses to ... Taxes! Yes, medieval taxes, so fun! On a more serious note, I'd like to make sure this article is comprehenisble by the non-specialist, that the prose is engaging, and that there isn't anything left out for context or similar stuff. All in an effort to get to FAC with this. (It just might be the first tax FA!)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And I know the perfect day for it too:Tax Day. They turn to wikipedia for the IRS and find medival taxes on the front page. Oh what jolly good fun ^^! ResMar 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• ...and was a replacement for the older danegeld, which was last collected in 1162. What was the danegeld based on, then?
• It was only collected six times in the years between 1194 and 1224, and never raised sums as large as other taxes collected. Is "as large as those other taxes collected" more fitting?
• In 1194, the assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087. Not particuarly important but I perfer "The 1194 assesment" because the tax isn't a singular event. Also, you should say breifly what the Domesday Book is: ae. "...the Domesday Book, a census of England completed in 1087."
• In 1198 the carucage was again collected and was based on the carucate, figured at 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 acres (49 ha). I'de say "figured at either 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 (49 ha) acres.
• Revenues from this taxation do not appear in the 1200 Pipe Roll, which may mean that it was paid into a special commission in the Exchequer. Further evidence of this is the fact that William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage, in official records. Who is this William de Wrotham and why is his being the receptor signifigant?
• The 1217 carucage was only paid by laymen; the clergy made a donation in lieu of being taxed. Linking laymen and clergy would be nice.
• The 1220 carucage was definitely collected by... Rm definitly. I know what you mean but that's a bit of an interpetation.
• No space in FitzBenedict?
• The 1220 carucage was for the defense of Poitou. Link Poitou.
• Records indicate that the bulk of the revenues raised were paid into the Wardrobe. What's the Wardrobe oO? Is it their war commitee?

On your issues: the article is comprehendible to me (lol tax expert) however there are multiple spots that would benefit from a wikilink, or in the absense of such a link a short description. I don't know how feasible that is, but is it possible to give the values of the money gathered in modern terms? That would make the exact amount of money gathered much clearer. Sincerely, ResMar 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The normal {{inflation}} template that is used only goes to 1254 or so, so there isn't really a good way to give equivalent figures. Most history works for this period don't really give equivalents, since it's so hard to gage. (the wage economy is just getting started about 1200 or so, so comparing daily wages isn't good... ) I'll try to work on the others in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 14:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Chronic periodontitis

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured article status (it is one of the most common diseases in the world!)

Thanks, Ashley Payne (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. A good idea is to check out other disease FAs to see how they are done, which should help you with referencing issues. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 4 December 2009, 01:44 UTC)

---

[edit] Policing and Crime Act 2009

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wanting some feedback on getting it up to a Good Article. If you could let me know what I need to add, change, etc. I would much appreciate it :)

Thanks, Calvin (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and a good start, but needs some work before I think it would pass GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead could be expanded to two (or even three) paragraphs. As one example, the Background section does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• Some sections have good references, but others have none at all, such as "Police reform" - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article is fairly listy in spots, and it has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even sections. To improve article flow, the lists could be convertedto prose in many cases and the short paragraphs (sections) could be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Reception is all one sentence paragraphs, for example.
• Two sections of the article are named "Other amendments" - WP:HEAD says to avoid this if at all possible (multiple sections with the same name) as it causes confusion
• Is there any chance for an image or two? Even of the Houses of Parliament?
• I do not know as much about modern politics in the UK as I should, but it seems like there has to be more detail on the bills passage in Parliament than one sentence (with no ref): The Policing and Crime Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 18 December 2008 and was passed to the House of Lords on the 20 May 2009. What were the vote totals? Who sopke in favor of the bill and who opposed it? Do British bills have sponsors (and if so who was / were they)?
• Ref 8 needs a publisher
• Is there more news coverage on the bill? Editorials for or against it? Analyses of it by news outlets? There area few BBC and Guardian refs, but were thewre more stories?
• Shoule there be a redirect to the article from "An Act to make provision about the police; to make provision about prostitution, sex offenders, sex establishments and certain other premises; to make provision for reducing and dealing with the abuse of alcohol; to make provision about the proceeds of crime; to make provision about extradition; to amend the Aviation Security Act 1982; to make provision about criminal records and to amend the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007; to confer, extend or facilitate search, forfeiture and other powers relating to the United Kingdom’s borders or elsewhere; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to repeal redundant provisions; and for connected purposes."  ;-)
• Not sure ifthis would be an issue or not, but articles are supposed to be stable to pass GAN - are there likely to be more developments in the article as the law is put into practice / implemented? If so, would they be major enough to make the article seem unstable? Not sure I expressed this well - for example an article on the Community Charge Poll Tax less than a month after its passage would look different than one written today.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 17:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Theoren Fleury

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

The latest in my (unofficial) quest to bring every article related to Calgary hockey to FA status. As always, prose quality is something I am looking for feedback on, as well as an outside opinion on whether I've given all aspects of Fleury's life and career fair treatment. It's a complicated article, dealing with not only a standout hockey career, but also sexual abuse, substance abuse, attempted suicide and redemption. As such, thoughts on how well I've balanced the human story and the hockey story would be appreciated.

Thanks, Resolute 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.pointstreak.com/ a reliable source?
  • Alphabetize your general refs please

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Pointstreak is a company that is hired by many professional leagues, including the National Lacrosse League and American Hockey League to organize and host league statistics and standings. And general refs resorted, thanks! Resolute 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 16:56 UTC)

---

[edit] History of Sesame Street

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has FA potential. It's also an important and interesting article. You'll see that it was nominated for GA, and failed, but I believe that at this point, it fulfills the criteria, anyway. (If any reviewer would like to pass it in the process of this review, that would be helpful.)

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't read it, but looks attractive at a quick glance. The image captions should be shortened per Wikipedia:Captions, and the standalone quotes reduced and/or integrated into the text body per Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 14:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering sending it to FAC, and would like a critique first.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Road Wizard

I haven't had time for a detailed review as yet, but after a quick glance over I spotted that the date of introduction was out by a month (now fixed) and the explanatory notes for the Act contradict the statement, "coming into force in May 2000 as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999" (not fixed). I will carry out a more detailed check in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 12:41 UTC)

---

[edit] Steve Dodd

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

I've listed this article for peer review because: I would like to minimise prose and copyediting issues if/when at FAC; I have not previously written an article containing a filmography and want to be alerted to any problems with its layout; and I want to test views about the reliability of sources, given the purposes to which they have been put. Reviewers may wish to check my initial chat with Ealdgyth on the article talk page on this point. To anticipate one possible query about options for alternative sources: Steve Dodd played only minor roles on film and TV, so he is almost never mentioned in reviews or reference works. For example, I have consulted three separate encycopedias / books of Australian Television series, none of which mention his roles in the various series listed.

Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments: This is overall a very well-written and informative article, one that I would gladly support when it reaches FAC not only for its overall quality but also for what it says about Indigenous Australians and their historical plight through Dodd's career. However, there are still a couple of points to be addressed.

Lead

• My main point of confusion here is that you state in the lead that Dodd was born in Alice Springs, yet in the body of the article you mention that the actual city of his birth is disputed. If the latter is the case, wouldn't it be better to state his birthplace in the lead as the Northwest territory, as you do in the body of the article?

• Lead changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• You mention in the lead that Dodd had a role in the film Galipoli but you do not mention the film in the body of the article. Likewise, Dodd's role in The Coca-Cola Kid, which was, like Galipoli, released internationally, is not mentioned except in the filmography. I realize these may have been minor roles, but these are roles in films which some international readers may recognize. Mentioning Dodd's role in these films might give those readers additional interest in the article.

• I have tried to do this without going too far (bearing in mind the minor nature of most roles). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

• Since I am an American, I am not familiar with the Rough Riders Association. Perhaps a few words of explanation would help international readers?

• This actually proved difficult as the association appears no longer active. I've done my best by giving some background from a journal article. I don't think I can do any more without a visit to Australia's national library. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Airlines of NSW"—NSW means New South Wales? Readers not so knowledgable about their geography may not make the connection.

• Fixed. And this led me to spend my day on an article about the Airline, instead of responding here! hamiltonstone (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• This section overall is very well done.

Early career

• Dodd's being "a pioneering actor" may be a statement of fact but feels slightly POV as phrased here, without attribution. Is there w way to attribute this statement or, if not, to say he was one of the first Indigenous actors in Australian theater and film?

• Actually, I think that probably was my POV. This is one of those things I'm pretty sure is true, but i can't get the sources that clearly justify the statement. I've revised the start of this section to omit the remark. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• You bring us up to 1971 for Dodd's film career, then bring us back to 1966 to include his early stage and television credits. A coupe of transion words would help—"On stage, in 1966 Dodd performed ..." "Dodd's first role on stage ..." or something along these lines. The same goes for Dodd's television roles mentioned later in the same paragraph—a couple of words such "On television ..." would help.

• Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overall, this section feels very through in its coverage. It kept my interest and also made me more interested in reading about Chips Rafferty, about whom I had no knowledge before reading this article.

Later career

• I've mentioned this already in discussing the lead, but a mention of Dodd's roles in internationally-released films could potentially increase interest in the article with non-Australian readers.

• I think I've done this as best I can. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• This section is a good start. It does not feel as comprehensive as Early career as it mentions only those roles of Dodd's that are connected with issues facing Indigenous Australians. What other roles has Dodd played, or in what other films? I realize Dodd may have worked primarily in minor roles, but I would still like to read more about the range of roles he has played.

• Agreed, and I've now summarised his later career (esp. 1980s) in a new para. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Television roles

• I was slightly disconcerted by seeing early television roles mentioned a second time. I realize these are different roles than the ones mentioned in Early career, but perhaps bringing all of Dodd's television work in this section would sidestep any potential confusion.

• You were right to pick this up. I took a different approach to your suggestion however, instead moving all of the television role text into the two career sections, making the entire account essentially chronological. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One other question: Is there any information on Dodd's peraonal life other than what is in Background? I realize such information may be scanty, but it would be nice to learn a little more about Dodd in this article, if that is possible.

• Information about Dodd is in fact extremely scarce. I feel I have squeezed all i can from every source i can find that so much as mentions his name. I don't think i have located any other information on his personal life. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for an enjoyable read. Hope these comments help. Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 03:55 UTC)

---

[edit] Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga

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

Hello, I listed this article for peer review for GA-class as I think that an important piece of art such as this should get to superior quality. I would like to know what could be done for the article to get to this class.

