Wikipedia:Peer review

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 (or close) a request In accordance with the peer review request removal policy, you may close any listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, as follows: Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1). The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions. Current archive: November 2010

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. Automated peer reviews can be generated using the Tips tool link in the upper right corner: please 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) Chemistry peer review Chess peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Military history peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Video games peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback: November 24 • The Brute Man • Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) • Bad Romance November 23 • Hip-hop dance • Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) • Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer) • List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients November 22 • Eye-gouging (rugby union) November 21 • The Autobiography of Malcolm X November 20 • Endgame (album) • New Testament Christian Churches of America • List of Interstate Highways in Washington November 19 • Marion Carpenter • Steven Caulker November 18 • Kesha • Famine in India November 17 • The Care Bears Movie • Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors November 16 • Spain national football team • Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors November 15 • Coat of arms of Albany, New York • Linkin Park discography If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

[edit] Arts

[edit] Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!

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

I've listed this article for peer review because in the past PRing has been quite helpful, and I am trying to get the album to GA quality. I have made major revisions to it since I started working on it, from when it used to look like this this.

Thanks, Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)(talk)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 November 2010, 21:27 UTC)

---

[edit] The Brute Man

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to submit it for FA, and would like a thorough review of the prose before doing so. I'm also seeking any other suggestions that might be helpful for the FAC process. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 November 2010, 20:14 UTC)

---

[edit] Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because an editor has expresed that this article should be taken to WP:FAR. I'm not good with prose and, according to him, this has some issues with it. The main contributor Efe (talk · contribs) is almost innactive, so I would not work with him. Any comment is welcomed. Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Its an easy pass, and very small copy-editing is required. And that's coming from someone who promoted "4 Minutes" to FA. Would you like me to do it Tbhotch? If so, reply on my talk page instead. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 November 2010, 19:49 UTC)

---

[edit] Bad Romance

Previous peer review

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

I'm planning to nominate the article for FAC in the next month. The previous PR did not yield satisfactory results according to my concerns, hence this time, I request opinions as to what can cause it to fail at FAC, what improvements in terms of language and everything can be done, so that the article passes FAC without much concern.

Thanks, — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 November 2010, 09:41 UTC)

---

[edit] Henry J. Wood

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

I have listed this article for peer review because I've read widely and distilled what I have found and would now be glad of other editors' comments for refining the article to get it up to FAC level. Henry Wood was not one of music's glamour boys, but what he did for music in Britain was incomparable, and he deserves the best article possible.

Thank you, Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It would certainly improve the article if the shortened footnotes would have been formatted with either the {{sfn}} or the {{harvnb}} template. That would make it much easier for the reader to find the cited work. --Eisfbnore (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree with Eisfbnore's comments. I have the same problem with these templates that I have with others. To edit them, you have to have specialized knowledge, which would make it harder for many editors to edit the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And I must disagree with yours' Ssilvers, thus supporting Eisfbnore's comments. The {{harvnb}} template is indeed extremely useful while using book references and certainly improves upon the whole look and feel of an article. I strongly recommend using them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(More) With these two edits, I have shown how to incorporate the Harvard template. It is very easy and the effect is astounding. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

One does not need to be an expert to applicate the {{harv}} templates, it took five seconds for me (while being a newbie) to learn how to use them. They do—just as the {{cite}} templates—give a consistent style throughout this encyclopedia, where users don't have to "mirror" the major constributor's format of referencing. The syntax is quite simple, and is even explained at Template:Harvard citation#Usage. Eisfbnore (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll certainly consider this for future articles. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. This is a nice article on a subject that certainly deserves to be an FA. One of the toughest things at FAC I think is the level of detail to which articles are scrutinised. The citation issue has been addressed by others above, so I'll just add a few other things here that may need some attention:
  • "The series was successful, and Wood conducted further annual promenade series until his death in 1944, gradually changing the balance of classical and popular music until they became wholly classical in the 1920s." By the time we get to the "they" in "they became wholly clasical" the subject, "the series", is so far distant it might as well be given its own postcode. Also, "the series" is regarded as singular at the startof the sentence ("the series was"), but becomes plural later ("they became wholly classical").
    • Yes. (I'm still chuckling at the "postcode" gag.) Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Wood senior had been a member of his family's pawnbroking business ...". How can you be a member of a business?
    • Seems idiomatic to me, but I've redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "... a member of his family's pawnbroking business, but by the time of his son's birth he had set up business as a jeweller". "Business ... business".
    • Done.
  • "Wood senior sang as principal tenor in the choir of St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, known as 'the musicians' church', and also played the cello". What is "also" telling us here that "and" isn't already telling us?
    • Good point. Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest putting the two images in the Early years section side-by-side rather than one on top of the other.
    • Will do. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest switching the alignment of the two images in Early years of the Proms section so that each is looking into the page rather than out of it.
    • Problem about that is that the first image is, and should be, at the top of the section, and I believe we are not allowed to have pictures on the left at the start of sections. Fortunately, both faces are, though not quite full-on to the camera, at least looking at it, so are not actually staring away from the page. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think there used to be a MoS guideline that sub-sections ought not to start with a left-aligned image, but there no longer is. It's no big deal either way though. Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a {{cquote}} in the Early twentieth century section and another in the Honours, memorials and reputation section, but cquotes should only be used for pullout quotes.
    • I didn't know that. Thank you. I've corrected. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not fond of splitting the Notes section into columns as I think it makes it harder to read, but that's just a personal preference.
    • I'll see what others (if any) say on this. I am wholly neutral in the matter.
• Overall I think this would stand a very good chance at FAC with just a little but of tidying up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for these points. I agree with most of them and have addressed accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First few sections. Many of these can be taken as suggestions which you may or may not wish to adopt.

Lead

• Not completely happy with the single-sentence first paragraph which I think doesn't say enough.
  • I've followed your suggestions as noted below. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps, instead of "best known for his association with", say "who dedicated the greater part of his professional life to"
  • Wood's ghost would haunt me if I said that. He was wont to point out that the Proms were not the greater part of his professional life ("I often wonder what they think I do for the other ten months of the year")
• Rather than just "London's promenade concerts", say "London's annual season of promenade concerts".
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also recommend adding stuff from the third paragraph, along he lines: "He introduced hundreds of new works to British audiences; after his death the concerts were officially renamed in his honour as the "Henry Wood Promenade Concerts".
  • Done Tim riley (talk)
• In the third paragraph the word "further" is probably redundant. Also, the pronoun in "gradually changing the balance of classical and popular music until they became wholly classical in the 1920s" is inspecific, and should be replaced by "the concerts".
  • Redrawn Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Early years

• One minor grammar/style concern: it always reads awkwardly when a paragraph begins with a participle, as in "Attending services at St Sepulchre, Wood received little religious inspiration..." I suggest you turn the sentence round: "Wood received little religious inspiration from attending services at St Sepulchre,..."
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Opera

• When did Wood leave the RAM?
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• In the listing of operas, why is La fille du régiment given in English translation, but not Il trovatore?
  • The company's own practice. The Carl Rosa gave all operas in English, but retained a few untranslated titles, such as Trovatore, Traviata, Der Rosenkavalier and Così fan Tutte. The ENO still does the same. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "This was followed by a similar engagement for former Carl Rosa singers who had set up a company of their own.[23]" Unclear, a bit wordy. Does it mean: "This appointment was followed by a similar engagement with a company which former Carl Rosa singers had set up."?
  • It does. Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Lago disappeared" - a trifle melodramatic, even paranormal? Would it be more factual to say he "absconded"?
  • I wondered that when writing the para, but to me "absconded" suggests stealing the takings as well as doing a runner, and I have not seen any evidence of such criminal conduct by Lago - he simply legged it, it seems. I wasn't thrilled with "disappeared", but couldn't and can't think of a better word. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "He conducted only one more operatic season during the rest of his career." Maybe indicate when/where.
  • Done. A rather stronger ending to the para now - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Early years of the Proms

• The prose in the opening sentences doesn't quite flow. Passive voice - who appointed Wood as musical adviser? Who was giving the Wagner concerts? What aspects of Wagner's duties impressed Newman? And "was proposing to run" rather than "proposed to run"?
  • Rewritten to make all plain. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning "Sullivan's concerts in the 1870s..." needs to be split - too long.
  • Decidedly! Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Was it the first of Newman's proposed concerts that Cathcart proposed to sponsor?
  • The whole of the first season. I've added a sentence to make this clear. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest link ensemble?
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "remained common" or "become common" (the latter if the new layout became general).
  • Done. (I restrained myself from elaborating on this, but Sir Adrian Boult disapproved of the new layout, and like Toscanini, Monteux, Klemperer and others he insisted on dividing his violins left and right. The flashy boys like Beecham and Karajan went for Wood's layout. Nowadays the Authenticke lobby agree with Boult and Toscanini, and split the fiddles left and right.) Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More to come later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Grateful for these most helpful comments - many thanks. Looking forward to more in due course. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 17:52 UTC)

---

[edit] Hip-hop dance

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 been over a year since it last had one; with all the updates/changes that have taken place since then, I think it's time for another. I'm not so much concerned about content because I did a lot of research for this article and I honestly feel like it's very thorough. I would like copy-editing help and feedback on anything that may need to be clarified in the article. I know not everyone is familiar with hip-hop dance and I would like for the material to be generally easy to understand for a casual reader.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 15:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I need some rewrite advice in how to trim the "concept" section of this page while still retaining all of the contents therein. I also need help in figuring out what other sections are missing/need expanding upon.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 08:09 UTC)

---

[edit] Endgame (album)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because my ultimate goal is for it to become a GA, but need a little help verifying if it meets the standards to do so, and if not, what needs to be fixed. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No formalities here, but one comment. The first paragraph in the intro strikes me as "mixed up". One sentence mentions the label and guitarist together, for reasons that escape me. Then there's something about producers and chart ratings. Then the bassist. Might I take a stab at cleaning it up? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the coherence issue in the opening paragraph, I believe. If you had something better in mind feel free to over-ride my changes to your own. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was going to do! I did move one whitespace though, to group the description of the songs in the second para. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've read over the rest and like it a lot. Some more minor touchups you might consider:

• • Separate the critical review comments in the intro to a third para.
  • Move the first sentence of the following section about the producer. Again, this just seems like it would be better placed lower down?

That's about all I can think of given the current content. It's in-depth, well written, and reads well, definitely GA quality IMHO

I do wonder though... There's a couple of good bits on the basis of the individual songs, that the inspiration was. But is there something similar for the album as a whole? Is the album just a collection of songs, or was there an overarching theme? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Made the review portion of the intro into a third paragraph, and lowered the part about the producer to a more fitting part I think. As for the album as a whole, there are overlapping concepts and most of the songs share similiar ideas, but the album itself doesn't really have a core theme or anything, no. It's no 2112, anyway.

Thank you for your help, and I'll be nominating it for GA after some final reflections. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 November 2010, 19:40 UTC)

---

[edit] Marion Carpenter

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added material and think it is now ready for B class.