Thank you. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}

• Translate foreign language reference titles to English by using |trans_title in the references. Be sure not to put square brackets in this part as it renders the title weirdly. Extremepro (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}

I'd love to see it as a GA. Comments/questions/suggestions follow:

• Add alt text to pictures.
  • Y Added to the only picture on page. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • Good. Possibly you'd also need alt-text for pictures in the gallery (which should eventually be moved into the article text). bamse (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh wow. I totally forgot about the gallery. Let me correct myself on that last statement. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
        • The alt text doesn't work in the gallery. :( – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
          • Did you read this? Missing alt text is not a serious problem, the main focus should be on expanding the article.bamse (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Are they really sumo wrestling? Was there sumo in 12th/13th century Japan?
  • Y It seems that sumo wrestling came around in the 17th century. Changed. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • There are still a couple of "sumo" in the article.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Wait a sec...if you look in the gallery you can see a fragment from the scrolls that obviously depicts sumo wrestling. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}
        • I see two people dressed like sumo wrestlers wrestling. I don't know if it is sumo or not, that's why I asked how old sumo is. Compared to modern sumo matches, at least a ring is missing. If you want to be safe you could write just "wrestling", though I admit it looks a lot like sumo and is probably an ancient form of sumo.bamse (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• "...supposedly the origin of the right to left reading direction in modern manga and novels..." I believe there are older handscrolls which are read from right to left.
  • We need a source for that. So far there aren't any. But I do have a source that supports my claim. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • Do you mean this source (from history section)? To be precise, this "source" states only that it is read from right to left in the same way as today's manga. It does not say anything about being the origin of this writing direction. Also, who is Deb Aoki and what makes her blog a RS? Probably there is some useful info in Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts. bamse (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Her blog is a reliable source see here. I must have misread the source. My bad. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
        • Sorry, didn't know her. I am pretty sure (but too lazy to find sources) that right to left writing is much older and possibly connected with the way of writing (with a brush). It might have been imported from China in the 6th century or so. The Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga might be the oldest caricature on emakimono, though there are some other "funny" scrolls (Hungry ghosts scroll, Diseases and Deformities,...) created around the same time. See List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) for instance.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
• The lead section needs some grammar corrections, but I suggest writing the lead as a summary of the article at the very last. At the moment the second paragraph of the lead is too detailed (Why is only the first scroll mentioned?)
  • Yeah, I suggest that too. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
• "The Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga emakimono, belonging to the Kōzan-ji temple in Kyoto, Japan as an ancient cultural property,[2][3] were drawn in the mid-12th century, whereas the third and fourth scrolls date from the 13th century." is confusing: Are the third and fourth scrolls not an "ancient cultural property" or don't they belong to Kōzan-ji?
• "...who created a painting a lot like Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga..." Which painting?
  • The problem with this is that there is no information that I can find that says the name of the painting. Just one reliable source that states that "there was a similar painting". – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • OK. I'd be really interested to see it for comparison.bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Could you expand (similar style, similar topic,...?) on the claim that it is the origin of modern manga and anime?
• Avoid "you".
  • What do you mean by this? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_second-person_pronouns. bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
• When did such emakimono make "their way into popular culture, with many common people imitating the style."?
• "...(currently) unknown event." Is it expected to be known soon or at all?
  • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
• Have there been warthog, reindeer in Japan?
  • I don't know. All I know is that's what the scroll depicts. Maybe I should change reindeer to just simply deer. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • I am not a biologist, but Warthog says: "A warthog is identifiable by the two pairs of tusks protruding from the mouth...". I don't see any tusks in the scroll. Also, I am not sure how well known African fauna was in 12th/13th century Japan. Maybe it is just a Japanese wild boar!? As for the reindeer, I am not sure if reindeers have such pattern (dots). Could be a Japanese Sika Deer!? bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh well sorry I'm not too big of an animal expert. Changing. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}
        • Wait a sec. Unless you have a reliable source (i.e. not me), I would be careful and just call it "deer". bamse (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the description of the scroll be more specific than "animals" (which animals?), for instance: "...a group of animals at a funeral..."
• It would be good to have the pictures not at the end in the gallery but next to the description of the scroll(s).
  • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • Better. I'd also remove the "gallery" heading and arrange the pictures with the (to be written) explanations of the four scrolls, i.e., explanation of scroll 1 with pictures of scroll 1, explanation of scroll 2 with pictures of scroll 2,...bamse (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute...what the hell? Someone completely disorganized the gallery for no reason. They used to be in order like you're telling me to do. :( I'll fix them tomorrow. Really tired from work today. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)}
• I can see foxes and other animals but they are not mentioned in the description.
• "...two monkeys holding a box." looks more kike one of the monkeys is carrying a box while the other carries a small package.
• There is a scene between the box carrying monkey and the funeral which is not mentioned in the description.
  • What scene? I already mentioned everything. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • Question: How many animals are involved in the funeral scene? bamse (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• "a frog praying to Buddha as the scroll closes", is rather a monkey praying in front of a frog-shaped Buddha statue. Also "Buddha" is redirected to Budai, which needs a reference as it is a non-obvious claim.
  • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
• translation/explanation for what "shinsōbon" is is missing
  • Y Done. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}
• Suggestions for expansion:
  • Are there any interpretations regarding the various animals: for instance "monkeys depict such and such character or such and such profession"?
  • Are there any views on the purpose and the audience for which the scrolls were created?
  • Are there stylistic differences between the scrolls? (If I remember correctly, later scrolls are more rough with thicker lines.)
• Add descriptions for the 2nd to 4th scroll including size and scenes depicted.
  • You see, they're a problem here. The problem is I don't have any information about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th scrolls. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • That's indeed a problem as one of the GA requirements is completeness (actually B-class requires "mostly complete" already). There are at least some pictures of the other scrolls in the gallery. Do you read Japanese btw? bamse (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• When were the copies that are now at Kozan-ji created?
  • Please explain a bit better. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}
    • "The scrolls currently on display at Kōzan-ji are reproductions." Are these reproductions old or recent (late 20th/early 21st century)? If they are old, it might be interesting to mention the year or period they were created. Better explained now?bamse (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite some comments. Hope you are not discouraged. Definitely the article needs quite some expansion as it covers only 1/4 of the scrolls. Apart from that, POV interpretations (warthog, sumo,...) should be either referenced or removed.bamse (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 01:43 UTC)

---

[edit] New Zealand general election, 2008

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it looks to be a good candidate for a Good Article, and some feedback on what (if anything) needs to be done might push people along.

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: To get ready for GAN, the article would have to be re-organized significantly. For one thing, the lede should be a summary of the whole article and should not include material that is undeveloped in the main text. It would be helpful to readers who live outside New Zealand if the first main text section included background material about New Zealand election procedures in general and about this election in particular. Some of that material appears in the existing lede and some, the 2005 material for example, seems to be tacked on in the form of bulleted lists near the bottom of the article. To make this into a good article, I think you have to re-write with a foreign audience in mind; that audience may know nothing about the geography, history, or politics of New Zealand. Here are a few more specific suggestions related mainly to prose and Manual of Style issues.

• The tools at the top of this review page find problems with dead links and a disambiguation link.
• The images need meaningful alt text, meant to describe the images to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details.
• "The loss of seven seats by 'other parties' shown here compared... ". - Generally, double quotation marks are preferred to single; i.e., "other parties".
• "Key announces shape of new National-led government, National Business Review... " - The title should be in quotation marks and National Business Review in italics.
• "The 19 general electorates which Labour retained all have a predominantly urban character, excluding Waimakariri, a predominantly urban area but with a significant rural population, resulting in a Labour MP narrowly elected but National winning the party vote commandingly." - Awkward sentence. Suggestion: "The 19 general electorates which Labour retained all have a predominantly urban character, excluding Waimakariri, a predominantly urban area with a significant rural population. In Waimakariri, a Labour MP won narrowly, but National won the party vote by a large margin."
• "excluding Waimakariri" - Wikilink Waimakariri?
• "Palmerston North remains the only provincial city with a Labour MP. The two seats of Hamilton... " - Wikilink Palmerston North and Hamilton, New Zealand?
• I'd suggest turning the list in the "Dates" section into straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. Also, it's usually not necessary to include the day of the week in dates.
• Ditto for the lists in the "Retiring MPs" section.
• Ditto for the lists in the "MPs who lost their seats" section.
• "(list MP at number 14)" - What is the meaning of "at number 14"?
• "The Electoral Finance Act 2007 passed by the Labour government had a "chilling effect" on political activity in 2008, according to the Electoral Commission." - It would be helpful to add a brief explanation of this act in addition to linking to another article.
• "the latter crossing the two-dollar-per-litre mark in late May" - For clarity, the currency needs to be specified, and the amount needs to be converted to imperial units (dollars per gallon) as well as appearing in metric.
• "unveiling a plan worth $150 billion whereby all retail deposits would be unconditionally covered" - Does "covered" mean "insured against loss"?
• "Also signed up to the plan was the National Party, with deputy leader and finance spokesperson Bill English saying that there was 'still time to change the...scheme if banks find it hard to borrow overseas'." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: Also signed up to the plan was the National Party. Its deputy leader and finance spokesperson, Bill English, said that there was "still time to change the...scheme if banks find it hard to borrow overseas".
• It might be helpful to explain how deposit insurance (if that is what is meant by "unconditionally covered") might make it harder for New Zealand banks to borrow overseas.
• "This implied higher costs for KiwiSaver, Working For Families... ". - Wikilink KiwiSaver and Working for Families?
• "Over the next fiscal year, Dr Cullen... " - Who is Dr. Cullen?
• "the New Zealand First party was cleared of wrongdoing by the Electoral Commission, which was investigating donations that the party failed to declare." - Shouldn't this be "allegedly failed to declare"?
• Most of the "Boundary changes" section lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, direct quote, or claim that might be challenged. The "Opinion polling" section is completely unsourced.
• "The situation after 2005" - I'm not sure why this section or the subsequent 2005 sections have been included. They don't seem directly related to the 2008 election. Would readers outside of New Zealand find this information useful? Could all of this be summarized in a sentence or two and included in a "Background" section near the top of the article?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 00:32 UTC)

---

[edit] Lightning Bar

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take the poor pony to FAC at some point, but would like to make sure it's not full of horseperson's jargon or glaring ommissions that make it difficult to comprehend for the non-specialist. I'd also like feedback on any and all prose issues. Thanks!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 3 December 2009, 00:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know how this list should be expanded, what should I write? And the tables?

Thanks, Cannibaloki 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: What the article most lacks is a proper lead. Have you looked at featured lists of music awards (per WP:FL) to see the kind of information included in their leads?

• In this case, the lead should at least say who is responsible for the Grammy awards. No prior knowledge should be assumed.
• The lead should also provide a brief commentary on the 20 years of the award; for example some of the information in your "Category facts" section should be textualised.
• The sentence beginning "Years reflect the year in which..." should be a footnote linked to the tables rather than a sentence in the lead. The citation for this fact should be properly formatted, not left as a bare link.
• Has there been no press or magazine comments over the years, on these awards? These could provide useful sources for facts incorporated into the lead.
• The tables look neat, but there is some confusion with the sources. Your main source seems to suffer from a mix-up over years. For example, it repeats 2006 information in 2007, which casts doubt on its factual reliabilty. Since most of the information comes from this source, this is a potential problem.
• I can't find what your source is for the 1989 data, where Jethro Tull is indicated as the winner.
• As to whether the information on the tables can be expanded, the only thing I can think of is to indicate the albums from which the award tracks are taken. Would that be useful information?

I hope the above is of some use to you. I am not able to watch my peer reviews at the moment, but if you want to raise anything with me, please call my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 December 2009, 16:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… previously been a WP:DYK and WP:GA, looking for input to improve it further in quality.

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It would be easier to say something definitive if I had actually read the book. As it is, I'd just like to express a bit of discomfort with the article. Being a behavioral neuroscientist myself, I don't feel that our current understanding of brain function sheds much light on how brainwashing would work or whether it is possible -- purely psychological experiments by people like Philip Zimbardo are more informative. The article conveys an impression that the book accomplishes more than it possibly could, in my opinion. I would like to see it be more restrained in its praise of the book. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How so? Could you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again it makes me nervous to comment without having read the book, but I have a sense that the criticisms in the Le Fanu review are probably accurate and could be explained at greater length and placed in a more prominent position. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay will do, thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Better? Cirt (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. I am not an expert on the subject matter and I haven't read the book but I will give my input. Can the below techniques be expanded upon? Perhaps giving some examples.

Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies.[9] These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment.[14]

Is this only in relation to cults and communism? Does she talk about other groups or even individuals (eg psychopaths in relationships) doing this? Does she talk about withholding key facts or truths, telling half truths to confuse or convince the victim(s) of falsehoods etc? I would like to read more about what she says about psychological tactics and effects used by people who brainwash. Perhaps she does not elaborate and focuses on neurology.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a great article, a very good read and a fascinating albeit disturbing subject that the book covers. Good job on your work to this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comments on the article. I'd have to say that for Contents, when possible, I like to rely on secondary sources to makeup that subsection, so as to avoid WP:OR. In articles where there may not be an availability of secondary sources that describe that info, for example if there are no secondary sources that go into detail summarizing the entire plot of a fictional book, I generally summarize it myself or work with multiple editors to do so. But in this case, fortunately there were enough secondary sources to use. :) Cirt (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes you can't just summarise from the book, for FA ugh. :( I am not used to editing articles on books. :) Not to worry, it was only a suggestion and I don't think that it will get in the way of this article reaching FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will begin a lookthrough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

brings the point across - sound like she's already convinced the reader. I think "proposes" is a better verb here.