Thanks, Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 November 2010, 00:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Kesha

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as a B scale article. I can easily see that it can become a A scale article, I just need some constructive criticism to make it so.

Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing... BelovedFreak 10:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 November 2010, 02:43 UTC)

---

[edit] The Care Bears Movie

Previous peer review

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

"Who's up for round two?"

This passed the GA mark back in mid-2006, but further deteriorated down the line as standards toughened up and I went on to other pages. Compared to what you now see, it became a nightmare from the time our old friend, AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) (or Collectonian), saw what went wrong.

In response, I have undertaken a long-term revamp that has spanned well around six months, so much so that I've had to delay pre-FAC work on the 1986 prequel. By now, it's become better and better over time, as I've managed to cull source after source from all manner of school/library databases.

What's it all about? Well, look no further than a film that went against the odds: one that was funded by a greeting card company, a rising television syndicator and a cereal manufacturer; was turned down by the Hollywood majors; brought prestige to its eventual U.S. distributor; survived a spate of mixed reviews; saved its Toronto studio from shutdown (forever); broke box-office records for non-Disney and Canadian animation; beat out an ambitious Disney sword-and-sorcery epic; led to a series that has managed nine instalments (despite a 17-year hiatus); and was so popular that (for the record) even John Waters—yes, John Waters—attended a screening!

There. See how much effort I've put into that improvement? Tell me if Wikipedia has any longer and more cite-worthy article on an animated feature, for kids or otherwise. (At this edit, it is 127 KB long with 200+ citations and 15 notes—on par with the article on American Beauty, which served as my model.) As for the lead section? Let me tell you: it couldn't be any finer.

One more film in the Nelvana series is up for review soon; eventually, all that hard work will be good enough for a book on the topic. To borrow a bit from Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs): "Bears in their little clouds agree."

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 November 2010, 05:02 UTC)

---

[edit] Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it many months. I'd like to nominate it for a featured article, but I need comments about what is missed. Thanks, Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The basics are here, but the article is not yet ready for FAC. The main problems are related to the Manual of Style and prose issues. I made a fair number of small proofing changes, and I have further suggestions about prose, style, and layout. After looking these over and making any changes you think would be helpful, you might ask one of the volunteers at WP:PRV#General copyediting or at WP:GOCE to copyedit again.

Lead

• "It was released as the fourth single of the album on January 20, 2009, in the United States mainstream radio by Columbia Records." - Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Columbia Records released the song, the fourth single of the album, to mainstream radio in the United States on January 20, 2009." This leads to a question, though. Do record companies typically release songs one-by-one to radio?

  Changed and sometimes songs are released by radio at first. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "According to Bogart, Ray LaMontagne's "Shelter" was one of the inspirations for pen it." - This does not make sense as written.

  Reworded Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "It has been modified twice, into a tribute to Michael Jackson following his death, and as a tribute to the victims of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, which Knowles sang on the television broadcast Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief featuring Chris Martin from Coldplay on the piano." - Probably too complex. Suggestion: "It has been modified twice, into a tribute to Michael Jackson following his death, and as a tribute to the victims of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Knowles sang the second version on the television broadcast Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, which featured Chris Martin from Coldplay on the piano."

  Changed as suggested. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "Halo" was covered by Florence and the Machine in 2009... " - Since not all readers will be familiar with "covered" in this sense, perhaps link it to covered or add a brief explanation or use a different term such as "recorded by"?

  Linked. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

Background and composition

• "All the instruments, arrangement and recording of the single were in charge of OneRepublic frontman, assisted by Christian Baker; vocal recording was in the hands of Jim Caruana; and Mark "Spike" Stent mixed "Halo", being helped by Matt Green." - The instruments were not in charge of the people. Suggestion: "The OneRepublic frontman, assisted by Christian Baker, were in charge of the instruments, arrangement and recording of the single; vocal recording was in the hands of Jim Caruana; and Mark "Spike" Stent, helped by Matt Green, mixed "Halo"." This leads to a question: who was the OneRepublic frontman? If you mean Tedder, it would be better to say "Tedder" than "the OneRepublic frontman".

  ChaNged. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "The single, which was launched with the B-side "Diva",[6] was released on January 20, 2009, in the United States by mainstream radio... " - Was it released by "mainstream radio", or was it released by Columbia Records?

  Oops Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "The writing of the track was speculated to be intended for the British singer Leona Lewis." - Was the writing intended for Lewis, or was the track intended for Lewis? Who speculated? It might be more clear to say, "According to X, the writers originally created the song for British singer Leona Lewis" or something like that. The passive voice often embodies vagueness; the active voice requires identification of an actor (subject) or actors and is therefore often stronger and more informative.

  See Below. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• "There was a rumor that Cowell might have had something to do with the leaking of the... " - Is it possible to say where the rumor surfaced? Was it published? Did it surface in a media interview?

  Removed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• On my computer screen, the quote box in this section slightly overlaps the next section. This could be fixed by moving the quote box up by about four lines.

  On mine too, so see below. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

"Already Gone" controversy

• The section consists mainly of two long block quotes and two song samples. Since the "Background and composition" section already includes a controversy, you might consider moving the Lewis controversy into this section and renaming it "Controversy" or "Controversies". Then perhaps one of the blockquotes could be rendered in abbreviated fashion as a paraphrase. This would still leave a problem with the first quotebox, which would have to be moved down into the "Controversy" section to make sense, and you might have to eliminate one of the song samples to make the layout work. As it is, these two sections combined seem over-reliant on the long quotations.

  Merged both sections. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• Blockquotes don't need quotation marks. See WP:MOSQUOTE.

  Removed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

Critical reception

• "New Music Reviews, a column from Daily Mail wrote "On 'Halo', Beyoncé sings in a lower register... " - Word or words missing? Maybe "In "New Music Reviews", a columnist from Daily Mail wrote... "?

  Reworded. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nested single and double quotation marks that bump against one another should be separated by an nbsp code. See WP:NBSP to see what the code consists of.

  Done. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Chart performance

• "The track debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 on the issue dated February 7, 2009, at number ninety-three." - Generally, numbers bigger than nine are written as digits unless they start a sentence or appear as a mixture of big and little numbers within a sentence. Since I saw that you were using digits (such as 84 in 84 beats per minute), I changed a couple of numbers earlier in the article, but here is another one, and I see more further down in the article. I'll leave them for you to adjust as you see fit.

  Written out, more encyclopedic Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• Constructions like Hot 100 and number 107 need no-break codes to keep them from being awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens.

  Done Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• When quoting song lines, use a spaced front slash rather than an unspaced front slash; e.g., "Haiti, we can see your halo / You know you're my saving grace / ". Ditto for the other similar quotations in the article. MOS:SLASH has details.

  Done Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

References

• Does citation 2 need an url and accessdate?

Online source, but as far as I remember, it is not considered a reliable source at all.

• Are the nested parentheses necessary in citation 114?

  Per source?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course they helped me, and alot!. I may ask for a c/e and nominate it for FAC. For PR, I could take some of the, but I'm incredibly busy now. Anyway, thank you so much :) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 20:34 UTC)

---

[edit] Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to see this as a featured article on the main page at some point. I believe a peer review is necessary before it can be nominated. Also, I would like to verify the definitiveness of the article I wrote.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2010 (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 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.
  • What makes the following reliable, high quality, sources?
    • http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.14.00/cover/manson-0050.html
    • http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2000/mm3_int.htm
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/IS_ADULT_ENTERTAINMENT_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN%3F_OR_IS_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN_ENTERTAINING_ADULTS%3F
    • http://www.alternet.org/media/11052?page=2
    • http://scandalist.thefablife.com/2008-08-04/47-marilyn-manson/
    • http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/marilyn-manson-columbine-faq.htm
    • http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=46&releaseid=8615&magazinearticleid=122340
    • http://lyrics.wikia.com/Marilyn_Manson:Lamb_Of_God - Another concern here is that the words of the lyrics are almost certainly copyrighted, so linking to a site carrying them as a copyright violation shouldn't be done.
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:1999/07_Revelations_of_an_Alien-Messiah also a concern with linking to a copyright violation
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Manson-Interview.aspx
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Marilyn-Manson-Will-Quote-The-Bible.aspx
  • Per the MOS, article titles should not be in all caps, even when the original is in all Caps.
  • Using an article that's on the MansonWiki, even if it was originally published in Rolling Stone, is going to be a problem, as how do you know that the item was correctly transcribed? Also, it may be a copyright violation on the MansonWiki, which we're not allowed to link to.
  • Magazine and newspaper titles should be in italics.
  • Current refs 15 and 16 lack all formatting.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o - concern with reliability (the snippet could have been edited) as well as linking to a copyright violation

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.) 15:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 November 2010, 21:19 UTC)

---

[edit] Oyasato-yakata

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

I'm wondering if it is possible to raise this article to Featured quality. The subject is notable enough but is mostly covered in first-party (i.e. Tenrikyo) publications. The additional third-party publications I've found are listed for now in the "Further reading" section. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, Shii (tock) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is quite interesting but perhaps not comprehensive. I come to it as an outsider with outsider questions, and like most other readers of the English Wikipedia, I do not know the Japanese language. Still, I can make some general comments about the content and some specific comments related to the Manual of Style guidelines.

General

• I wonder as I read the "Origin" section, what body of thinking led to Tenrikyo. Oyasama was born into a culture without Tenrikyo; so how did she get from A to B in her thinking. What elements of Tenrikyo are new, and what elements are part of a culture much more ancient than the 20th century? Without going into unnecessary or irrelevant detail, could you bring the foreign reader up to speed on connections between Tenrikyo and, say, Shinto or Buddhism, or any other ways of thinking?

• I wonder how many people live in Tenri City in 2010. How many students attend the university? What is taught at the university? Who are the city's residents, and who are the students? Would it be possible to include some demographic details? Is the university expensive? What are its admission requirements? Does the city itself have admission requirements?

• What is a Besseki Lecture Hall? Does Besseki need to be explained?

• Would it be possible to describe more fully the interiors of some of the buildings?

• How does the architecture in Tenri City differ from the architecture of the rest of Nara? How does life in Tenri City differ from life in the rest of Nara?

• Is it possible to include any specific examples of the Joyous Life? What effect might it have on daily activities for example?

• Would it be possible to make more specific comparisons between the architecture of Tenri City and that of Karl Marx-Hof or the utopian phalanstère? Most readers will not know anything about them. The links are good, but just a brief bit in the text might inform them without requiring jumps to other articles.

Manual of Style

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead seems to be an introduction rather than a summary. My rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead does not mention the influence on the city, and it includes statistics such as the 25 wings and 68 wings that are not mentioned in the text. Perhaps a "Description" section in the main text would be useful; then the new lead could summarize it as well as the rest of the article.

• "an incomplete square 872 meters" - Wikipedia articles generally give measures in imperial as well as metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions, though it takes a bit of practice to learn about things like rounding or adding a hyphen. This conversion would be 872 metres (2,861 ft). Ditto for similar constructions in the article.

• "Currently twenty-five wings of the complex are complete." - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start sentences; e.g., 25 wings. Ditto for other instances in the article.

• "At the beginning of the 20th century... " - Constructions like 20th century need a no-break code to keep the elements from being separated awkwardly on line-break on some computer screens. WP:NBSP has details.

• The blockquote does not need standard quotation marks around it. MOS:QUOTE has details.

• "The yakata was designed along the lines of Edo-period tenement housing... " - Wikilink Edo period?

• The author name in citation 9 should be last name first: Kidder, Jonathan Edward.

• Citation 9 links to a Google Books preview. When I click on the url, I get this message: "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." These Google Book previews are, I think, OK for personal research but not OK as reliable sources because they are unstable. If you can track down a copy of the printed book and cite it, that would be much better.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a very helpful review, and I think I will be able to answer most of these questions and make the article much more useful. Thank you for reading it thoroughly, and I hope I can contribute such useful reviews to the peer review page myself! Shii (tock) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 November 2010, 00:09 UTC)

---

[edit] Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting it to FA sometime down the line. The content has mostly gelled, and it's passed GAN, but I suspect that my usual issues in regards to organization and prose are probably the biggest issues. Also, I'm interested in feedback on the illustration of the topic; right now there is only the infobox image as non-free media, but considering the setting of the film I'm at much more of a loss as to what are the best elements to illustrate (a video clip may be warranted, I'm not sure yet.) Any and all comments welcome.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• First thing, the last Cast paragraph isn't cited.
• Now, this was a while ago, but I believe I was reading Shatner's Movie Memories about this film. He noted an incident where Sulu was supposed to meet his great-great-something grandfather as a boy, which Takei really wanted to do. But the child actor was under a great deal of pressure and couldn't do the scene, meaning it got cut. As I remember, this really annoyed Takei. I mention it because, if I've got the details right, I imagine that would be quite a relevant piece to add to the article; I know Takei wanted Sulu to have more depth as a character. Skinny87 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I imagine that content readily available in the credits and through multiple outlets such as simple cast lists don't really need to be cited; things like uncredited appearances do (and are), as are any facts beyond the simple matter of appearance. The element about the child actor was present in the article, but I removed it as I don't have access to the source right now to verify (it didn't offer a page number). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1.
I've looked at the first part of the article so far.

Lead:

• "the former crew of the USS Enterprise travels to Earth's past in order to save their present from a probe attempting to communicate with long-dead humpback whales." Should it be the crew travel or travels? I'm never sure in this case. Also, the sentence is quite long and packs too much in: "in order to save their present" is a little ambiguous, and "long-dead humpback whales" perhaps needs its own sentence.
• "After dissatisfaction with the first screenplay..." Presumably Paramount's dissatisfaction, but needs spelling out.
• "assisted in postproduction chores." Chores redundant possibly?
• "Almost none of the whales in the film were real..." Would "Few" be better than "almost none"?
• "Composer Leonard Rosenman wrote the film's score, which was nominated for an Academy Award." Possibly add this to next paragraph, which mentions other nominations.

Plot:

• "The crew use their ship to travel back in time by a slingshot maneuver around the Sun; the plan is to go into the past and return with whales to repopulate the species and answer the alien signal." Possibly change to "The crew use their ship to travel back in time by a slingshot maneuver around the Sun, planning to travel to the past and return with a whale to answer the alien signal." (I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that the original plan was simply to answer the signal, not to repopulate the species.)
• "Arriving in the year 1986, the crew finds that the time travel drained the Bird-of-Prey's power." Maybe it's me, but are the tenses getting confusing here? Also, "that" could probably go. I might be inclined to rework the sentence to "the Bird-of-Prey's power drained by the time travel".
• "Kirk and his allies": Suggests some other people are involved, when it was just McCoy and Taylor.
• "causing the object to restore Earth": a little vague?
• Possibly mention Taylor travelling to the future when it happened rather than at the end.

Cast:

• "Shatner was initially unwilling to reprise the role of Kirk until his salary was increased to $2 million and he was promised that he could direct the next film..." A little loose, maybe "until he received a salary of $2 million and the promise he could direct the next film".
• ..."the part had been created because Shatner had demanded a love interest, something Kirk had frequently had in the television series but that had been absent in the films..." What about: "created after Shatner demanded a love interest, a regular aspect of the television series which was absent from the first three films." I also think the next section of the sentence, about Meyer's explanation, should be in a new sentence.
• "The choice for Taylor came down to Hicks and another actress." Name of actress? If it is unknown, maybe replace this sentence and the next part with "Hicks was chosen as Nimoy believed she and Shatner had good chemistry when they met [or had lunch, or a lunch with Nimoy, Shatner and candidates for the role]."
• Any reason for the cuts in Barrett's role?

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Development:

• Although the lead says so, it doesn't state here that Nimoy directed the third film. And if he was "asked", who asked him?
• Is it possible to add why Nimoy was chosen? Presumably, bosses were happy with his work before?
• This section doesn't state when the film was commissioned. It might be useful to say who decided to make it, when producers were put in place, when it was decided to give the go-ahead, etc.
• "Whereas Nimoy had been under certain constraints in filming the previous picture...": Is it worth spelling these out?
• Overlinking: William Shatner already linked and not sure "time travel", "violin makers" and "oil drillers" need linking.
• "but it also meant the film might be panned": not sure about "panned", a little informal.
• "Murphy disliked the part, explaining he wanted to play an alien or a Starfleet officer (Nimoy was unaware of this),[11] and chose to make The Golden Child (a decision Murphy later said was a mistake)." Not sure the brackets are necessary, and is Murphy's belief that The Golden Child was a mistake relevant to the article?
• "Paramount was dissatisfied with the script": Presumably a person or people in Paramount?
• "and Bennett finished with the ending..." Doesn't read well. Maybe "and Bennett completed the final part of the story."
• "Meyer and Bennett also cut out Krikes and Meerson's idea of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey flying over the Super Bowl (where the crowd assume it is part of the halftime spectacle) and the hint that Saavik remained on Vulcan because she had become pregnant with Spock's child." I'd imagine this would be the case if Meyer never read the first script! I think this needs tightening up.
• "He would write a few pages, go to Nimoy and Bennett and show it to them. After a conversation about the pages Meyer would return to his office and write some more." Maybe change second sentence to "After a consultation, Meyer would return to his office and write some more."
• "who offered his own notes and started the rewriting process over again" Does this mean Shatner re-wrote? Or the script was returned for re-writes based on Shatner's notes?
• "The completed script was shown to Paramount executives, who loved it." Not sure "loved" is the best word. Were pleased with it?

Design

• "Because the original, whalelike probe design did not seem menacing enough, the modelmakers repainted the probe a shiny black and pockmarked the surface for greater texture and interest." Was this before or after the filming described in the previous sentence? If it was after, was the decision made after viewing the film or just on the appearance of the model?
• "to wear their future clothing": Should be "futuristic", as future implies clothing they will wear at some point later.

Filming

• "The film's opening scenes aboard the starship Saratoga were also the first to be shot" No need for also.
• "although the computer monitors in these scenes featured new graphics (the old reels had deteriorated in storage.)" Should the period be outside the bracket or should there be two? And not sure about relevance of computer graphics.
• " scene where Kirk is nearly run over by an irate driver required 12–15 cars that had to be repositioned if the shot was not correct, taking a half-hour to reshoot." Presumably this did happen? Maybe rephrase as "required the repositioning of up to 15 cars when the shot was incorrect, taking a half-hour to reshoot".
• "The production had planned..." The production team?

I don't really have time to do much more now at the moment, and there is still quite a bit of the article left. One thing I have noticed is an overuse of brackets which disrupt the flow. If such information is necessary as an aside, I prefer mdashes. Otherwise, the article reads fairly well and no obvious problems or shortcomings. Hope this helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your help is invaluable; these kinds of comments are helpful to making me more mindful of issues throughout, so thanks for what you could offer. One thing, you mention brackets—are you referring to parenthesis ()? (I dunno if they're called other things outside the US.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Yes, parenthesis. My mistake! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 November 2010, 20:22 UTC)

---

[edit] Draconian (band)

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

Fair amount of reliable sources is available. The article was completely unreferenced, so I added some references, but it is still too short. There should be more sections about band's albums and style instead of pushing everything into Biography section. Also, if possible, some images of the band performing live should be found. Since I am not experienced with finding free images, I would kindly ask someone who is to take that responsibility. — NikFreak (leave message) 18:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This review began two months ago, but has not been properly formatted with {{subst:PR/subst}} and {{Peer review page}} per PR instructions. Listing at WP:PR now with those templates in place. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for adding references and for your work on this article. Peer review is a place for pointing out areas where improvement is needed, but not necessarily a place for doing those fixes. I agree with your description of some of the issues with the article, and below give some other suggestions for improvement.

• The current lead is one short sentence - it needs to be expanded so that the lead is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Please see WP:LEAD
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I agree that the article's structure needs to be reorganized first.
• I agree that some images would really help. Unfortunately, when I went on Flickr and searched for freely licensed images, I could not find any that appeared to either be o the band or the lead singer. If you know of a website that has some images, it might be worth contacting them and asking if they would consider releasing an image or two under a free license.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many WP:FAs on bands that might be useful models. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music for a list of all Music FAs
• There are several major issues remaining with the article. One of the most important is still a lack of references, despite the refs which have already been added. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Make sure refs that are used are complete. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. So the first ref (from Allmusic.com) has an author, which needs to be listed. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The language is rough in spots and could use a copyedit. One example The demo counted with flutist and vocalist Jessica Eriksson, keyboardist and vocalist Susanne Arvidsson and with a special participation of Andreas Haag on the introductory section of “My Nemesis”. I have no idea what "The demo counted with" people means, and the special participation part is just awkward. This sounds as if it were perhaps written by someone who did not speak English as a native language.
• The article also has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow and need to be either combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• The article has comprehensiveness issues. The "Biography" section (usually called something like History) ends in 2006 and does not mention their 2008 album.
• Not much else to say now as the article is still pretty short.

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 _><>°^° 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 November 2010, 16:17 UTC)

---

[edit] The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie

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

Three down, two to go in the PR drive for Nelvana's Care Bears feature film series. For the record: 2004's Journey to Joke-a-lot may have been released throughout half the world (via Universal Studios), but this 2005 follow-up initially received no more than a French dub and a Spanish version (which is on the Region 1 DVD, but whose title I haven't been able to successfully locate). Since then, it's slowly rolled out in Greece as Τα Αρκουδάκια Της Αγάπης: Ενα Αστερι Στην Αγαπουπολη and in Germany (possibly) as Die Glücksbärchis – Der Große Wunsch. Like I said on this film's IMDb board when it came out, "Not much buzz around Big Wish, is there?" (And it even shows in the citation count—22 herein, compared to 180+ for the 1985 movie; little more than 100 for A New Generation; and [at this edit] a projected 80 or so for Wonderland. No wonder I couldn't fulfill that very request for another four years!)