I am surprised there is no link somehow to Stockholm syndrome, either in the book or criticism.

In fact, it really needs some critique by a psychologist or psychiatrist in a peer-reviewed journal or other. The lay reviews are okay.(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 December 2009, 01:48 UTC)

---

[edit] M22 Locust

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a Good Article review and a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I'd like to take it to FAC when this Peer Review is over. Main concerns are prose, which is never my strong point, and MoS compliance. I also welcome analysis of my sources, although I'm confident that I've exhausted all available WP: Reliable Sources.

Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was invited to provide a citation review here.

1. Short cites check out fine. The choice of Author with titles used to differentiate is a great one for history. You could consider having the short citations end in full-stops (I think it looks cleaner, but this is totally a personal thing).

A nice idea, and I've enacted it!

1. Chamberlain & Ellis in the short citations differs from the bibliography which is Chamberlain; Ellis. This is up to your own tastes really, because its not inconsistent within sections. I just like pushing multiple author consistency between the short citations and the bibliography.

Couldn't figure out how to correct the template in the Bibliography, so I changed it to the latter example in the short cite in the article; could you check that's consistent now?

1. You'll want to add Locations for your References section. If you're on {{cite book}} you'd want |location= ; when using |location= you have some options. International cities don't need further identification, London: Penguin. Cities so well known because of a press association can stand alone, Harmondsworth: Penguin. or if you don't like that way, all presses can have their major sub-national unit and formal state listed. ie: Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Or Sydney, NSW, Australia. Or New York, New York, USA. Please remember: popular sub-national units (Russia for USSR, England for UK) are inappropriate. All US states should be put as State, USA. If using contractions on US states, use a consistent set, and only contractions.

Not entirely sure what I'm doing here; I'll see what I can add and then come back here to tell you, if that's okay.

Okay, added all locations, not sure if they're all done correctly.

1. Is this really a hyphen: "Army - Airborne Forces"?

No, and I can't believe this, but I got the title wrong - doesn't need the 'Army' bit, just 'Airborne Forces'. I'll correct it in other articles as I go.

1. You're missing a comma between the title and the pp. "Zaloga, Armour of the Middle East Wars pp. 4–5"

Done, thanks.

1. Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources, tertiary sources include articles, cite the article using {{cite book}}'s |chapter= and use |pages= in the bibliography to indicate the pages spanned. Indicate the article's author (anonymous? named?) indicate the encyclopedia's editors. What makes the article's author an expert whose tertiary opinion can be relied upon? (Ie: what makes this a reliable source).

Uh, hopefully this is only for Bishop, but I'm not sure how to do this with Bishop - no idea who wrote the entry, either. Could you help out with this bit?

1. Is this part of a relevant book series (ie: on universal tanks)? Fletcher, David (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2.

Nope, Fletcher just called it that, the previous one is called 'The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour...' I don't think that makes it part of a series, he only did the two books anyway. Let me know if I need to add anything.

1. You may want to check on the Manual of Style for the capitalisation of titles.

Will do!

1. I'd want reassurance about the high quality of the illustrated sources?

I'll talk about this at the bottom, to keep it all in one place.

1. I'd want you to describe how you searched for journal articles: but I'm not familiar with military equipment journal articles, military science tends to concentrate on leadership issues... in general, it helps to explain how you've exhausted sources for historical articles with a low source count. (I'm aware that the Locust doesn't draw the imagination of tank history authors).

Let me start this here, and maybe expand on it tomorrow. Obviously, firstly I did the usual Google, Google News and Google Scholar search: nothing in those of any help, annoyingly. When I was doing my MA at Warwick University I used my access to JSTOR and the like to see if there was anything, and there wasn't. I'm not sure what else I could look for that I'd have access to. Oh, and anything the National Archives at Kew would have - looked through there for secondary stuff. Is that enough to satisfy you, or can I do any more?

I'll also point out that Flint seems to have gone over all of the possible military journals for the Locust as well as the Tetratch, and especially for the former there are very few, mostly from the odd modelling magazine and regimental journal. Nothing that I could really get my hands on, which is annoying as I wouldn't mind reading some of them anyway.

1. Oh, also, we don't give authors titles unless they're part of their name, "Otway, Lieutenant-Colonel T.B.H (1990)" should be "Otway, T.B.H."

Done!

1. On a side note, the lede appears a bit long for the article? There's style advice about lede size out there. WP:LEDE perhaps?

Hmm, I'll double-check this and see if it can't be trimmed down a tad.

I quite like this article, it was a nice read when I was reading about airbourne tanks and armoured vehicles. I hope I've explained the citation issues present clearly enough? Your citations aren't missing any major information pieces, except the press locations, and the articles referred to in the encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the really quick response - I'm glad you enjoyed it. I've got to pop off to work now, but I'll get through these tomorrow; I'm glad to see that there aren't any huge problems. I'll re-check for journal articles and the like as well, while I'm at it. As for Bishop, he's only used for one cite, so it isn't a huge deal if he has to go, though it might mean a slight rewrite; how would I prove he's a HQ reliable source? Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and the same for Tucker; if he isn't a reliable source, then this article might have a few problems. What's the usual route for arguing that they're both High Quality, Tucker especially? I found that, in researching the Locust, a number of books understandably got them mixed up with the Tetrarch, and Tucker was one of the few that didn't, which would seem to put it head and shoulders above many other sources. Any ideas would be a help. Skinny87 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Key points to a HQRS: If its an encyclopedia article, if it is a specialist encyclopedia, and if the article in question was written by a specialist who actually signed their name to it (not the encyclopedia editor generally, they tend to write the short poor quality articles and sign their name over actual staff writers). For sources in general, is the press academic or commercial specialist? Was the source reviewed favourably by the specialist presses dedicated to that area? Finally (and only if the others don't work), is the author a recognised expert in the field. Obviously recent works in academic or dedicated specialist commercial presses would be the best! Its okay to not be entirely HQRS for Featured Article Candidates, as long as the majority of the work is derived from HQRS, and the WEIGHT and core narrative has been set by HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we go! I've knocked down Tucker and Bishop to a total of four citations, as the others were merely duplicates that can easily go without compromising the article. Of those four, all of the Tuckers can potentially be replaced by Chamberlain and Ellis once I get access to it on Friday (My copy is at the regimental museum I volunteer at) which only leaves the Bishop citation. This is slightly more awkward, as the history of the Locust is rather piecemeal at times: the Bishop cite states that the tank was chosen by the War Office to be transported by glider. Seems obvious, I know, and I can probably find something to replace it with, but it would be a tad awkward. I can't really defend Bishop as an HQRS - the [About Us for his publisher] doesn't exactly make me confident about them. Ironically Tucker's publishers, ABC-Clio, the one I can hopefully replace, seems a lot more defendable. Their [About Us page] mentions a number of awards and they would seem to be more rigorous, although I'm not really sure what I'm looking for. Neither author seems to be academically-known in any way, unfortunately. So, as it stands: Tucker can probably be replaced and might be reliable(?); Bishop would be more awkward to replace, and would not seem to be an HQRS. I leave my sources to your mercy, and any advice you could give :)

Ah, I didn't realize Chamberlain and Ellis had 'Illustrated' in their title as well. I think they can be deemed HQRS, as they publish a number of military history books and so forth, but I can't find a website for them. I think they've been subsumed under Orion, as it states here somewhere at the bottom: [Orion Publishing About Us]. Orion seem quite reliable and a fairly big publisher, and I have stacks of Cassell-published history books at home, if that helps. Both of the authors have published other books on military history, tanks specifically, although I can't figure out how to do that Google thing where you can see if a certain book has been cited. If Chamberlain and Ellis aren't HQRS, or at least good RS, then I'm sunk really. I'll be back in a while, this is giving me something of a headache.

(od)Okay, I think I can source everything to Chamberlain and Ellis that is currently cited to Tucker, which would leave only the one Bishop citation, which I'll work on. I think two are better than three, especially since I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that C&E are much more likely to be HQRS than Tucker or Bishop - better publisher, authors have published numerous books on the subject and so forth. But, of course, I leave it yo your opinion, Fifelfoo. Skinny87 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And everything from Tucker is now sourced to Chamberlain and Ellis. That just leaves one citation to Bishop. I think C&E would qualify as HQRS, per my comments above, though how I'd go further to prove that I haven't a clue. I'm also unsure how to edit the Bishop citation to show it's an encyclopedia article, as I don't know who authored the article on the Locust. Skinny87 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bishop is gone as well, as a closer read of Flint gave me the needed citation. Skinny87 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

• I was asked to check alt text. I made a few changes, but it looks good, except...
  • I'm concerned about File:M22-littlejohn-adapter-01.jpg. It's cited to the US Ordinance Dept but only two images on the source page are cited there and that isn't one of them!
  • There are other images that say they are "possibly" made by Allied soldiers (on their file pages). How do we know they are, and not copyvios? I think a few of those images will have to be removed before or during FAC.
  • It's not entirely obvious (to me) that the tank is moving in the action shot (File:M22locustincombat.jpg).
  • It's also not entirely clear the people here are wearing overalls (image looks washed out, etc.). Also, the source image is dead and its source page seems a bit biased ("If we persist in foot-slogging its a dumb choice born of narcissism not an inevitability. ... We certainly don't like the POS Pandur but at least here, its being shown being LVADed from a C-130...")—I wonder if there's a better source with better images.
  • I wonder why the damaged tank in Israel (File:M22-locust-negba-2.jpg) doesn't have the two sets of handles in front—it doesn't look like they were shot off. Maybe their absence might warrant a mention in its alt?
• No dabs or dead external links—good.
• I read the lead and some of the "Background" and it looks reassuringly clean and accessible. If the rest of the article is that good, you're probably ready (but I'm no specialist in tank articles, so I hope the A-class project review caught remaining content problems).

--an odd name 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, very much appreciated! I have edited the alt text to state that the Locust is simply on the road moving through the field. As for the other photographs, I have to agree with you about their dubious status. I certainly won't want to use any possible copy-vio images, so I've removed them from the article. I'll take another look in the IWM Collections and the Library of Congress to see if I can find any with correct licensing. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sad to see the images go, but we should always be sure that what we use is free (or, at least, not free).

Finally, this article has a redlink to gyro stabilizer, but the dab page Stabilizer has a redlink to Gun stabilizer. One of those should change, unless gyro is only one notable type of gun stabilizer. --an odd name 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gyro stabilizer changed to Gun stabilizer; I'm sure they're the same thing. Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So many nice images of the Locust on the 'net, but none I could find that have copyright information. So, I've added Public Domian pictures of the Hamilcar and the Tetrarch instead, to fill in the gaps. Skinny87 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I reckon the article is comprehensively referenced enough, and to me it seems quite clear where a ref is supporting several sentences or even a paragraph. However, I know that some editors like to see refs for almost every sentence going! There are, for example, only 5 refs in the Operation Varsity section and that sort of thing might come up at FAC, so I thought it worth mentioning now.
• Could the M and G numbers be explained in the See also section?

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Couple of extra refs from Flint added, as they can't do any harm. I got rid of the M and G numbers - I'm not sure who put them there, but I can't see their relevance and couldn't explain it if they stayed. Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 12:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan Chhatari

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

I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about one of important personality from Uttar Pradesh who have held many key positions at various Government/Public levels. I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status.