Let's hope a long-belated GAC does justice. After all, this is the better of Nelvana's computer-animated efforts with those huggable characters from Cleveland (no pun intended—and that's coming from a fan).

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks good. I have a short list of comments and suggestions that should cause you little trouble.

Lead

• "she feels worried that the other Bears have overlooked her abilities, and wishes for a few new friends who care more than her" - That should be "care more than she" or "care more than she does".

Corrected. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot

• "This causes three new Bears to arrive... " - Should this be "Bears" or "bears"? In the lead, you use "other Bears", but later in the plot section, you write "Once the new bears finally realise their problem... ". Lowercase looks right to me.

Converted to lowercase. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Wish Bear accidentally wishes Twinkers away to the new Bears, who soon abuse his power... " - Since Wish Bear is a "she", who does "he" refer to?

Clarified as "the star's power". --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "As they return home, Wish Bear tells everyone that they the problem cannot be easily wished away... ". - Doesn't make sense as written. Missing word or words, perhaps? What problem is Wish Bear referring to?

Corrected and clarified; I had to watch that very part of the film again to see about that. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Release

• "The day after the U.S. premiere,[3] it became one of Lions Gate Home Entertainment's five direct-to-DVD "marquee" offerings for young viewers during late 2005." - Tighten by deleting "during late 2005" since you've already said "the day after the U.S. premiere

"During late 2005" moved to footnote. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "earning US$40,000 during the timeframe" - What was the time frame? From when to when? How did it do after that? Is $40,000 a little or a lot compared to other films?

Information removed; sentence in question reworded. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Music

• Would it be helpful to use more punctuation in the table? For example: "Conducted by Zimfira Poloz; choir recorded by Bob Doidge assisted by Amy King at Grant Avenue Studio, Hamilton, Ontario" might be more clear. Without punctuation, it's not possible to tell if "Creighton Doane Daniel Gerrard Leblanc" refers to two people or three.

Done and clarified. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The ampersands should probably be replaced with "and".

Done. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 November 2010, 12:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Mwng

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

After more than five years on Wikipedia I've finally decided to brave the FAC dragons. I'd like to go in as prepared as possible so any and all comments would be useful. The article has recently passed a GA review and has been copyedited by Macwhiz Cavie78 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cavie78 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems to me to be in fairly good shape, but I have one serious reservation and some smaller ones.

• The article depends too heavily on short, embedded quotes in the text. I'd recommend that you make the article less dependent on direct quotes by restating the claims in your own words. That's tricky, I know, because whatever you say must be supported by the sources. Still, I count 11 or 12 of these snippet quotes, things like "new wave of confidence in the Welsh nation", "pop strike", and "token Welsh songs" in the lead alone. The overall effect is to make the article read too much like a compilation of the words of others. An example of an easy change from quote snippet to paraphrase occurs in the sentence, "Rhys has stated that many of the Mwng 's songs are highly personal reflections on what were a 'pretty heavy' few years for him." You might replace this with "Rhys has stated that many of Mwng 's songs are personal reflections on what were difficult years for him." The source supports both ways of saying this, and neither paraphrases the source too closely. So why use the quote snippet?

Origins and recording

• "Rhys has also stated that Mwng was inspired by him simply "getting bored" of writing songs in English... " - The construction "by him getting" is a bit awkward. Maybe "inspired by his boredom with writing songs in English"? Or "Rhys has also stated that his boredom with writing songs in English inspired him to write Mwng"? Y Done Have changed - I prefer the latter suggestion.

• "rather than being a celebration of Welsh culture" - Tighten by one word by deleting "being"? Y Done

• ""Sarn Helen" was recorded and engineered by keyboardist Cian Ciaran in his living room." - Change to active voice to avoid a string of passives; i.e., "Keyboardist Cian Ciaran recorded and engineered "Sarn Helen" in his living room"?

• "Overdubs for all songs were added at Ofn with Owen, who also mixed the album at the studio along with the Super Furry Animals." - Active voice? Maybe "Working with the Super Furry Animals, Owen mixed the album at Ofn, and he added the overdubs for the songs"? My rule of thumb with the passive voice is to change to active when it's relatively easy to do so; e.g., "The cat scratched the dog" rather than "The dog was scratched by the cat".

• Citation 25 lacks the publisher info, which seems to be cokemachineglow (CMG), and the date of most recent access.

The date of most recent access is there. I've chosen to add publication details only for print media per WP:CITEHOW

I've changed some of the web cites, changing work to publisher so Y Done

• In citation 29, "SUPER FURRY ANIMALS" should be changed to Wikipedia house style, "Super Furry Animals", even though the source uses all caps. Y Done

• The image of Rhys would probably be better placed on the left so that he looks into the page.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• doing... Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Done Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• General

WP:ALT would be added.

Has excessive quotes.

• Lead

References in the lead should be avoided because the information is the body, see WP:LEAD.

Singer Gruff Rhys stated that -> Change "singer" for "vocalist of the band" ore something similar.

The "lo-fi" -> link it to low fidelity.

• Origins and recording

Top 10 -> WP:NUMBERS

Welsh language album was not "an explicitly political statement", the group did want to make a "stand against globalisation", railing -> Lead states that Ryhs felt it, not the group.

The "lo-fi" Mwng -> as above

in contrast with the "excessive expense" of Guerilla—cost just GB£6,000 to make -> and how much cost the "expense" Guerrilla?

were recorded at Famous Studios in Cardiff and were engineered by Greg Haver, while "Y Teimlad" was recorded at Real World Studios, Box, Wiltshire and was engineered by Michael Brennan, Jr. -> commas -> were recorded at Famous Studios in Cardiff, and were engineered by Greg Haver, while "Y Teimlad" was recorded at Real World Studios, Box, Wiltshire, and was engineered by Michael Brennan, Jr.

• Music syle

(the writers of "Y Teimlad") -> already noted.

even though "Anglo-American pop culture of the 60s, 70s and 80s" is a quote by someone on the group, it can be re-written for not make it a quote.

Rhys has said that, although keyboardist Cian Ciaran -> already mentioned -> Rhys has said that, although Ciaran

and "psychedelic-era" Rolling Stones. -> Maybe and "psychedelic-era" of The Rolling Stones.?

cruising down the A5 to Rome in a two-door chariot -> Link Rome.

being chased by bees after he disturbed a beehive -> -> Link both bee-related words.

• Release

The Super Furry Animals had originally intended to issue Mwng in ... that Creation originally intended to issue Mwng -> synonyms needed.

in the UK as B-sides -> B-sides already linked.

(Peer review added on Monday 8 November 2010, 19:13 UTC)

---

[edit] Modern Family (season 1)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can become a good article after a lot of editing

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Finetooth comments: Though I haven't seen the show, this sounds like a good series. To get the article up to GA, you'll need to improve the prose, attend to Manual of Style issues, and possibly beef up or combine some of the really short sections. You might be able to get some copyediting and proofing help from WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Lead

• "Comedy" and "television series" are probably too well-known to need links. On the other hand, since you link "Vietnamese", you should probably link "Columbian".

• "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics with many naming it the best new show of 2009 and was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Award the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee and was also nominated for 3 Writer Guild of America Awards winning 2 and won a Peabody Award." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The show later received critical acclaim from most critics, many of whom named it the best new show of 2009. It was nominated for 14 Primetime Emmy Awards, the most nominations for a comedy series after Glee. It also won a Peabody Award and two of the three Writer Guild of America Awards for which it was nominated."

Crew

• "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan as show runner." - Shouldn't that be "show runners" since there are two of them?

• "Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan previously worked... " - This should be "Lloyd and Levitan" on second and subsequent uses.

Conception

• Again, "Lloyd and Levitan". No link since they are already linked only a few sentences earlier in the article.

• "about their family" - Maybe "families" since there are two?

• "Originally the camera crew would be run by a Dutch filmmaker named Geert Floortje who had lived with Jay's family as a teenage exchange student... " - Isn't Jay a fictitious character? Oh, I see. This "camera crew" is fictitious too. Better make it clear here that the fictitious Dutch crew differs from the real camera crew.

• "The creators pitched it to the four major networks except for Fox with CBS not ready for a big commitment, NBC already having two mockumentaries, The Office and Parks and Recreation, and ABC like CBS not ready for a commitment especially since they never had a single-camera show before, but eventually they picked it up." - Too complex. Rewrite for clarity. Avoid using "with" to tack on clauses; a terminal period after "Fox" would be a good way to start the rewrite. Then you could say, "CBS was not ready for a big commitment; NBC had... ".

Production

• The subsections in this section are awfully short, which give the article a choppy look and feel. I might suggest merging "Crew" with "Cast" and maybe renaming the section "Cast and crew". Perhaps "Concept" and "Writing" could be merged or expanded.

Writing

• "Although the show is scripted they are moments when the actors are allowed to improvise." - Needs a comma after "scripted", and "they" should be "there".

Reception

• "The season ranked 21st in the seasonal 18-49 demographic ratings with an average of 3.9 rating/10% share in the demographic." - Instead of the front slash, clarify what it means. Does it mean "and" or "or" or "equivalent to" or something else? Ditto for front slashes elsewhere in the article.

• "with an average of 9.48 million" - Constructions like 9.48 million" need a no-break code. WP:NBSP has details. Ditto for similar constructions in the article.

References

• Citations 42 through 65 lack access dates, and other citations are incomplete. Citation 24, for example, lacks the author's name, Matt Richenthal. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.

• The date formatting in the reference section should be consistent. Some, like citation 26, use yyyy-mm-dd, while others, like citation 65, use m-d-y.