Thanks, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with what Ealdgyth wrote above. It sounds like he was an interesting person and led a full life. However, the article needs a fair amount of work to better conform to the Manual of Style, Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be up to four paragraphs long. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so this needs to be expanded considerably. Please see WP:LEAD
• It also helps to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, here many readers might not know much about the British Raj or know what the United Provinces were.
• The article is oddly organized - as far as I can tell we are never told in the article itself (ignoring the infobox and lead) when or where he was born or died. It is usually helpful to include some sort of Early life section that gives the basics of his birth, family, education, early career.
• It is also usually helpful to follow chronological order unless there is a very good reason not to. Here, the first section after the lead is about 1929 and 1930, the following section starts in 1923 to 1926, then skips ahead to 1931.
• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that could be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
• I am not sure how the subject of the article should be referred to - the WP:MOS says usually just the last name is used, so "Chhatari". The article uses "Nawab of Chhatari" or just "Nawab". SInce this seems to be a title / office and not his name, I am not sure it should be used.
• Use of italics in a direct quote does not follow WP:ITALIC
• What did he do from 1947 to 1965?
• Once all the other issues are addressed, this oculd use a copy edit to polish the language. ALso watch for WP:PEACOCK terms
• I know Ealdgyth said this already, but 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 _><>°^° 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 12:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Alan Khazei

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article will be viewed a lot over the next week. Alan Khazei is running to become US Senator from Massachusetts to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. The special election Democratic primary will occur on December 8,2009. I think that improving the quality of this article & other articles related to the upcoming election will be really useful for people coming to Wikipedia to find information about these candidates. It would be great to get this article & other articles related to the upcoming election to good/featured article status. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Khazei sounds like a very deserving character for a Wikipedia biography, and I was interested to read about him. This article is a commendable effort, but has a way to go yet before it can be seriously considered for GA or FA.

• Infobox: the long list of "Awards" details belongs in "Awards and recognitions" subsection. No need for it here (infobox info should be brief)
• Lead
  • This short lead omits significant information contained in the article. For example the article has a section on SeviceNation which is not mentioned in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the whole article, with everything of significance at least mentioned.
  • First sentence should follow name with (born May 28, 1962); standard practice for biographical articles
  • Spell out Chief Executive Officer at first mention (some may not know what CEO is)
  • "Non-profit organisations" rather than "non-profits" (an unknown abbreviation in the UK)
  • Final sentence needs updating per this
• Upbringing etc
  • Minor prose point: two successive sentences beginning with "He graduated...". I'd begin the first "In 1979 he graduated from St. Paul's School...", thus avoiding the repetititon
  • "St. Mary's Church" is a bit too vague - there are about half a million of them. A bit more identification is necessary (also delete the gap between punctuation and citation).
• City Year
  • You describe City Year as an AmeriCorps organisation, but later report that Clinton was "inspired by visiting CityYear to found the Americorps program." Chicken and egg?
  • "In 1988 Khazei and his then–Harvard roommate..." Former roommate, surely? Khazei graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987.
  • More important, I am interested to know why a 27-year-old Harvard law graduate with a lucrative career beckoning should found a community service project. There is nothing indicated here in his background to suggest he would do this. Do we have any information as to what motivated him? There's other things we need to know, like was this his full-time occupation or a spare time thing? How was the organisation funded? Did it grow rapidly or gradually?
• Save AmeriCorps campaign
  • Let's name and shame: who cut the AmeriCorps funding by 80%?
  • 100 hour → 100-hour
  • This sentence confuses me: "This campaign led to half of the AmeriCorps funding being restored in 2003 and to all of the previous funding plus a $100 million increase appropriated for 2004." First, if funding was cut in 2003 and restored in 2003, wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer at the beginning of the section to a proposed cut? Secondly, "half of the AmeriCorps funding being restored" – does this mean that half of the (proposed) cut was restored? Thirdly, what does "all of the previous funding" mean? I assume that $100 million was added to the 2003 funding prior to the cut, but the prose must make all of these facts clear.
• ServiceNation
  • Begin the section by explaining what ServiceNation was, rather than with Khazei being honoured for organising it.
  • To what does "NonProfit Times' 2008" refer? Is NonProfit Times a journal? If so it should be italicised. The apostrophe is confusing. Perhaps rephrase as "Khazei was recently recognized by NonProfit Times as one of its 2008 "Executives of the Year"...
  • "...700 other national service leaders." Your use of "other" reads as though Obama and McCain were national service leaders.
  • "At the summit, Obama and McCain together pledged to expand national service in an event that was broadcast on national television." Needs rewording: "At the summit, which was broadcast on national television, Obama and McCain both pledged to expand national service." (note "both" rather than "together")
  • "The ServiceNation coalition..." What coalition?
  • Second paragraph: first sentence is way, way too long and meandering - needs to be broken into two or three sentences.
• Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act: a single short sentence does not justify a separate section. Either expand the section, or merge the sentence into another section.
• Other work
  • Khazei's work for Save Americorps has been mentioned earlier, in a section entitled "Save AmeriCorps campaign", and doesn't require repeating here.
  • I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure that some of the bodies listed in the second paragraph could be wikilinked. Have you investigated?
• United States Senate campaign: this will need to be updated, and presumably redrafted in the past tense.
• Positions on key issues
  • What is "deficit-neutral health care reform"? (Jargon like this should be avoided)
  • Roe v Wade should be briefly explained - the link is insufficient on its own
  • Another impenetrable sentence: "However, he has stated that he would vote for a health care reform bill that includes the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, and would work later to change this amendment." This should be reworded in a way that enables the general reader (a category that includes many non-Americans) to understand it.
  • Style issue. The sudden adoption of single-sentence paragraphs is unwelcome. This part of the section needs to be rewritten to give a proper prose flow.
  • "He calls for a pragmatic approach to improving education by strengthening programs proven to work, including public charter schools and higher salaries for teachers." I question use of the word "including" in this sentence, as it suggests that "public charter schools" and "higher salaries for teachers" are being offered as examples of "programs proven to work". Neither is a "program" in the accepted sense of the term.
  • "He has stated that gambling costs taxpayers $3 due to increased bankruptcies for every $1 earned in revenues." Clumsily worded. Try "He has stated that, due to increased bankruptcies, gambling costs taxpayers three times as much as is collected from gambling taxes" (though I'm still uncertain as to how this is so; perhaps more explanation necessary?)
  • LGBTQ - spell it out.
• Senate endorsements: Out of date stuff now. Suggest reduce to a few brief comments and incorporate with the earlier section.
• References: These are nearly all bare links at the moment, and need to be properly formatted. The required information is Author (if known), Title, URL, Publisher, Date and last access date. See ref 2 which is correctly formatted. Something has gone wrong with No. 10
• External links: These should be formatted so that we can at least see what they are. See the last but one item.
• Images lack author information. You probably need the help of an expert image reviewer to ensure that the licenses are correct.

Much work needed then, but I wish you luck with it. As I am not watching peer reviews regularly at the moment, please contact my talk page if you have issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 06:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Marwari horse

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed as a GA and I would like suggestions on what needs to be done before FAC.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.horsemarwari.com/index.htm
      • This is run by Francesca Kelly and Raghuvenda Singh, two of the foremost experts on the Marwari horse, who also helped create the breed registry and work closely with the government to promote and protect the breed. Kelly has written a book on the breed.
    • http://www.endurance.net
      • Removed and removed the info associated with it (it wasn't that important anyways, and on a second look could be viewed more as a plug for one particular farm).
    • http://www.dnaindia.com/
      • This website is published by corporations that also own Indias top daily Hindi newspaper and an international cable TV station.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on sources, Ealdgyth, and thanks also for the dash and template tweaks that you made. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is generally well done and quite interesting, it needs some work on providing more context to the reader and some language cleanup before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I am not an expert on India, but I know a bit more on it than I do about horses. I think it would be helpful to more clearly identify the regions within India. For example, the lead sentence could be The Marwari or Malani[1] is a breed of horse from the Marwar region of India. This tells the reader a bit more about the horse and etymolgy of its name becomes clearer too.
• I think I might try to add a bit to the first sentence too - does it really follow this from WP:LEAD in its current state (or is it too short)? The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1]
• I would also identify clearly where in India Marwar is (perhaps in the lead The Rathores, traditional rulers of the Marwar region of [northwest?] India, ..., definitely in the article). Since Jodhpur is the chief city of Marwar and the region seems to also have been known as that (and the name Jodhpur is probably better known) it might help to mention that somewhere in the lead too (already in the body).
• I think I would also make clearer in the article where Kathiawar is - perhaps even give a rough distance between it and Marwar, so the reader has a better idea of the physical separation between these two similar breeds
• Malani is given in the lead and the infobox, but not explained anywhere. My guess is that it is from another language or dialect, but it should be explained if possible.
• I would also identify all non-English words by their language if possible, so what language is Marwari from? or Malani? Or these four italicized words: "The Marwari often exhibits a natural ambling gait, close to a pace, called the revaal,[6] aphcal[4] or rehwal. .... Horses with long whorls down the neck are called devman and considered lucky, while horses with whorls below their eyes are called anusudhal and are unpopular with buyers.[7]"
• Slightly awkward - I understand what it means, but had to read it several times before being sure I understood: White horses are bred specifically for religious use in India, but are generally not accepted into Marwari studbooks. perhaps better as Although white horses are bred specifically for religious use in India, they are generally not accepted into Marwari studbooks.
• For those of us not sure of the subtleties of horse color names, could these be added to the captions of the four Marwari horse photos "A roan Marwari stallion" (or what ever it is). I also was happy to learn a new word - skewbald!
• Can conformation be linked or explained in The ponies were small and hardy, but with poor conformation...
• Out of place chronologically When the Moguls captured northern India in the early 1500s, they brought Turkoman horses that were probably used to supplement the breeding of the Marwari.[6]
• There is a 300 year gap in the history - with the English love of horses, is there no mention of the English and the Marwari during the British Raj?
• Similarly, the British left when India became independent in 1947, so In the 1950s, the British jagirdari, an act that abolished land ownership by Indian noblemen and hence reduced their ability to take care of animals, resulted in many Marwari horses being sold as pack horses, castrated or killed. seems very odd - a British legal act in the 1950s in India? If it was an earlier act, why did it only adversely affect the horses in the 1950s? It is confusing...
• Avoid the use of vague time words like today in The intervention of Maharaja Umaid Singhji saved the breed [when?], although its purity is in doubt again today [when?] and Umaid Singhji's grandson, Maharaja Gaj Singh II, also worked to save the breed.[6] or again in Today [Since 1999], the Indigenous Horse Society of India is responsible for setting breed standards and maintaining the breed.
• In fact these two sentences are redundant and I think the first could go: Today, the Indigenous Horse Society of India is responsible for setting breed standards and maintaining the breed. [...one sentence removed here...] In 1999, Kelly and Raghuvendra Singh Dundlod, a descendent of Indian nobility, led a group that founded the Indigenous Horse Society of India, a group that works with the government, breeders and the public to promote and conserve the breed.
• I would say this is in France The first Marwari was imported to Europe in 2006, when a stallion was given to the Living Museum of the Horse.[14] (Also the British were in India for centuries and never brought a single Marwari home to Europe??)
• Another unclear place - what exactly is the Marwari Horse Society of India? Is it separate from the government (as the first sentence seems to imply) or a government body (second sentence)? In late 2007, it was announced that there were plans to create a stud book for the breed, with the Marwari Horse Society of India working together with the Indian government toward this end.[15] In 2009, a registration process was initiated, and it was announced that the Marwari Horse Society was a government body which was the only government-authorized registration society for Marwari horses [or just "for this breed"].
• Awkward In a 2007 study, the Marwari was found to be the most genetically distinct breed amongst five of the six Indian horse breeds studied. The other breeds were the Spiti pony, Bhutia pony, Manipuri and Zanskari.[17] How about this instead A 2007 study of all Indian horse breeds except the Kathiawari found the Marwari to be the most genetically distinct breed amongst the five studied.[17]
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Thoroughbreds are linked twice in one section, for example.