Other

• The tools at the top of this review page find no links to disambiguation pages, but the link-checker seems to be temporarily down. I see that citation 11 has a dead-link tag that will need to be addressed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) )

(Peer review added on Saturday 6 November 2010, 21:21 UTC)

---

[edit] History of hip-hop dance

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I split it from hip-hop dance since that article was becoming too big and edited it a little so that it could stand on it's own. I would like feedback on the grammar in particular.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments from Adabow

• You should probably leave a short paragraph in hip-hop dance to summarise the history
• I also think that you should renom this for GA, rather than simply rating it GA-class.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
  • ??????... Definitely didn't copy and paste anything (except quotes). Example, please?
• I tried checking some refs - for example I tried to check this sentence The purest hip-hop dance style, breaking, began in the early 1970s as elaborations on how James Brown danced on TV to his song "Get on the Good Foot". which has four refs. Two are not online so I could not check them. One reason I wanted to check this is that it seemed odd that a whole style of dance could be traced to one event (James Brown's dance), so I looked at the online refs. Current ref 3 Physical Graffiti... The History of Hip Hop Dance mentions the James Brown song and dance, but also mentions several other sources (not just this one). Current ref 5 is supposed to be an NPR story, but instead links to ref 3 again. So of the two refs I could check, one does not really back up the sentence (it mentions lots of sources, not just this one) and one is broken / points to the wrong web page.
  • Fixed broken link. That ref (the formerly broken one) quotes Afrika Bambaataa directly "When you're dealing with the b-boys and b-girls, you can take it... straight back to the Godfather of Soul," says DJ Afrika Bambaataa... He says that the song "Get on the Good Foot" inspired crowds to imitate the singer's dance moves... "It was a big dance, everybody was doing the Good Foot, and you was playing all the James Brown records... and then you expand on it." There is also ref 8, the quote from Crazy Legs who cites James Brown, "Our immediate influence in b-boying was James Brown, point blank". This one came from a book I read so it's also not online, sorry. I know online sources are easier for you to check but I don't feel like the print sources should be disregarded for that statement because you can't see them on the Internet.
• The only other NPR ref is also potentially problematic - Edwards, Bob (April 25, 2003). "Profile: Rerelease of the classic hip-hop documentary "Style Wars"". Morning Edition (NPR). Presumably it discusses what is in the documentary, but I would think that the doc itself should be used as a source here.
  • Agreed, the documentary would be a better source but I have not seen the documentary. I only read the NPR article at the library which discusses both it (the doc) and breaking.
• Please make sure that all refs are formatted consistently - for example why are author names sometimes last name first, and other times first name followed by last name? Or why isn't The New York Times italicized? Or why do two refs to IMDb.com also list Amazon.com as sources?
  • Fixed author names. Note: in the {{cite web}} template there's a parameter for work (the website which is in italics) and for publisher (who published the website, not italicized). IMDb.com is the website I got the information from; however, Amazon.com owns IMDb.com. I took out Amazon.com anyway to avoid confusion. This is probably better because I don't know if IMDb.com's information is hosted on Amazon's servers.
• I would also make sure that the sources used meet WP:RS - for example, what makes RapBasement.com a reliable source?
  • RapBasement.com is an online hip-hop magazine. It 2007, it won a VH1 Hip Hop Honors Award for "Best Hip Hop Lifestyle Site". Click here for a screenshot of the webpage.
• Since this was split off from the Hip-hop dance article, I agree that a short summary should be left in that article, with a link to this article. Please see WP:Summary Style
  • Already integrated in the Main Styles sections of the hip-hop dance article.
• The first sentence of the lead makes it sound like the history only took place in the 1970s, The history of hip-hop dance encompasses the people and events in the 1970s that contributed to the development of the early hip-hop dance styles of uprock, breaking, locking, popping, and electric boogaloo. changing "in the 1970s" to "since the 1970s" would make it clearer that the history is ongoing
  • Changed. Great observation.
• The caption of the lead image should say where Union Square is located
  • Changed.
• I would watch WP:OVERLINKing - United States really does not need to be linked in the lead. Also watch underlinking - Soul Train should be linked in the lead.
  • ? Not sure how to determine which terms are over/underlinked but I did change the examples you gave.
• I know this is showing my age, but I would at least mention that breaking was sometimes known as "break dancing"
  • Done.
• Needs a ref These new dance moves came about with the formation of crews—groups of street dancers who get together and create dance routines. Crews are comparable to a dance company but informal. As crews are formed by a group of friends, relationships within a crew are familial. Members are not apart of a union, nor are there a series of auditions. Unless the crew is well-established there usually is not a studio to practice in either: rehearsal generally happens in homes and on the street.
  • Don't know how I missed that one. Fixed.
• Bob Edwards reviewing a documentary is the only basis for this extraordinary claim?? Rock Steady Crew (RSC) is the most famous breaking crew in the world.[11] Also the RSC article here on Wikipedia gives a different year for its founding.
  • Removed sentence. The RSC article on Wikipedia does not give a source for 1979. Ref 17 and Crazy Legs' official website both say 1977.
• The naming debates sections are both pretty short and seem as if they could be merged into the history.
  • Merged sections together, see next comment.
• I owuld also make sure that the events and people listed in the timeline are also mentioned in History. So the Jackson 5 are only in the timeline, not in the rest of the article
  • That's a lot to pack into the history section. History is already pretty long. Adding the naming debates section + geographically separated isolated dance events with the Jackson 5, Thomas Hergenröther, Ruza Blue, Michael Jackson, Flashdance, breaking for the Queen of England, breaking in Harajuku, Beat Street, Tony Go Go, Battle of the Year, etc. would create disarray. I don't know how I could integrate the information from the timeline into the history section and still have the article flow seamlessly. That's actually why I created the timeline. For example, Rize and UEL's degree program are the only events in the timeline for hip-hop dance history in the 2000s. Aside from the overall hip-hop dance theme, these events aren't related to each other at all. One is a movie, the other is a degree program. The movie was made in the projects in L.A., the degree is only offered in London. I don't know how I could make information like this be cohesive in paragraph form with the rest of what's already in the history section.
• Grammar and language seem OK to me
  • Great! Thank you for your review.

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 _><>°^° 20:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 November 2010, 16:44 UTC)

---

[edit] 21st Century Breakdown

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to promote it to FA status, but since I don't have much article editing experience I do not know what exactly needs to be done to it for it to be promoted. 21st Century Breakdown is a well-known (perhaps worldwide) album by Green Day so it's notable enough to qualify for FA status.

Thanks, Addihockey11 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to nominator: You are not an active editor on this article. You say you'd "like to promote it FA status"; but you have not, as far as I can see, discussed this possibility with the article's main editor, User:IllaZilla, who has more than 300 edits to the article, the most recent on 9 November. You are brand new to Wikipedia (9 edits in total); I think that you could use a bit more experience of editing before trying to steer an article through FA. If you would like to work on this article and help bring it to FA quality, I suggest that you post a message on the article's talkpage, offering your services as a helper to this end, and see what transpires. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree with Brianboulton's comments above. As far as the article goes, I don't see much to complain about, although I don't know enough to say whether it's comprehensive or not. Here are a very few suggestions for improvement.

• Citation 2 is incomplete.

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds four dead urls in the citations.

• Citations 71, 75, 80, 82, 89, and apparently 101 and 104 are incomplete.

• The date formatting in citations 101 and 102 are nonconforming; that is, they do not use the same formatting as the other citations.

• I fixed a very few minor prose and style problems.

• The image licenses look fine to me.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 November 2010, 02:21 UTC)

---

[edit] Klang (Stockhausen)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be nearly ready for nomination for Good Article or Featured Article, but would like some feedback.

Thanks, Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I know a little about music but nothing about Stockhausen. My comments are limited mainly to issues of style and layout. The article is broad in coverage, but it needs more work to prepare for GAN.

Lead

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the entire article. If you can imagine a reader who can only read the lead and nothing else, you can see why the existing lead is too skimpy. It includes virtually no information about the nature of the work or its component parts. A good rule of thumb for writing leads is to include at least a mention of the main ideas in the main text sections and not to include material that is undeveloped in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• Linking directly to an external site from within the text is a Wikipedia no-no. If you want to link to MusikTriennale Köln, one way would be to create an inline citation to replace the direct link.

• "The twenty-one completed pieces... " - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence. I would use 21 here instead of twenty-one.

• Shouldn't the citation to Gimpel 2010 include a page number? It may be that I just don't understand, but the Gimpel listing in the "Sources" section says, "Gimpel, Othmar (ed.). 2010. Karlheinz Stockhausen, KLANG, 8. und. 9. Mai. Cologne: MusikTriennale Köln". This appears to be a book. Does it have an ISBN number? Does it have individual chapters or essays written by someone other than Gimpel?

• Would it be helpful to include the pronunciation of Klang?

Images

• An image caption consisting solely of a sentence fragment doesn't take a terminal period.

Heads and subheads

• Would it be better to simplify the "Hour" heads by using an overall head, "Hour", and making the individual hour sections into subsections of "Hour"; i.e., "First", "Second", "Third", and so on? That would eliminate 20 repetitions of "Hour" The few subsections of the "Hour" subsections might become sub-subsections.

History and character

• "several possibilities for the title: Day, Nacht und Tag (Night and Day)" - Is the first "Day" a typo?

• "the INNER EAR, for the divine Klang, the mystic sound of the beyond with the voice of the conscience, in German: die Stimme des Gewissens" (Stockhausen 2006a, 10)" - Is this an exact transcription? I ask because of the all-caps for INNER EAR and the bolding on Stimme and Gewissens. Those typographical effects should not be added by Wikipedia if they are not in the original.

Extramusical aspects

• The two blockquotes should probably be ordinary quotations embedded in the text. Is the bolding part of the original?

• Rather than introducing the hour sections with "The individual pieces are:", would it be better to delete this sentence? I don't think readers would be confused if the sentence were not there.

First hour

• "Himmelfahrt (Ascension), for organ or synthesizer, soprano, and tenor. 2004–05 (36 mins.). Work number 81. The specified colour is deep violet-blue." - Although the article seems well-sourced, it's good practice to provide at least one source for every paragraph except, usually, the paragraphs in the lead. Most paragraphs in the article are sourced, but this one isn't. A claim like "the specified colour is deep violet-blue" must have come from a source. Which one? A similar situation arises with the "Katikati" subsection of the Fifth hour.

• I would make the lead statements, such as the one beginning with "Premiered at", in this and other sections below into complete sentences.

• "in a chromatic time scale, and the organ/synthesizer part requires 24 corresponding registrations/timbres... " - It's generally better to replace the front slash with "or" or "and", or in some cases a hyphen, whichever is appropriate.

• The direct link at the end of the section should be removed.

Short paragraphs and sections

• Extremely short paragraphs such as those in "Eleventh hour" and "Twelfth hour" would be better if merged. It might also be useful to think of combining extremely short sections like these two into a single section with a head like "Eleventh and 12th".

Thirteenth hour

• I would not use so many direct quotations. Would they not be better paraphrased and merged?

Centered offsets

• Six long quotations set off in centered texts may be about five too many. I think it might be a useful device for the sake of variety or to call special attention to something, but it seems overused here. Other possibilities are to use pull quotes (with box) at the side for one or more of these or simply to include them as normal quotations embedded in the text. You can see an example of a quote box in Columbia River#Dams: harnessing the river.

Other

• Is "First Hour" correct, or is "first hour" correct?

• Is Klang correct, or is "KLANG" correct? How about "Cosmic Pulses" and "COSMIC PULSES"? My point is that the titles appear in more than one form in the article. Should they be consistent throughout, or is there a good reason that they differ?