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 _><>°^° 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 December 2009, 00:48 UTC)

---

[edit] Providence Grays all-time roster

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I my intent is to take this to the FL level. Any help with the prose would be fantastic as it is not my strong suit.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't reviewed this in detail, but since there is a symbol for "player-manager", it ought to also be colored. Since two of the player-managers are also HOFers, there probably should be 3 colors - one for HOFers, one for player-managers, and one for HOFers who were player-managers. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead made the change you requested, including changing the Hall of Fame color to be consistent with other FL Hall of Fame color indicator.Neonblak ^talk - 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me. I did a light copyedit of the lead - please revert if I introduced errors. Hhere are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead is six paragraphs, too long per WP:LEAD (max of four). After the first paragraph, it is basically a short history of the team. I would probably make the last five paragraphs a History section.

I thought it was too long as well, but I wasn't sure if the text just needed to be summarized more, or if some other remedy would be recomended. I am not sure I have seen narative sections in FL candidates, but I will rummage through them and see how others have done this.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been a major author on four FLs (none sport related) and all have narrative text before the tables. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was not sure what this meant - missing word? ...1882, the Grays hired Harry Wright to be their manager, who brought back his [relative?] George Wright to play.[20][21]

Typo, meant to be his brother.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I also thought the last sentence was a bit vague The Grays' final season was in 1885, a season in which they finished at their lowest positional standing in their history, as well as their worst winning percentage.[1] I would at least give their standing (third?) and I think I owuld add a sentence about why the folded as a franchise - assume it was financial?

I will try and find more sources that provide more specifics on why the team folded.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Alt text tool shows no alt text - this will be needed per WP:ALT
• I did not copyedit the text in the table - I noticed there is a tendency there to use numbers where the WP:MOS says they should be spelled out. Usually numbers ten and under are spelled out (although scores like 5 to 3 would not be). There are a fair number of "he played 1 game" sort of sentences that should read "he played one game" (unless there is some sort of baseball MOS I am unaware of).
• I also think statistics can be kept as numbers, so Kemmler played in 2 games with 1879 Grays, and collected 1 hit in 7 at bats. would be Kemmler played in two games with 1879 Grays, and collected 1 hit in 7 at bats.? I would check with someone who knows baseball style here better than I do - perhaps User:Killervogel5

This issue was raised during a previous FL of mine, where it was stated that the numbers needed to be either ALL spelled out, or all enumerated, so I chose the latter. The idea being that it needed to be uniform throughout the table, not just the individual player's line. I think with this issue, I will let the FL process weed it out.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also watch the overuse of and - two quick examples with suggested corrections:
  • He was the starting shortstop for the 1878 Grays, and batted .237, and scored 30 runs. could just be He was the starting shortstop for the 1878 Grays, batted .237, and scored 30 runs.

I agree, and will go through and make these changes.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • In 1883, he played his only season in Providence, and was the starting right fielder. could just be In 1883, he played his only season in Providence as the starting right fielder. (also not sure you need the "In 1883" part as the previous column gives the year - could also be something like In his only season in Providence, he was the starting right fielder.)

I agree with this as well, I thought it wierd that I was pointing out the season in which the player was with the team, when it was already in the table. I will change these incidents, but will leave alone the others where I am pointing out a specific season of interest, for a player who played multiple seasons with the club.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These suggestions are great, thank you for your help.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 20:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Justus

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and am looking for prose help, as well as help with finding any missing context that might be needed for a non-medievalist. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Colin's comments: I know very little English history so amply qualify as a non-medievalist. Here's some initial comments from the first two parts. More later if this is helpful.

• "was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury, in England." The ", in England" jarrs. Is it necessary? We mention England a few words later, just in case anyone doesn't know where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives.

• Deleted the "in England" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "sent to England". I'm now wondering "from where?"

• Clarified a bit .. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Gaul" may be worth wikilinking.

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "a native Italian". Do we need "native"? Do we know anything about where he was born or where he lived prior to coming to England?

• Removed the native bit, and no, we know nothing nothing nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "books brought to England by Mellitus". I don't know who Mellitus is. I see it is wikilinked later but I need it here. I see from his article that he was believed to have come on the 601 mission too, which explains why he is being mentioned in connection with the books Justus travelled with. Can we give some context here?

• Expanded a bit in the previous paragraph Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just noticed the article spells "traveled" with one "l". Is this written in US English? Just asking.

• It should be in Brit English, but I usually have Malleus check over these types of articles because I'm a yank, thus catching all my mistakes (I've finally gotten "favour" down..) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really following the point about "but examination of...one possible survivor". Why the "but"?

• Clarified that a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Along with the letter to Augustine" why "the letter", not "a letter"?

• Should have been "a" oops. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "the returning missionaries" I'm confused about "returning". I thought they came to Britain, not returned to Britain?

• this paragraph came from another article (easier than retyping the whole big lot!) but a couple of typos obviously occurred. One of the 601 missionaries was actually returning (Laurence) but the others were new. Easier to just remove the "returning" from here, where it is unneccessary detail (the article it came from was Laurences, obviously). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "force the conversion of his followers" Is "followers" the right word? Doesn't a king have "subjects"?

• "Subjects" has a connotation that isn't quite correct in the early medieval period, especially here. The nobles, etc. were more "followers" than "subjects", as they could (and did) desert these kings (who were really not able to enforce their will on the peasants) so followers is a bit more correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Colin°^Talk 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) More:

• "The King was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines" I'm wondering why this is a separate sentence rather than just run on from the previous as "and destroy all pagan shrines". Did that urging come from someone else, or was that behaviour not "like the Roman Emperor Constantine I"?

• Nope, just a relic of how I put articles together, which is to throw up data in bits and pieces then rearrange as needed. Sometimes that means that sentences aren't always real long. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Did they succeed? Did the king convert his subjects and destroy the shrines?

• We don't really know if he destroyed them all, nor do we have a lot of evidence about how many were converted. On reflection, I've removed the sentence about hte letter, as it's really peripheral to Justus. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• "another of the missionaries who was Bishop of London" this reads like there were several missionaries who were "Bishop of London". Do you mean something like "who was another of the missionaries and who was Bishop of London"?

• This got fixed in a rewrite connected to comments above... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikilink "Frankish"?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He then consecrated Romanus as his successor" a little ambiguous if "he" is Justus or Boniface, particularly when Boniface's actions continue to be described in the following sentence with an "also" linking back.

• Clarified it as Justus.

• Do we know why he was regarded as a saint?

• No clue. No sign of miracles being attributed to him like Mellitus, nor any other idea. Pre-congregation saints are ... shadowy. I've added that he's pre-congregation to the infoboxEaldgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• How long is the poem about him? If short, could it be reproduced here or linked to?

• I have no idea. I have no idea if it's even been translated from Latin, honestly. If it has, it might still be copyrighted depending on the date of translation. For that matter, transcribing manuscripts may very well be copyrighted. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can we wikilink "Reginald of Canterbury"

• I've redlinked him. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• What a shame we only know bits of his life and not even the year of his death.

• We know more about him than some other Archbishops of Canterbury... see Feologild. And the ABCs are much better off than some of the other early medieval English bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Colin°^Talk 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, I'll get started on these shortly. Hopefully tomorrow.. it's been a rotten couple of days here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 18:50 UTC)

---

[edit] Pond Eddy Bridge

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love a great review before hopefully taking this 106-year old (to be 107) structure to FAC. I am sure it needs grammar and prose work, but I just finished a rewrite, so a good sentence by sentence review would help me much. Thanks, Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

General

• Exact page numbers for citations will probably needed. WP:CITESHORT might be of help.

There's only seven pages (158-164), its not that helpful.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Use the convert template to convert tons (use short tons instead of just ton)
• You use "PennDOT" and "Pennsylvania Department of Transportation" interchangebly throughout the article. I'd stick to one or the other.

Lead

• "...Lumberland, New York and Pond Eddy, Pennsylvania, United States." — Mention counties in opening sentence: "... Lumberland in Sullivan County, New York and Pond Eddy in Pike County, Pennsylvania, United States."
• I'd mention the roads the bridge carries in the prose and, possibly, move the refs from the infobox.

1870 suspension bridge

• "The area around Pond Eddy was based around the Delaware and Hudson Canal..." — "around" is used repeatedly. Change to: "The area around Pond Eddy was centered on the Delaware and Hudson Canal..."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "John Augustus Roebling, and rumors arised that he helped supervise the project personally." — WP:WEASEL; I'd try to confirm what his role in the bridge was or just remove the speculation of his involvement and leave it as the bridge being based on his design.

Its only rumors and he was never actually there.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "After the communities of Pond Eddy continued to grow in Pennsylvania and New York, the town fathers decided a bridge should be erected to connect the two communities." — Was their two communities named Pond Eddy or one that happen to have residents living in both states? Also "town fathers", "town founders" might be better.

They were two separate communities, as they are today, legislatively. The first one had a previous name of Flagstone, as mentioned in the article.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "James D. Decker was a local man who was the hired supervisor of construction of the new bridge. He was also the Sullivan County sheriff at the time and former mayor (then-called town supervisor)." — Combined sentences. By the way, which town did he supervise? Change to: "James D. Decker, who was the Sullivan County sheriff and former "town supervisor", was hired to supervise the construction of the bridge."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He lived personally a location so close to the bridge site, locals often called the bridge as "Decker's Bridge"." — Worded better..."He lived so close to the bridge site that the bridge soon became nicknamed "Decker's Bridge"."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "...was capable to hold the anticipated traffic." — What was the anticipated traffic?
• "Historians believed that from the beginning of the bridge's life, the bridge was not tolled for Lumberland residents." — more weasel words. Change to: Although, initially, the bridge was tolled, residents of Lumberland were exempted from it."

There were rumors, as mentioned further, its making factually inaccurate without it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "However, the town of Lumberland leased out the new bridge and its tollbooth to private individuals, who tolled everyone, including local citizens. When a person to lease the bridge to could not be hired, the town maintained it, and under this format, people paid nothing." — Reworded: "Eventually the town of Lumberland leased the bridge out to private individuals, who tolled indiscriminately. During times when bridge could not be leased, the town retained control and "

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1903 petit truss bridge

• "...the "floods of the century" struck the Delaware River Valley" — What caused the floods?

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Finally in 1926, the mayor of Lumberland, who was a friend of Pennsylvania's governor at the time..." — Which governor?

Governor Gifford Pinchot. Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• {{inflation}} might of some use for the old bridge prices.

Someone else will have to do that, I've failed with that template so many times that I stopped using it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the inflated prices. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacement plans

• "...had its weight limits lowered..." – Any idea what the were lowered from and lowered to?

Still needs some polishing, but it's on its way to being featured. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • "Flood Scene in Paterson, N.J. (movie)". October 13, 1903" For this, we would need more information in order to locate this movie in order to verify. Who is the author? Publisher? Is it in an archive somewhere?

I just found it this morning. IMDB, which is the place I found it wasn't very specific. Lemme check.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Its a 1903 phonograph movie of the flooding from the Edison Manufacturing Company, and I have it backed up.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

YOu're using cite web to cite a movie? The movie title should be in italics, and I'd really like to see something like Flood Scene in Paterson, N.J. -H36824. [motion picture]. Edison Manufacturing Company. October 13, 1903.  Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Fixed all three that apply.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't freak. I have 11,327 pages on my watchlist, and the number goes up daily, so its not the end of the world to have a backlogged watchlist.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Prose
  • If I may be frank, the prose in this article needs a considerable amount of work, more than I thought it would. But I'll just list concerns as we go, I guess.
• The area around Pond Eddy was centered on the Delaware and Hudson Canal, which was constructed in the early 1800s. - What was centered on it? business?
• The Erie Railroad also provided a major part of the community's history, with the railroad running up the Pennsylvania side. - First of all, why did it provide a major part; second, it contributed a major part *Fixed for you as example*; third, with the railroad running is just bad prose.
• After the communities of Pond Eddy continued to grow in Pennsylvania and New York, the town founders decided a bridge should be erected to connect the two communities. - when did you mention there were communities in Pond Eddy growing? And since when is Pond Eddy in both states?

The area on both sides of the river is known as Pond Eddy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• The new bridge would make rail shipment of local industries, including bluestone, slate and lumber, much easier of process. - this sentence could be better with better word choice and active words, not passive.
• Historians believed that from the beginning of the bridge's life, the bridge was not tolled for Lumberland residents. - needs a citation directly after it
• Both communities grew large fast, with a new railroad station being built in Pond Eddy on the Pennsylvania side. - with a ... not good again. ;) *Fixed for you as example*
• The loss of the canal, which had a large portion of businesses still, hurt the community financially. - had is better as held or controlled; still should be moved to in front of whatever verb you change to.

• That's all for now. - I have to get some work done today, but you should finish these concerns asap so we can fix up this article. It definitely has FA potential. Sorry for giving you so much work to do! ;) ceranthor 13:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Daniel Case

I did a copy edit from a hard copy I marked up with red pen that shaved about 1.6K from the article's overall length. I hope that addresses most of the prose issues identified above (In general, Mitch, three things for future reference: Omit needless words, prefer the active voice over the passive, and remember parallelism).

On a factual basis, too, the executive of a town in New York is always, then and now, the town supervisor (Or just "supervisor" for short). S/He is never a mayor. Only cities and villages have mayors. Also, I would think that Shohola Township and the Town of Lumberland passed resolutions asking PennDOT to replace the bridge (that would make more sense, and I duly copyedited it as such). Speaking of which, you say Narrowsburg passed one. Well, Narrowsburg is an unincorporated hamlet; it has no government and therefore can't pass any resolutions. Do you perhaps mean the Town of Tusten, whose offices and mailing address are in Narrowsburg? And why would they care so much about the next bridge up the river?

And I must admit I need to see some clarification on this "the stone and lumber mines closed" thing. Lumber is something you can mine? That would be interesting to learn more about.

Lastly, re the "residential home" (is there any other kind?) the tollhouse was converted into, do you know where it is? It would be helpful for your article if someone (cough, cough) who lives closer to the bridge than you do (cough, cough, cough) could go up there and take a picture of it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 18:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Shale oil extraction

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because there is an intention to re-nominate it for FAC. Hopefully the peer review will give some fresh ideas what should be done before the re-nomination.

Thanks, Beagel (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/OilShaleReview200509.pdf

  Although hubbertpeak.com website itself probably can't to be considered as reliable source, the author of this article, Jean Laherrère, is a reputable petrochemist and oil shale specialist. His works are cited in other reliable sources, e.g. report by the European Academies Science Advisory Council. His reliability could be verified by Google Scholar search. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/12494

  I had also myself some douts about this source. I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://books.google.com/books?id=luKukIWzRIgC&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=&f=false - Lulu is a vanity press, so what makes the author an expert under WP:SPS�?

  Well, although this book is also provided y Google Scholar, it seems that this is the only publication by this author. The information seems to be accurate, but to be safe, I will listed it at the WP:RS/N for more comments. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.shaleoilinfo.org/library/citizens/lukens2005Jul09.php

  I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/7critchar7.html

  I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

  References are formatted per your advice. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes

  Could you please specify which abbreviation you exactly mean? Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is close to FA. It's seems comprehensive (to this general reader) and clear, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and (with the exceptions noted by Ealdgyth above) well-sourced and verifiable. The images need alt text, and I have a few other suggestions, mainly related to minor prose issues and the Manual of Style.

• The images need alt text, one of the requirements for FA. Alt text is meant to describe the images for readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details.

I should probably elaborate by saying that the alt text is easier to write if you imagine a blind person hearing it read aloud by a machine. So saying something like "a schematic of ..." won't help the blind person. It's often the case that the alt text needs to be longer than the caption because the essential facts can be conveyed to a blind person only via words. Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will work with it. Any assistance is welcome. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

History

• "A number of shale oil extraction technologies have been developed over a period of time and these are continously evolving." - More direct would be "Shale oil extraction technologies have been evolving since the 10th century."

• Will work with the wording. It was the first description of the process from the 10th century, but shale oil was used already earlier, and accordingly it was extracted before the 10th century. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Process principle

• "Shale oil extraction process decomposes oil shale and converts kerogen in oil shale into shale oil — a petroleum-like synthetic crude oil." - Em dashes are unspaced in Wikipedia articles. Thus this should be "... shale oil—a petroluem-like synthetic crude oil". Ditto for any other em dashes in the article.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Classifications

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests replacing lists with straight prose when feasible. I don't see any special reason for the bullets in this section. Also, WP:MOSBOLD suggests using bold very sparingly. Otherwise the effect is lost. Perhaps italics would be better for phrases like "By location" and "By heating method" since the table in this section has so much bolding.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduction through a wall

• "Conduction through a wall technologies generally use fine particles." - Hyphenate to avoid confusion, thus: "Conduction-through-a-wall technologies generally use fine particles"? Or re-cast as "Technologies based on conduction through a wall generally use fine particles... "?

• The second option is used. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reactive fluids

• "react with coke precursors (a chemical structure in the oil shale that is prone to form char during retorting but has not yet done so)." - Maybe "chemical structures" to match the plural "precursors"?

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ExxonMobil Electrofrac

• "ExxonMobil's in situ technology uses electrical heating with elements of both–wall conduction and volumetric heating–methods." - Delete hyphens so that the sentence ends with " ...elements of both wall conduction and volumetric heating methods"?

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmental considerations

• "In some cases, oil shale mining requires the lowering of groundwater levels below the level... " - No need to link groundwater again here, but further down, you might link Bureau of Land Management.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "of waste water per tonne of processed oil shale" - Metric ton, I assume. You might want to convert this to imperial (the primary system in this article) as well.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do in coming days. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment: I think Ealdgyth is referring to abbreviations like "USAEE/IAEE" in citation 29. Really common things like PDF and ABC are OK as is, but the ones not really familiar to most readers should be spelled out. I don't think there are many. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

USAEE/IAEE is replaced with full names. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 09:07 UTC)

---

[edit] Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

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 improvements in the articles prose, with an intention of taking to FAC.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 06:07 UTC)

---

[edit] Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status.

Thanks, --CarTick 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You have indicated that you would like feedback on how to get this article to FA status. I have not had time to study the prose in line-by-line detail, but a quick readthrough and scrutiny reveals a number of issues that need attention:-

• There are several disambiguation links that need fixing. Go to the toolbox on the top right of this page, click on "disambig links." That will reveal what needs to be fixed.
• The images all need alt text. If you have problems dealing with this, let me know and I'll help. If you haven't done so already it may be an idea to look at WP:ALT
• The images may be public domain in India, but for free use on Wikipedia they need to be PD in the United States. Generally this means they need to have been published before 1923, which is obviously not the case here. You need to establish, with the help of an expert image reviewer, whether these pictures are PD in the US under some other criterion.
• The lead needs to expanded into a summary of the whole article rather than a brief introduction.
• Section headings
  • Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case uless they are proper nouns or form a title. Thus "Government response" not "Government Response". (and others)
  • Avoid beginning section titles with "The..." unless this is part of some formal title." Hemce, "Day of Mourning" not "The Day of Mourning" (and others)
• Some subsections are far too short to be freestanding, e.g. "Riots in the North". They should be incorporated into the sections.
• The repeated use of quotation boxes, even for short quotes, is disruptive to the smooth reading of the article. Short quotes should normally be incorporated into the text. Longer quotes (100 words+) may be in blockquotes - I have converted the first two long quotes in the Government response section to blockquotes so that you can see what needs to be done. But the majority of your quotes are not long enough to justify using blockquotes.
• I notice that some sections are in bullet-point format. This is very much frowned on for potential featured articles. These sections should be converted to prose.
• Reference formats
  • On-line references (Nos 1, 38, 42 etc) need access dates.
  • All references need publisher information
  • Ref. No 1 goes to a page that appears unrelated to the topic under discussion
  • No 3 goes to a "Not Found" message. There may be others - please check
• Odd points
  • The quantity 1635 should be written 1,635, 1200 should be 1,200. Check for others.
  • Consistency in spelling required; at present, for example, you have "organizers" (American) and "organisation" (British). It makes sense to stick to Brit spellings (you have adopted British date style), so please check for spellings such as "favor" etc. "Normalcy" in BritEng is "normality".
  • "climbdown" is a single word, not two.

All these issues need to be addressed. The prose doesn't seem at all bad, but probably needs the attention of a conscientious copyeditor. A most interesting article, well worth some further effort to take it towards FA. Maybe GA as a transitional stage?. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks brian for the review. i will incorporate the comments.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Public domain, In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain and If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.). That would mean File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg, File:Rajaji1939.jpg and File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg though are in public domain India now, they were not in January 1, 1996, and therefore, not in United States now because US does not follow the rule of shorter term. If it is not in the public domain in U.S, it can not be used in wikipedia. too bad. looks like we need to delete all these images. hope my assessment is correct, pls correct me if i am wrong. --CarTick 00:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

correct assessment for File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg and File:Rajaji1939.jpg. But File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg has been released into PD by the periyar kazhagam (if we switch to wikiality123's version), for all purposes. That means PD in US too. So we can use that as it was released into PD and not lapsed into PD. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

that is correct. permission from the copyright holder, in this case, periyar kazhagam should be fine. --CarTick 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Magazine titles need to be in italics also.
  • Current ref 51 has the title of the journal and the issue number in the link title. Should be broken out to have an author, title of the article, journal, volume and issue, and page numbers. Also for current ref 52, 66, and 80
  • What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?
  • what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton comments -Tick

• Sodabottle and I have re-written the lead.
• I have removed two images which are in public domain in India but not in US. I have replaced the third image with a duplicate image (permission for use here had been granted by the copyright holder). --CarTick 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton comments - Sodabottle

• Fixed disambiguation links
• Added Alt Text to remaining images
• Changed Section headings to confirm to MoS per Brian's comments.
• Short subsections have been eliminated and their contents incorporated into other subsections
• Reference formats 1) access dates added 2)publisher information added for all online refs 3)ref no 1 is citation for no of languages in India, source for general background for the article 4) fixed dead links in citations, verified all others
• Odd points 1)number format fixed
• Quotation box issue fixed
  • Still to do : 1) British English conformance ) bullet points to prose conversion--Sodabottle (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • all Fixed by User CarTick by 10 dec

All suggestions/issues raised by Brianboulton now incorporated/fixed --Sodabottle (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ealdgyth comments - Sodabottle

• Fixed Magazine and Newspaper titles using cite news and cite web templates as suggested by Ealdgyth --Sodabottle (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fixed Indian Recorder and Digest in journal format. Indian Review (by Natesan and Co) is an annual year book and not a journal. Similarly India Today (by living media) is also an annual year book and not a journal. So they are left as such with cite book template
• What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?

  • This has been backed up by another book now. However, this has been used as a source not for "what happened" but for "why they claimed they did it". Since the "they" in question is the DMK party, and sangam.org link is a lecture by Sachi Sri Kantha (a scholar with multiple Gscholar hits, BUT in another field) which quotes from a primary document of the DMK where they defend their actions. "What happened" has been sourced from a reliable source (scholarly work). And "what they claimed" has been sourced from DMK's own publications of that time period (now backed up with other scholarly work from Anthem press). --Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?

  • Same as above. This has been made the source for "why they claim they did it". As this is the official website of the DMK party this has been used as source for their "claim". Now it has been backed up by two more sources (one recent newspaper article and another journal article from the same time period) plus the legislative assembly proceedings discussing the . As in the above case "what happened" has been sourced by other RS including books and newspaper reports.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All comments/issues raised by Ealdgyth incorporated.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 30 November 2009, 04:31 UTC)

---

[edit] Flag of Japan

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 send this article to FAC sometime in the future. The last time I sent this article there, it needed some copyediting. Now, with the ongoing Flag of Singapore FAC, the standards of FAC have changed. This includes the alt text, which is something I am working on. The image sourcing is being taken care of and I think all of the dates have been delinked. If you have anything else, just let me know.