• The dab-finder tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link, Teatro Rossini, that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The link-checker tool shows Oxfordmusiconline.com as "forbidden". You should probably add (subscription required) to the "Sources" entry.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Finetooth. Most of your suggestions have been implemented. To answer the seven open questions: (1) the source Gimpel 2010 is unpaginated, and contains no signed material; I have annotated its listing to clarify this point. (2) I don't think an overall heading of "Hours" with subheads "First", "Second", etc. would be an improvement; I have instead added the titles of the individual pieces to the headers. (3) Regarding "'several possibilities for the title: Day, Nacht und Tag (Night and Day)' - Is the first 'Day' a typo?" No, this is exactly as in the source. The composer considered the English title "Day", the German title "Nacht und Tag", etc. (4) All "typographical effects" are exactly as in the source. It is improper to change anything in quoted material, except for exchanging single and double quotation marks when nested within a quotation. (5) "Pull quotes" are inappropriate for block quotations (see the instructions for the "Cquote" template). Quote boxes are new to me, and look interesting, but seem inappropriate if the text then requires an inserted "see box at the left". (6) "First Hour" is correct, because it is a subtitle within the cycle. That is why it always appears capitalized. (7) The different formats for Klang/KLANG and Cosmic Pulses/COSMIC PULSES has to do with quoted material, which may not change anything except for exchanging single and double quotation marks, etc. The composer's publishing-house style presents titles of his works in full caps, so that material quoted from those sources has them that way; otherwise they are treated according to Wikipedia:Manual of style (music). Thanks once again, and I will certainly return the favour as you suggest, by reviewing another article in this review list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley At first read-through these three typos jumped out at me:

• "et in terra pax in hominibus" – just "pax hominibus" – no "in"
• "a stentorous trumpet" – a conflation of stertortious and stentorian? I think you mean the latter
• "bassett horn" – only one "t" according to the OED

More pernickety spelling points: the article is mostly written in UK English, but I have spotted "catalog", "spatialized", "counselors" (though you may class that as part of a quotation), "centermost" and "analyze". Contrariwise, if the spelling is intended to be American, there are the English "colour", "panelled", "sulphur", "analysing" and "realisation."

I'll read through again and come back with any more comments shortly. I shall enjoy the task - there's a lot a good stuff in this article. Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Final pernickerty comments:

• "Ensemble recherche" or "Recherche"? Both appear.
• If (as above) this article is, as it seems, written in UK English, the Americanism "through" ("Mantra (1970) through completion"; "comprising hours six through eleven") strikes a jarring note.

More generally, this is a highly technical article. It is well presented; the layout and illustrations help the eye along. Nonetheless, readers will need a fair grasp of musical terms to understand all of it (not that I claim to do so completely). However, in my view, a reader who turns to this article is prima facie likely to be willing and able to cope with the technicalities. It is not a general "life and works" composer article and therefore can reasonably stray from lay language here and there. It is duly blue-linked for the hard words. I shall be interested to see if the assessors at GA/FA agree with me. It would be a pity to dumb-down such a scholarly article. – Tim riley (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim riley, for your kind words and sharp eyes! Corrections have now been entered. In the process, I discovered a few more Americanisms (as an American myself I find these easy to overlook), such as "English horn" instead of "cor anglais". Some of these stem from the style used by the Stockhausen-Verlag, which at base uses UK English, but with a few deviations (such as "English horn" instead of "cor anglais", and note-names as "quarter note", "eighth note", etc., instead of "crotchet", "quaver", etc.), mainly on grounds of comprehensibility in a context of English for non-native speakers, but also I think because they are closer to the German equivalents. This should not be transfered to Wikipedia, of course, except in direct quotations. "Counselors" (as you note), is an example, which is found in a quotation of the "official" translation of the text of Uversa. This could be a typo—I shall double check this against the source—or may reflect the spelling in The Urantia Book, which of course is an American publication. That book was responsible for a few other American spellings in this article on Klang though, again, they should be retained only in direct quotations. Thank you once again, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I find the title of this article confusing. I had never heard of Stockhausen before, so I had no idea what the article was about until I clicked through. Would this not be better titled something like "Klang (composition series)" or "Klang (compositions)" or something like that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does not appear usual to so specify other composition cycles, such as Die schöne Müllerin, Winterreise, Der Ring des Nibelungen, or indeed Licht or Tierkreis by this same composer. The title is already sub-categorised with the composer's name (the usual procedure on Wikipedia when a musical work's title is not unique to that work), and an explanation of what it consists of occurs in the first sentence of the lede. The logical extension of this suggestion would be to retitle, e.g., Winterreise as "Winterreise (song cycle)", or more generally, String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) as "String Quartets, Op. 76 (compositions)". If Klang happened to be a cycle of compositions to which several different composers contributed, this might be a different matter, but even the Genesis Suite is not so treated, and how many people who do not know Stockhausen's name would recognize Nathaniel Shilkret, Darius Milhaud, or Ernst Toch?.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I must had too much wine in me or something, but from what I can tell none of those articles you linked to have the composer's name in the title of the article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, apart from the String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn), of course. If you would like some more examples of work titles that require this kind of differentiation, you might try Symphony No. 8 (Piston) as opposed to Symphony No. 8 (Shostakovich), Symphony No. 8 (Beethoven), etc.; The Seasons (Cage), The Seasons (Haydn), The Seasons (Tchaikovsky), The Seasons (TVB Program); Stabat Mater, Stabat Mater (art), Stabat Mater (Szymanowski), Stabat Mater (Dvořák), Stabat Mater (Boccherini), etc.; Faust, Goethe's Faust, Faust (Spohr), Faust (1926 film), etc. There are indeed other ways of dealing with these, such as Faust (opera) (which will not lead you to Spohr's opera, but to Gounod's—and this seems to me less than totally helpful). It seems to me that the likelihood of someone looking for some musical composition titled Klang, without knowing that it was composed by Stockhausen, is extremely low, and a search for just plain Klang ought to lead (eventually) to a disambiguation page that will sort such things out. Klang (music), unfortunately, will simply add to the confusion. (That article obviously needs a hatnote.) Have another glass of wine.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that very last assumption. That's not how people find anything on the web. They will, if they do, come across this page by typing "klang" into Google. They may type another word to narrow the search, but I doubt that word would be the hard-to-spell "Stockhausen". I would much more likely be "music", "opera" or even "song". Try that right now, and you'll see the problem. I had no idea who Stockhausen was before reading this article, but I had heard of Klang. Had I gone looking, this article would have been buried in the search results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very curious to know how you could have heard of Klang without at the same time hearing the name Stockhausen, since as far as I am aware all publicity concerning this cycle of compositions has been with reference first to the composer's name ("New Stockhausen Piece “Balance” Premiered in Cologne", "[http://www.anygivensound.com/ Klang: A Tribute to Karlheinz Stockhausen", "MusikTriennaleKöln: Karlheinz Stockhausen KLANG", "Stockhausen: more parts of Klang completed", etc.). I'll grant you, doing a Google search for "Klang" and "music" produces some amusing results ("Places for music near Klang, Selangor, Malaysia", "Carl Klang, Music Ministries", "Klang Music Centre Sdn Bhd", "Donnie Klang | Music Videos, News, Photos, Tour Dates, Ringtones ...", etc.), but I fail to see how this is supposed to help the browsing newbie find this particular information, without typing in the composer's name (which, BTW, is not at all difficult to spell—try finding Violin Concerto No. 1 (Szymanowski) sometime). It is also true that Google searches work very differently from article-title searches on Wikipedia, and while it is always worth considering what a Google search will turn up (i.e., what keywords should we be sure to include in the lede paragraph), it is more important to make sure a Wikipedia search is as transparent as possible. Have you checked Klang (music) yet? That one is already taken on Wikipedia, and already needs a hatnote to a disambiguation page, since there are eight other music articles that direct to the name Klang—this one and Klang (album), Kling Klang Studio, Klang Box, Klaus Klang, Donnie Klang, Kling Klang (band), and Der ferne Klang. No, it is clearer and clearer that the best way of listing this cycle is with the composer's name—which, BTW, is how it is done with all of the other works with ambiguous titles in the List of compositions by Karlheinz Stockhausen, namely Amour (Stockhausen), Gruppen (Stockhausen), Klavierstücke (Stockhausen), Kontakte (Stockhausen), Kontra-Punkte (Stockhausen), Mantra (Stockhausen), Mikrophonie (Stockhausen), Sirius (Stockhausen), Tierkreis (Stockhausen), Trans (Stockhausen). Are you going to argue that the reader would find Amour more easily on Wikipedia by searching for "Amour (cycle of five pieces)", or Kontra-Punkte by searching for "Kontra-Punkte (composition for ten instruments)", or Mantra by searching for "Mantra (ring-modulated pianos)"? Doing a Google search with these terms should work in any case, because these keywords all occur in the lede paragraph of the respective articles, just as "cycle of compositions", "chamber music", "solos", "duos", "trios", "septet", and "electronic composition" occur in the lede of the article here under discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My roommate was a music major at York, he played it. But I'll bow out here, it's clear my objection is not being shared by anyone else. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Played "it"? I'm sorry, but I really am curious to know which of the Klang pieces your roommate played, since they have only existed for between five and three years now, and so not many musicians have had the chance to learn them. Could it have been Natural Durations?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 October 2010, 20:39 UTC)

---

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] Ion Creangă

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

At the lowest reaches of Special:Longpages (#998 ranking at this edit), I came across this profile of a Romanian children's writer. Should be GA-ready soon, and made the rounds at WP:Did you know last August.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 November 2010, 23:36 UTC)

---

[edit] Evelyn Waugh

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

I am presenting this for review, although I'm still working on aspects of it. The images need attention; Jappalang advises that the "old man Waugh" in the Decline section will probably have to go, which is a pity. There is a great dearth of relevant free pictures and I have struggled to find appropriate images. Maybe others will have ideas. The "List of works" subarticle is very much "under construction" at present, but I'll be working on this as the review proceeds. Meanwhile I'd be grateful for any comments on this attempt at a fair portrayal of a remarkable, though difficult man. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments – This is good stuff! First batch of comments:

• Lead
  • "Catholic " tout court in first para – you'll get the Anglicans agitated unless you add "Roman". And oughtn't the blue link, at present later in the lead, be from this first mention?
• Family background
  • "...The Rev" or "the Rev" – does one put a capital T in the definite article here? (Question expecting the answer No.)
• Golders Green and Heath Mount
  • "usually written by himself" – is the reflexive really wanted here?
• Lancing
  • "editor of the College magazine, president of the Debating Society" – are these caps needed?
• Oxford
  • "a poor third class degree" – is this a poor degree (viz, a third) or a poor grading within the thirds, and if the latter, who told him?
    • I have redrafted this part and added a footnote to cover possible confusion of the award/non-award of Oxford degrrees. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Heatherley's" with apostrophe or "Heatheleys" (as in next section) without?
• Early career
  • "his homosexual phase now behind him" – I'm terribly sorry about this – exposure to Round the Horne and Carry On films in my youth, no doubt – but I can't help seeing a double meaning in the conjunction of "homosexual" and "behind him". Perhaps better to head off other ageing fourth-formers among your readers by redrawing. Yes, yes, I know, sorry!
• "He-Evelyn" and "She-Evelyn"
  • I was so tickled by the "Miss Waugh" clanger that I looked out the original TLS review, which you are welcome to as a footnote or some such if you think it of interest: "Miss Waugh approaches the 'squalid' Rossetti like some dainty Miss of the sixties bringing the Italian organ-grinder a penny, merciless in spite of the best intentions." "Dante Gabriel Rossetti", TLS, 10 May 1928, p 342. Written, so the archive reveals, by one Thomas Sturge Moore.
    • Yes, I've seen the review, and Waugh's magisterial reply: "My Christian name, I know, is occasionally regarded by people of limited social experience as belonging exclusively to one or other sex..." etc. Great fun, but with Waugh one has to learn to ration the wit.