Thanks, User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • http://www.mopedronin.com/kimigayo.html deadlinks. What makes it a reliable source also?
  • What makes http://japan-world.iza.ne.jp/images/user/20070102/35233.jpg a reliable source?
  • I remain uncomfortable with http://flagspot.net/flags/ being used. It does list some sources, but it strikes me as a worrisome site to use, because some of the sourcing seems to be just to individuals. At FAC, I would probably bring this up and leave it for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but lean unreliable myself.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name—just curious.

• No dabs or dead external links (after some small edits)—good.
• The alt text for File:Flag of JSDF.svg, however, is confusing, if not wrong. It says "A red sun with eight rays on a white background. On each side of the flag is an inverted golden triangle." Are you using "side" in the polygonal sense? Either way, the eight golden triangles I see on the flag don't seem inverted to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
• Ref dates are consistent ISO style, and most (if not all) text dates are Month Day, Year—good.

If featured, it would be only the third current FA on an Asian flag—fourth if counting Singapore. --an odd name 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And that will be two that are crafted from my hands. I will fix the alt text now for that image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 20:03 UTC)

---

[edit] University of California, Berkeley

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently served as the Universities Collaboration of the Month for almost a year while the moderator took a WikiBreak. Now that we've moved on to a new collaboration, I'd like some closure for the old one. Most importantly, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status?

Thanks, Mabeenot (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

• First, deal with the tags. In addition to the clearly bad cleanup and undue-weight tags, address the merge tag to make sure that the article is stable (see criterion 5).
• Check external links. I set the page to only show clearly dead links (ones colored red and orange) and there's a lot—it becomes hard to verify an article with so many. You might want to change the accreditation link to http://vpapf.chance.berkeley.edu/accreditation/index.html or one of its subpages; the rest are up to you. Try the Wayback Machine or WebCite to find archives of the dead web pages, and archive the working ones with WebCite to combat link rot. When you are done with those, check the boxes at the top of the page to verify the other links.
• Watch for dab links and links that "loop back" to the article. Replace instances of these links with more specific ones. You don't want to confuse readers who follow the links!
• Add alt text to the images—if your article's reviewer can't see them, you don't stand a chance.

Good luck. --an odd name 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 29 November 2009, 07:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Pussycat Dolls 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 its quality, sourcing, formatting, prose etc and would like some ideas and opinions of how to improve the article further!

Thanks, :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Gongshow:

This is a very well-done discography, and there are no issues with dabs or dead links. I hope the following suggestions are helpful.

Lead:

• "a number of other appearances" --> I realize "other appearances" refers to a subsequent section heading, but in this sentence the wording seems just a little too vague for my liking. Perhaps consider changing to something like, "a number of collaborations with other artists" or "a number of guest appearances on other artists' songs"?
• There's an extra "." at the end of the first paragraph.
• "...United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the song also peaked..." --> The comma after Canada must be changed. I'd go with a semi-colon there.
• ""Beep" a collaboration with will.i.am..." --> There should be a comma after "Beep".
• "has been certified platinum by ARIA and gold by the BPI.[4][1][2][8][7]" --> Instead of lumping all the citations at the end of the sentence, I would put a citation after each fact for clarity.
• At the end of the third paragraph, there should be a comma after "Bottle Pop" and after "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)".

Singles:

• Some of the citations don't match up. For example, in the Canada column, the citation does not provide Canadian peak chart positions for any PCD songs except "Hush Hush". In the US column, the citation does not show the US peak chart positions for "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)" (looks like it's found here) or "Whatcha Think About That" (may also be found on a "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" chart at #8). Also, are there sources that show the group's German peak chart positions?

Other appearances:

• For "Bad Girl", since Confessions of a Shopaholic (film) has a soundtrack section, you might consider adding a wikilink for the album.

References

• Citation 3 needs a retrieval date.
• Citation 15 needs a publisher.

Again, these are mostly minor nitpicks. This is a nicely-written and well-referenced article overall. Kudos on the good work!  Gongshow ^Talk 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

heya, thank you so much for your review! :)

• have actioned your suggestions for the lead, makes much better sense now.
• have changed the candian singles ref to make it clearer and added the us jai ho one. also added the german, forgot about that. do u happen to know where the "bubbling under" chart is archived?
• added the wikilink
• the retrieved date and publisher were both there, just spelt wrong, so they didnt show up. fixed now!

Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! As far as an online archive for the "Bubbling Under" chart, I don't have a direct link myself unfortunately, so here are some ideas. First, it's possible that the date for the #108 peak was 11 Oct 2008, as that corresponds to this link which shows the song at #70 on the Pop 100. Unfortunately, there is no "Bubbling Under" chart listed in this issue. Billboard.biz is a paysite, so I cannot confirm that the song will be found there, either. Another possibility is a recently released book, Top Pop Singles 1955-2008, which claims to have every "Bubbling Under" song ever, which would be a great resource for all those songs that peaked just outside the top 100 in the US. There's also a Record Charts Wikiproject which may be of more assistance. Good luck!  Gongshow ^Talk 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Saturday 28 November 2009, 18:35 UTC)

---

[edit] Supernatural (season 2)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I was told that the prose needs improving. I think that once the writing style has been improved, the article meets the standards for FA. Thus, I would like help in copy-editing the entire article.

Thanks, Ωphois 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Supernatural (season 2)/archive1.(Peer review added on Saturday 28 November 2009, 14:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Murder of Teresa de Simone

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I helped take this article to GA Status and going over it again I believe that it could qualify for FA status and would like input from other wiki editors. Particularly I want to make sure I satisfy criterion 1a and 1b.

However I will point out one major problem with this article and that is that information related to Teresa de Simone simply doesn't exist prior to her murder! I can't find any biographical information in regards to her that isn't related to the murder, I can't even find her year of birth let alone date. It seems bizarre that this (even basic) information doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can find, whilst I absolutely respect the rights of the family to their privacy, anonymity and grief I'm surprised that none of the refs in the article have mentioned this information.

We also need to be mindful that Sean Hodgson is still alive and so WP:BLP most definitely applies and that the sections relevant to him (particularly since is undoubtedly innocent) should be upheld to the highest standards.

Thanks, Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating tale well-told. I think it's close to FA, though I do have a few suggestions for further improvement. All of the newspaper names should be in italics, for example. I made a few changes as I went, including changing one long quote to a blockquote. Please revert this change if you don't like the blockquote. Or, if you like it, two or three of the other quotes of four lines or more could be rendered as blockquotes (without quotation marks) as well.

• I'd eliminate the bold phrases in the lead except for the title per WP:MOSBOLD.
• The Manual of Style deprecates the use of fancy quotes such as the ones around the text box in the Hodgson trial section. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Murder

• "When her shift at the Tom Tackle ended at 2300 UTC she went on to Fridays... " - Wikilink UTC on first use?

Police investigation

• "Detective Superintendent John Porter of Southampton C.I.D. - Spell out C.I.D on first use, thus: Criminal Investigation Department (CID)?

Arrest of Sean Hodgson

• "Sean Hodgson (aka Robert Graham Hodgson)... " - Spell out "also known as"?
• "It was not routine to make audio recordings of police interviews at the time, and much of the original police paperwork from the case has so far not been located." - It would be better to say something like "has not been located through 2009" rather than "so far".

Acquittal and release

• "Hodgsons is potentially Britain’s the longest serving innocent inmates." - Something missing here. The sentence doesn't make sense.
• "While imprisoned his identity was stolen making it difficult to access insurance and housing." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.

Operation Iceberg

• Shouldn't David Lace be mentioned by name in this section? It seems a little odd not to mention him and then to jump to a "David Lace" section without the connection being made explicit.
• "they are on the right track and hopefully could be close to solving this 30 year old murder... " - Did the source have hyphens here; that is, "30-year-old murder"? I yearn to add them.

David Lace

• Wikilink sibling and analgesics?

Notes and references

• The appeals citation needs more details. "R v Robert Graham Hodgson EWCA Crim 490" is quite mysterious. At the least, the abbreviated parts should be spelled out, so that EWCA appears as "England and Wales Court of Appeal". Perhaps Crim stands for Criminal Division? What does "R v" mean?
• The Appeals Notes section on my screen looks cluttered and a bit hard to read. Would four columns or some other arrangement work better than six?
• Newspaper names like The Guardian and Southern Daily Echo need italics. I see lots of these in the Reference section. If you use the "work" parameter rather the "publisher" parameter for the newspaper name, the template will add the italics automatically.
• Triple dates like 4 December 1979 should be unlinked.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finetooth comments: Thank you

Acquittal and release

• point 1) The sentence could be written a bit better but it is essentially correct; it is potentially possible that there is (or has been) a Briton who has been imprisoned longer who was innocent. So Hodgson is the longest known.

Operation Iceberg

• point 2) It doesn't, however since this is a direct quote so bad grammar is fine.

Notes and references

• point 1) R stands for Regina which is the Queen regnant. Essentially the crown if held by a woman.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.pub-explorer.com/hampshire/pub/encoresouthampton.htm a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 27 November 2009, 17:46 UTC)

---

[edit] 1999 Atlantic hurricane season

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get this to GA Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Finetooth comments: Even though I have a lot of suggestions, I think this is not far from being a suitable candidate for GAN. Most of my suggestions have to do with prose and style issues that you can correct without great difficulty. The article is broad in coverage, reasonably well-written, nicely illustrated, stable, neutral, and mostly verifiable. I think if you clean up the errors, add the missing conversions, improve on the overlinking and underlinking, fix the incomplete citations, and a few other things, you'll be fine with this.

• You may not need them for GAN, but if you plan to take this to FAC in the future, you'll need alt text for the images. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it necessarily differs from the captions. WP:ALT has details, and you can look in on FAC discussions to see recent examples of alt text.

Tropical Storm Arlene

• You might think about linking technical terms like front and convection on first use for readers who may not know much about hurricanes or meteorology. If a special term doesn't have anything useful to link to, you might add a brief explanation. For example "shear" might be more clear if written the first time as "wind shear". Ditto for special terms like tropical wave in the lower sections. You need to link or explain these once but only once to make the article accessible to the largest number of readers.

Tropical Depression Two

• "Tracking generally toward the west, the wave tracked through the Atlantic and into the Caribbean Sea." - Recast to avoid repetition of "track".
• Wikilink Bay of Campeche here instead of on second reference.
• "the NHC stopped monitoring the system" - Spell out and link National Hurricane Center (NHC) on first use. After that the abbreviation by itself is OK.
• "The system dropped heavy rain to the area amounting to a maximum of 20.37 in (517 mm) at Tanzabaca, Mexico." - "on the area" rather than "to the area"? Also, it's customary in Wikipedia articles to spell out the primary units, as you have done with "miles". So, this should be 20.37 inches (517 mm). Ditto for other instances later in the article.

Hurricane Bret

• "(1999 USD; $19.7 million 2009 USD) in damages" - The conversions might be challenged; they probably need a source.
• "Bret moved north, and strengthened into a 145 mph (233 km/h) Category 4 hurricane on August 22." - I'd suggest mentioning and linking the Saffir-Simpson Scale here rather than waiting until Lenny to introduce it.

Hurricane Dennis

• "The wave continued west-northwestward until it gained tropical depression status on August 23 and then a tropical storm on the same day." - Add "became" between "then" and "a"?
• "After passing through the Bahamas, the shear decreased, and Dennis was able to reach Category 2 strength on the 28th." - Dangling modifier. The shear didn't pass through the Bahamas. Please re-cast.
• "The eyewall was around 35 miles wide at its height." - Needs a metric conversion.
• There's no need to link things like North Carolina or Bahamas more than once.

Tropical Storm Emily

• "and there is no damage reported in association with it" - Tighten to "and it caused no reported damage"?

Tropical Depression Seven

• "In Texas, its remnants produced light rainfall, peaking at 3.35 inches in Harlingen, Texas." - Metric conversion needed.

Hurricane Floyd

• "Hurricane Floyd was a large and powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that was first named on September 8 while about 750 n mi east of the Leeward Islands." - Spell out and link nautical mile and provide conversions.
• "It returned to the ocean near Norfolk, Virginia" - I added commas to all constructions such as this one up to this point in the article. You need a trailing comma after the state in city–state combinations here and elsewhere below this.
• "Floyd caused record rainfall across the east coast, with Wilmington, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania setting 24-hour rainfall records of 15.06 in. and 6.63 in. respectively. Portions of New England had rainfall totals nearing 11 in. Floyd generated 9-10 foot storm surges across North Carolina. There are 57 deaths directly blamed on Floyd, 56 in the United States and one on Grand Bahama." - Metric conversions needed. I'll stop pointing these out in the lower sections; you should double-check for more. The {{convert}} template makes these easy once you practice with it a bit. It spells, abbreviates, and calculates correctly if you enter the data correctly.

Tropical Storm Harvey

• "Harvey was responsible for no deaths. Molasses Reef, FL had a peak... " - Spell out "Florida" rather than using the postal service abbreviation.

Tropical Depression Twelve

• "It moved erratically the west-northwest without developing." - Missing word?
• "While this was going on, the low-level circulation was mostly of the west side of the convection... " - Missing word?

Hurricane Irene

• "Total damage in Florida is around $900 million (2005 USD)." - "was" rather than "is"?

Hurricane Lenny

• No need to link "waves" or "United States" or "Saffir-Simpson" twice or "Atlantic basin".

Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) ranking

• "a measure of the power of the hurricane multiplied by the length of time it existed for" - Delete "for"?

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. References to web sources, for example, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Citation 1 has three elements (one of which, the title, is incorrect) but should include the publisher (Cuban Meteorological Society), the correct title (Cyclone Season of 1999 on the the North Atlantic Ocean), the date of publication (March 10, 2000), and the author ( Alejandro Bezanilla). I found the missing elements by visiting the cited web page. You should check the others to make sure they are complete.
• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. You can use either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not both.
• The authors' names should be listed last name first. In citation 11, for example, the order should be Lawrence, Miles B.
• Ref tags should be placed snug against the end punctuation rather than having an extra space as in "The hurricane dissipated quickly after its last advisory for the city of Laredo, Texas. [5]"

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 November 2009, 00:24 UTC)

---

[edit] Help at Any Cost

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 WP:GA for a while and I would like to see what people think, and what could be done to improve it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-done and quite interesting. I made a few changes to punctuation, and I have a very small number of suggestions related to prose and style. My main concern is that the article might not be comprehensive in two ways; the voice(s) of the industry's promoters are missing, and the details of the hearings are missing. It's possible that the industry backers hunkered down, that their lawyers advised them not to talk, and that nothing came of the hearings. If you are thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, you'll want to make sure that the article covers these two areas somehow.

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who cannot see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
• "Representative George Miller held hearings on the matter... " - Would it be helpful to add that he's a Democrat from California?
• "In Help at Any Cost Szalavitz investigates the teen rehabilitation industry and focuses on four programs: Straight, Incorporated, a copy of the Straight Inc. program called KIDS, North Star wilderness boot camp, and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools.[6][4][11]" - It's generally better to arrange the citations in ascending order; i.e., 4, 6, 11.
• "Some of these programs cost parents over US$2,000 per month." - Since the article is U.S.-centric, it's not necessary to add the US in front of $2,000.
• "calling the work "a courageous—if horrifying—study of the tough-love industry". - I changed the en dash here to an em dash because I've never seen a mixed pair before, but if the en dash is an accurate part of the quote, you should probably revert my change.
  • My change is OK; it falls under the house-style exceptions listed at WP:MOSQUOTE. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "The House Committee on Education and Labor held additional hearings on the matter on April 24, 2008, again chaired by Representative George Miller." - Just "Miller" since his identity is fully established earlier.
• The existing citation formatting is a mixture of m-d-y and yyyy-mm-dd. It can be either but not both. Ditto for the formatting in "Other reading" and "External links".
• McAllister, Robert John (2007), Emotions: Mystery Or Madness, AuthorHouse, ISBN 1425982441 - What makes this a reliable source? Was it vetted by outside experts, or is it self-published?
• I wondered about the lack of any mention of people defending or favoring these programs. Did any industry representatives or lobbyists or business owners speak at the hearing? Is anyone on record in their defense?
• What did Miller's committee decide? Did it take any action? Did the members vote on anything or make any recommendations? Were they unanimous in their votes, recommendations, or public statements on the matter? Have any laws—state, federal, or local—been passed since the hearings to regulate this business?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing...

I don't have much experience with this process, but I will suggest a couple of things that strike me after reading it:

• Each time you list the 4 programs, I have a hard time differentiating among them and have to re-read them, perhaps you could separate them with colons or semi-colons?
• Several times you mention that the programs are not successful, but success is a relative term, and I would like to know what basis the programs are being judged against if that is in the book.
• You go into a lot of detail about Synanon and its demise. Is that addressed extensively in the book?

I hope that this can help with the article a bit. Riverpa (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will look into above. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by Fainites

I have ordered a copy of the book and will comment more when I have read it, but the first thing that strikes me on a quick read of the article was that I was left wondering what the conclusions were ( if any) of those hearings which are mentioned in the Aftermath section of the article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah good point, I will research that more. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 November 2009, 00:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Hemming's Cartulary

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and am wondering if (a) it's too complex for the lay reader who isn't a medievalist, i.e. does it lack context to make the average reader able to understand it and (b) is there anything that is still lacking as far as "expected" information?

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Deacon of Pndapetzim

• You might wanna give English translations for your Latin phrases (e.g. Liber Wigorniensis, Enucleatio libelli)

• Is Hemming's Cartulary a cartulary, or a manuscript too? I mean, I know it's both, but maybe it should be described as both in the opening line?

• Added in "manuscript" right in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first cartulary was composed at the end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century. The second section was compiled by Hemming and was written around the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century. Traditionally the first section is titled the Liber Wigorniensis, and is mainly organized geographically. The second section, Hemming's Cartulary proper, combines land records with a narrative of the losses of property by the church of Worcester

• We're told that the first "section" is organized geographically, and then when we move to the second section we're told what it is composed of. This doesn't make any sense.

• I think I've expanded this enough for clarity now Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is, as is normal with leads, not so well written in general (e.g. and is mainly organized). I'm sure time and c/es will fix this.

• The second part is Hemming's work and takes up folios 119–142, 144–152 and 154–200.

• Out of curiosity, what is in folios 143 and 153?

• Here is where we get iffy. I mention what is on the inserted folios later in the Manuscript condition section... should we reorganize somewhat? This is where not having a critical edition of the work hurts, since we can't "borrow" the organization there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• MS Cotton Nero E i and British Library MS Add 46204 may also contain charters collected as part of Wulfstan's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Wulfstan's episcopate.

  Who's Wulfstan? He's not been introduced yet nor even linked yet. :)

• Give me simple Anglo-Normans anyday... changed it to "...as part of Hemming's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Hemming's lifetime." which keeps the whole Wulfstan commissioning the work to the section later where indeed, Wulfstan is introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, which helps to explain why and how the cartulary was created.

  I didn't get what was meant here.

• Does "The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, explaining why and how the cartulary was created." work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You mean that the documents are connected with a/the narrative ... that the title explains why and how the cartularly was created? The narrative does? The documents are? Even then I still don't get what is meant. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try "The documents are connected with a narrative explaining why and how the cartulary was created; the narrative is usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum." That better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, that is better. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Besides charters, it incorporates information from the Domesday survey's sworn testimony for the region

  Another sentence you might wanna rewrite for clarity (i.e. what is Domesday survey's sworn testimony?).

• "Besides charters, it incorporates information from the sworn testimony from the region used to create Domesday Book." that work better? (You mean not everyone knows that Domesday book was created by getting sworn testimony???)

• It also contains an accounting of amounts paid to King William in order to regain items the king had taken from the diocese.

  Another (an accounting of amounts).

• Changed to "...a listing of amounts..." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• it was produced to Wulfstan's successors:

• "produced for" Wulfstan's successors? "presented to"?

(fixed it Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

• You should, if you can, consult pp. 12–14 of Historia de Sancto Cuthberto (Anglo-Saxon Texts no. 2). As its editor South points out, the Historia is very similar in style and structure to fols. 119–34 of Hemming (the bit called Codicellus possessionum huius aecclesiae) and to the brief biography of Saint Wulfstan.

• Do not have access to that, so it appears. I've hunted through U of I's catalog to no avail. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the edition/translation somewhere, but not of the introduction (apparently too humane to extract more pages from it under the pressure of the photocopier lid). Anyway, I'll track down the book sometime next week. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. Not sure why U of I doesn't have it... they are pretty good for stuff like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you can get it on google books I see [1]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not want to give me page 12, of course. This is why I despise Google Books previews... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see page 12 and can send you an image if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. This had better be worth the bother to everyone (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is a list of contents of the MS possible?

Ha, Ealdgyth kicked my ass for doing so : ) She was right, but perhaps a simplified version without an intimidating wealth of detail could help the reader visualise the structure of the MS in terms of contents. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• We could always do a listing of the full folio by folio as a list and link to it in a "see also" or "main article" thing somewhere. It just overpowered the article here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems encyclopedic to me that an article about a manuscript would have a list of contents if it was going to FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, just not a folio by folio listing, which was what was inserted before. I don't have a problem with a small listing overview, but I really think a folio by folio detailed listing is way too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown up a possible small table on the article talk page, if folks wanna address that there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't need a list that big, but we need one bigger than that (perhaps in a side-box), to give the reader a good overview of what's where. Atm this table doesn't even say where the "Codicellus possessionum" is ... :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, between Cavila and I, we've expanded the table, and I got the stuff in from Historia, and I've placed the table in the article... I'm not wedded to where it's at right now, but it seemed the best fit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's me with my comments (for now at least). Good work btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Cavila

• There were some issues with the logical order in which the structure, contents, themes and purpose(s) of the work were described. Scholarly views on Hemming's codicellus as a commemmorative work should be treated together rather than separately, obviously. I went ahead and tried to re-organise a couple of things, but an extra pair of eyes might be welcome. Hope to be able to provide more feedback soon. Cavila (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• The rearrangement looked fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 November 2009, 19:29 UTC)

---

[edit] Turner Catledge

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

I've listed this article for peer review because, as my first fully written article, I'd like to know how I did. Don't hesitate to provide constructive criticism!

Thanks, [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

First off, good work for your first article. I think what needs to be done now is find more reliable sources with information on Catledge and expand the article using that. I'll give you some tips on where to find sources.

• On an unrelated note, please add ALT text to the one image. Pretend you're describing the image to someone over the phone.
• Answers.com isn't a reliable source because anybody can add content. Instead of citing answers.com, you should cite the Columbia Encyclopedia directly.
• A simple Google (or whatever search engine) search may come up with good info. Remember to always check for reliability, though. I found this great source, and you'll probably come up with something if you dig through the articles listed here. I have access to nearly all old NYT articles, so leave me a message if you need them e-mailed. Another great find is this Time article. This should be enough for now, but after you've exhausted these sources, you can always go to the next pages on the Google search.
• Always next for me is Google Books. See the results of the search here. If you can't see the needed text, go to a local library and inquire about those books.
• Google News may often turns up results, so I suggest trying. This time, it turned up lots of good stuff.
• Now that you have the sources, you need to incorporate their info into the article. Read through all the sources one-by-one, adding useful information you come across.

I'm surprised that nobody had bothered to improve this article before you, with all that information available. Good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 November 2009, 16:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Bionicle

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know of any flaws I may have missed and how close it is to meeting featured article criteria. Thanks, Twilight Helryx 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation of name is clumsy and could be integrated more fluidly.
• Comparison to the Slizers/Throwbots and the Lego RoboRiders comes out of the blue - throwing disks? Huh?
• Is the logo really that important?
• What does it mean to write the story?
• "Mata Nui has since been revived, with unfortunate consequences beginning with Teridax succeeding in his Plan" makes no sense. If Mata Nui was the guardian of this universe and Teridax some sort of Satan figure, why would Mata Nui's revival would