That's my lot for tonight. More tomorrow. (I am enjoying this!) – Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Second and final consignment of comments:

• Writer and traveller
  • "a parody of Deedes" – can one parody a person? Not sure, but it looks a bit strange.
    • I think you can; my Collins English Dictionary gives the second definition of "parody" as: "mimicry of someone's individual manner in a humorous or satirical way". Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Second marriage
  • "Laura Herbert was a cousin of Evelyn Gardner's" – possessive necessary?
• Fame and fortune
  • "Waugh was, however, prepared to exploit his celebrity" – not sure what the "however" is referring back to.
    • Sentence emoved, unneceeary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • ""... selectively deaf"" – does this need the elliptical dots?
• Breakdown
  • "His was increasingly dependent on drugs," – Either there's a word missing or "his" should be "he". Medicinal or recreational drugs? (I see you say later that it was the former, but a word of explanation at this first mention might be helpful)
  • Noel Buxton and Nancy Spain – this incident inspired P G Wodehouse to write a piece of light verse, of which, if you are interested, I'll send you a copy. (Waugh revered PGW, and broadcast a famous "Act of Reparation and Homage" on the BBC)
    • I's like to see what PG said, it might make an interesting footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've temporarily uploaded a scan to my webspace - here. I'll remove when you've downloaded it.
• Decline and Death
  • Basil Seal Rides Again –" a nasty little book" – If you care to cite the original, the TLS review (headed "A Rake Raked Up") was by John Willett, and was published on 14 Nov 1963, p. 921.
• Reception
  • The ending of Vile Bodies – I had an idea that Waugh tagged the (to me chilling) ending on after the book was supposedly finished (perhaps even after the first edition was published) but memory may be playing tricks. I just mention it.
    • The book undoubtedly changed course in mid-writing; Stannard has much to say about this, though he doesn't mention a "tagged-on" ending. Waugh revised most of his books for later editions, so maybe he did add something then. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Chapman and Hall need a word of explanation - I know they were his publishers, but that isn't obvious in the present context
  • " fixed image of Waugh–"stout, splenetic" – ought this en dash to be an em dash?
• Reputation
  • "Some of this picture, it was claimed by Waugh's supporters…" It was drilled into me as a youth that one uses "claim" only when some actual claim (e.g. to a right or title) is being referred to, not as a mere synonym for "assert" or "allege".

That's all I can contribute (though point taken about the images, and I'll give that matter some further thought). I haven't enjoyed an article so much for quite some time. It's a very fine piece of work and should breeze through FAC. Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Except where I have commented above, you can take it that I have adopted your suggestions, for which I am truly grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 November 2010, 18:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking the advice of more experienced editors on what else I can do to improve this article so that it will be successful when going through a review for FA class. The article was recently upgraded to GA class after a successful GA Review, which you can find here.

Please do note that I have done a search on the internet multiple times for sources and, as far as I know, the sources in the article are all that is available online. If you can offer other sources for inclusion, I would appreciate it. But please do not just ask in your review for more sources to be added, as I do not know where any more are to be found.

Thanks, Silverseren^C 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found a few more sources:

• Daniel, Lillian. The Christian Century, 3/27/2002, Vol. 119 Issue 7, p36
• Hollander, Paul. Partisan Review, Winter2003, Vol. 70 Issue 1, p142
• Nelson, Kathleen. The Lancet, 8/10/2002, Vol. 360 Issue 9331, p496

If you would like me to forward you copies of these, send me an email. --maclean (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadads

I am doing a really quick read right now and will do something more substantial at the end of the week. (I have the whole of next week off, so I should be really productive online.), Sadads (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Content section

• "Each chapter is an individual essay that was published by itself." I think I know what this means, but can you clarify what "published by itself" means. Were they published in journals? Were they all previously published before the publication? The wording doesn't seem very clear in general, Sadads (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think i've clarified this. Let me know if it's still confusing. Silverseren^C 05:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think a little more discussion of the structure of arguements in the content section, or a fuller understanding of why the conclusions which are in this section are in fact there would be useful. Remember, summaries of content don't need to be cited by outside sources, as long as it is free of interpretation of content, Sadads (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • For example I don't know what "All of these issues formed because the "intellectual foundation...makes a permanent underclass possible".[14]" that sentence means,especially in relationship to the three previous sentences, Sadads (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I reworded things a bit. Let me know if that's better. Silverseren^C 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: Please do not use second and third levels on the review page, as they interfere with the transclusion. Fourth-level headings are fine. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 01:52 UTC)

---

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] 2010 Sylvania 300

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my goal to pass FA criteria. The article just passed GA, and now I am heading toward FA. While doing so, I would like others comments. I am aware that there are few comma misplacements, though.

Thanks, Nascar1996 06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 November 2010, 06:08 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the third Manchester United players list I have nominated. I feel it should almost be ready for FL - any guidance is appreciated. I also need help finding a free image of Peter Beardsley to compliment the page.

Thanks, 03md 02:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 November 2010, 02:01 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it should almost be ready for Featured List standard. It is the second of three Manchester United player articles (which are split up due to size), the first of which is already a featured list. This follows a similar format.

Thanks, 03md 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 November 2010, 21:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently became a good article and I hope to take it to FAC. I'm particularly interested in how readable it is and if all the stuff about the googly is intelligible to non-cricketers.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 22:59 UTC)

---

[edit] Eye-gouging (rugby union)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the article is well written and has fair references and I would like other editor's input on it as I'm considering nominating the page for Good Article Status under sports and recreation as Wikipedia's 1st Rugby Union specific good article so can anyone give us some tips on how to improve it or even if it is currently suitable for Good article status.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Casliber

Eeww. gross topic..

• Unabbreviate IRB and link it.

• Needs a history section. I am sure it didn't start in 1992 (I remember the Loe case well though).

• Any reason why it is worse in union than league? Needs rationale and explanation. I'd maybe combine with league, or with baseline concept at Eye-gouging- both pages are short and the definitions are the same.

Wow, I was hoping it was some weird rugby slang but, holy...ResMar 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 November 2010, 19:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Georgetown, Texas

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has an advert tag placed on it which I don't think is justified. Or if it is, it would be helpful to know what specifically needs editing. Also anxious to begin to move this article up from from a "start" sttaus.

Thanks, Austex • Talk 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: In response to your question about the "advert" tag, that's not the problem. The main problems at the moment are copyright violations, inaccurate sourcing, and lack of sourcing. I've read the discussions on the article's talk page, and I see that you've inherited many, perhaps all, of these problems. Still, they need to be fixed. Here are some specifics:

• Here's a copyright violation. "Historic neighborhoods" begins this way: "In the 1970s, Georgetown's downtown was bleak and featureless. In an effort to modernize and compete with suburban retail development, building owners in the ‘50s and ‘60s obscured one of their most priceless resources – their retail buildings. The Texas-Victorian streetscape was plastered with stucco, aluminum covers, brick, and multiple layers of white paint. But community leaders had already begun taking interest and putting new stock back into their architectural heritage." And here's what the source says, "In the 1970s, Georgetown's downtown was bleak and featureless. In an effort to modernize and compete with suburban retail development, building owners in the ‘50s and ‘60s obscured one of their most priceless resources – their retail buildings. The Texas-Victorian streetscape was plastered with stucco, aluminum covers, brick, and multiple layers of white paint. But community leaders had already begun taking interest and putting new stock back into their architectural heritage." As you can see, they are identical. Whoever copied the source material simply stole it from The National Trust for Historic Preservation. Before doing anything else with the article, please remove this copyvio and all others that you can identify in the article. That means checking the existing text against the sources. WP:COPYVIO has details.

• Here's an example of a source that does not support the claim it's attached to. The claim is: "There also appear to have been small numbers of Kiowa, Yojuane, Tawakoni, and Mayeye Indians living in the county at the time of the earliest Anglo settlements." The source, citation 12, says nothing about Indians. You need to check all of the sources to make sure they they support the claims they purport to support.

• Many parts of the article lack sourcing and are therefore in violation of WP:V. For example, the "Weather" section is completely unsourced as is "Government and politics". My rule of thumb is to include at least one source for every paragraph except, usually, the paragraphs of the lead. Also, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation needs a source. If one source supports an entire paragraph, it should go at the end of the paragraph, right after the terminal period of the last sentence.

• Until the sourcing problems are fixed, there's little point in reviewing the article for other problems. I'd be glad to take a further look later if you clean up these serious problems.

• Two other thoughts: WP:USCITY has helpful guidelines for articles about cities. WP:FA#Geography and places includes the names of featured articles about cities, and these can be useful models.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 November 2010, 01:52 UTC)

---

[edit] Spain national football team

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

I would to know what else can be done to make this article the best it possibly can be, and I would be incredibly greatful if someone could just give a couple of pointers on how to expand content etc. and any strong example articles/sections. Thanks in advance! // Finns 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 15:39 UTC)

---

[edit] Czech Republic national football team

Previous peer review

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

I have been away for quite a long time and would like somebody to be able to tell me what I/people need to do to make this article better! I've lost track a bit of what has happened to the article recently - silly me for not being here I suppose!

Thank You in advance for your time :) // Finns 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

• The biggest issue facing the article is a severe shortage of references. Any fact which could reasonably be challenged by a sceptical reader should be supported by a reference. See Scotland national football team, a featured article on a similar topic, for an example of the approach we are looking for, and also for further tips about article structure.
• The history section is unbalanced. The qualification phase for the most recent World Cup is covered at length, but Euro 96 is covered in a couple of sentences, even though the team reached the final. Aim for an even coverage throughout the team's history, with extra focus on the team's biggest accomplishments where appropriate, like the 1996 and 2004 European Championships.
• Some of the sections which are currently tables could do with some prose to accompany them. Again, see the Scotland article for some examples.
• A number of the comments from the previous peer review look as if they are still relevant for the article in its current state, so it may be worth revisiting them.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 13:56 UTC)

---

[edit] Villa Park

Previous peer review

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

I've requested a peer review to get some feedback on recent changes I have made to the article with regards to a FAC in the future. I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on the prose. The article is already a GA and I follows the same sort of structure as most Featured association football stadium articles (eg Old Trafford, Portman Road etc. Many thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Infobox seems to be missing the odd "stand" (for instance, "... and The Doug Ellis to the ...")
• "is under a mile" -> less than a mile.
• "England internationals at senior level" some kind of link to England national football team wouldn't go amiss here.
• "It has hosted 16 England internationals at senior level. The first international was in 1899 with the most recent being in 2005." merge.
• " Villa Park is the most used stadium in FA Cup semi-final history" reword perhaps to "has hosted more FA Cup semi-finals than any other stadium" and link FA Cup.
• "The 1999 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Final was held at Villa Park, the last ever final of the European Cup Winners' Cup. " would have "the last ever..." before "was held at Villa Park"
• Be consistent on capitalisation of stand "North stand" vs "North Stand" for instance.
• Infobox - Trinity Rd->Trinity Road.
• Infobox - £25M - not sure I've seen M used for millions for money. But that's just me.
• History quote needs a proper reference (in the references section) including isbn, publisher etc.
• Seems a little whimsical to open the history section with a direct quote like that as well.
• "The previous location of Aston Villa..." not really, perhaps "Aston Villa's previous home..." or something.
• "to an estimated crowd of 15,000" when it opened, was there some kind of event that drew this 15,000 or was the ground simply able to host 15,000?
• "21 year" hyphenate.
• " the construction of a new cycle track constructed " - quick repeat of "construct" here.
• Suggest linking "snagging".
• "could house 40,000 spectators most of whom" comma before most.
• "one week after Aston Villa" don't relink Villa here.
• Holte Hotel caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "at a cost of £887. At a cost of £1,300, t" repetitive.
• "£8250," (etc) comma needed to separate thousands.
• You have "Blackburn Rovers" but "Everton F.C." - be consistent.

That takes me two paras into History. Hope this has been useful so far, will continue to review if prompted (although I am away this long weekend, so patience!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Very useful thanks, take all the time you need. I've fixed all those issues above apart from snagging, I couldn't find a link for that. I've removed the Billy Walker quote as it was a bit fawning wasn't it. I had been wondering about it when I rewrote the section but you confirmed it for me. Thanks again, regards, Woody (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll try another section or three tomorrow. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Take your time, on Sunday I have an appointment with Sky Sports and apparently Mr Pires now. As a note, I didn't do the European Final sentence in the lead either as I couldn't see another way of keeping both a link to the final and to the Cup article. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pires. One of my favourites. Top three with Kanchelskis and Lee Sharpe. Odd, I know, but there you have it. Good luck v Blackburn, don't fancy your chances but then again, I'm a Tractor Boy so what would I know?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 November 2010, 17:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Key (basketball)

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

• I'd want this to be an FA, and PR is the first step in flushing out the bad parts.
• If possible other additions or clarifications is appreciated. Needed are comments from people if they understand this if they don't know anything about basketball.
• Another thing is what would be the appropriate WP:MOS guidelines to make this FAC-ready.
• Does anyone know of an FA-level similar article I can pattern this with?

Thanks, –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This has nice illustrations of an important basketball term. However, the article needs copyediting; you might be able to find a copyeditor through WP:GOCE. Here are a few other suggestions:

Lead

• "Free throw" should not be double-bolded. WP:MOSBOLD has details.
• FIBA should be spelled out (Fédération Internationale de Basket-ball) as well as abbreviated on first use.
• "Usually painted (some courts leave it blanked, with the adjoining area, "the perimeter," which is painted)... " - The material in parentheses is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "Usually painted (although blank on some courts with painted perimeters)... ".
• "starting with FIBA's amendments on their rules" - Maybe "starting with FIBA's amendments to its rules"?
• "The key, in all games, starting with FIBA's amendments on their rules in 2006 (to be first implemented after the 2010 FIBA World Championship), is rectangular; prior to 2006, the key in FIBA-sanctioned tournaments (mostly basketball played outside the United States, and almost all international tournaments including the World Championships and the Olympics) is trapezoidal in shape." - Too complex. It would be better to break this into at least two sentences without the parenthetical remarks.
• "Both NBA and FIBA keys are 16 feet wide... " - Measurements are usually given in metric as well as imperial units; i.e., 16 feet (4.9 m).
• "Another rule enforced is the lane violation where... " - A lane violation isn't a "where". Perhaps "A lane-violation rule prohibits players from either team from entering the lane... "?

Dimensions

• The first paragraph needs a source or sources. My rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any unusual claims, statistics, or direct quotes. If one source covers a whole paragraph, the citation goes right after the end of the terminal period of the last sentence of the paragraph.

• "The free throw circle is with a universally-recognized 6 feet (1.8 m) radius from the free throw line, with the half of the free throw circle farthest from the backboard traced in solid lines." - To define the circle, you need to say where its center is; the radius is not enough. The center of this circle appears to be the midpoint of the free-throw line. Suggestion: "The free-throw circle, centered at the midpoint of the free-throw line, has a universally recognized radius of 6 feet (1.8 m)." Or maybe I am not understanding what the free-throw circle refers to.
  • I'm guessing here, but the center of the free-throw circle, which is the yes, the midpoint of the free throw line. is about ___ ft. from the center of the hoop. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• "with the half of the free throw circle farthest from the backboard traced in solid lines" - This does not appear to be an accurate statement. Look at the free-throw circle in File:NokiaArena.jpg, for example. There are no solid lines inside the circle. Do you mean the perimeter of the circle?

• "In the NBA, the half closer to the basket must also be traced in a broken line... " - I think you mean the perimeter of the half closer to the basket.

Layout

• MOS:IMAGES suggest placing the images within the sections to which they relate. The key images stacked on the top right might look better if three photographs of actual basketball courts were combined in a triple image placed completely inside of the "Dimensions" section. This would be worth a try, I think.

• To make File:Free throw.jpg fit inside a single section, you might merge the subsections (deleting the heads) to make one larger section under the single heading, "Rules".

Other

• It's generally a good idea to write in full paragraphs rather than one-sentence orphans. Merging and expanding are two ways to turn orphans into full paragraphs. Extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs make an article choppy. I particularly notice the shorties in the "Rules" section.

• The link checker above finds two dead urls in the citations.
  • Yes this is a problem. Those articles were published 2004 they must be gone by now. Most links have a working life of ~5 years. I'd take a look if there's one archived somewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd do most of your suggestions, but I'd hold off on a couple:

• I'd say adding the French name of FIBA won't probably help since a) it's French, and b) most people know "FIBA" and not Fédération Internationale de Basket-ball and may actually be confused instead of helping. How about "FIBA, the authority in world basketball" or something to that effect?
• The first paragraph in the "Dimensions" section is the thesis statement, and the details are cited in the paragraphs after that.
• How about putting the three images at the top right either at the top or at the bottom of the "Dimensions" section? They should be pretty big considering the differences between the three keys should be seen at first sight.
• I'm considering splitting the one-paragraph/section "Lane violation" and "Restricted area arc" into 2 or more paragraphs each, then chop off File:Free throw.jpg's caption and incorporate it to the main text. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 November 2010, 19:39 UTC)

---

[edit] 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

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 it for the past month to try to get it to GA and ultimately FA status. I have looked at it long enough now and need a fresh set of eyes to go through it before nominating it. I know its a longer article, but any feedback (especially with the prose) will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Patriarca12 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry this has taken me so long. I think this looks pretty good and will make some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I think it is pretty close to GA, but needs some more work before it would pass at FAC.

• Lead I think I might say they were undefeated and National Champions in the first paragraph of the lead - it is a pretty big deal, and details can be in the later paragraphs of the lead.
• I would add "The Tide" to the alternate names given in the lead
• MOS says to use numbers if greater than 10, so fix It was the Crimson Tide's 77th season as a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and its eighteenth within the framework of the SEC Western Division. (i.e. 18th)
• I think I would add "coach" before Nick Saban in The team was led by Nick Saban...
• Is there any sort of free team picture that could be used in the infobox? I know there are some later in the article, but am not sure if any of those should be moved up.
• The article seems to use a fair number of verb + ing constructions - this would be a problem at WP:FAC as several reviewers there do not see this as the best prose. So for example In the BCS National Championship Game, the Crimson Tide defeated the Longhorns 37–21 in capturing their first ever BCS Championship. the phrase "in capturing" could be replaced with "to capture" or perhaps "and captured"
• I would at least link LSU in the lead (first mention) and would probably spell it out instead, so "Louisiana State University (LSU}"
• FAC requires proefessional quality English, but I think this needs a copyedit first (GAN is more tolerant of decent prose that is not brilliant). So The season marked the first time a player for Alabama won the Heisman Trophy. Mark Ingram won the award, edging out Stanford running back Toby Gerhart. Other award winners included Rolando McClain winning both the Butkus Award and the Jack Lambert Award and defensive coordinator Kirby Smart winning the Broyles Award as the nations top assistant coach. could be polished and tightened to something like this The season marked the first time an Alabama player won the Heisman Trophy, as running back (RB) Mark Ingram edged out Stanford RB Toby Gerhart. Linebacker Rolando McClain won both the Butkus and the Jack Lambert Awards, and defensive coordinator Kirby Smart won the Broyles Award as the nations top assistant coach. (avoided three verb + ing constructions here)
• Before the season is there any better name for this section? Background and preseason?
• Awkward sentence However, the Tide went on to lose their final two games to the Florida Gators 31–20 in the SEC Championship Game, and to the Utah Utes 31–17 in the 2009 Sugar Bowl to finish 12–2.[2] makes it sound like they played the Gators twice in the last two games. Could the word "postseason" be used here? Maybe something like However, the Tide went on to lose their final two games to end the seasons 12–2. They lost the SEC Championship Game against the Florida Gators (31–20), followed by the 2009 Sugar Bowl against the Utah Utes (31–17).[2] Not perfect, but maybe it helps ge the idea across
• I was confused by these sentences: Alabama reached No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches' Polls for the first time since the final polls in 1992 and during the regular season for the first time since 1980.[3][4] The Tide also reached No. 1 in the BCS rankings for the first time in school history.[4] I think it would help to give the week(s) they were ranked No. 1, and also to add what their end of season ranking was.
• I also notice the article uses both No. 1 and #1 - should probably pick one and be consistent
• Missing word? On June 11, 2009, the NCAA Committee on Infractions sanctioned Alabama for "major violations" stemming [from?] textbook-related abuses involving 16 of 19 sports, including football.[11][12] Also not sure what textbook related abuses are - can a note or link be added?
• Might want to note in Returning starters that two players were on both the Special teams and another (as 12 returned, but 14 are listed)
• I think all of the abbreviations (RB QB LB etc) in Recruiting class need to be defined first
• Schedule - it would help to say when the Sagarin and Cosgrove computer programs determined Alabama had the toughest schedule for the season - was it after the season ended? Before it began? See WP:PCR
• I think the MOS would refer to Coach Nick Saban as just "Saban" in the text, after his full name is introduced - the article seems to use "Nick Saban" every time.
• Captions are Ok to use the full name, but this could be tightened Head coach Nick Saban entered his third year as Bama's head coach for the 2009 season. or just "The 2009 season was head coach Nick Saban's third at Bama."
• Introduce team nicknmaes in the text - After defeating Clemson in the inaugural Chick-fil-A College Kickoff, Alabama announced in December 2008 they would return for the 2009 edition against the Virginia Tech Hoikies.[27]
• In the Hokies game "negating the lone scoring opportunity for either team in a third quarter" is used, when I believe "in the third quarter" is meant - the first would mean neither time scored in a third quarter this season, the latter that neither team scored in the third quarter of this game.
• I owuld make sure that some things only in the boxes or captions are also in the text. For example, Alabama started the season ranked #5, but this is not clearly in the text that I could see, just in the box for the Virginia Tech game and much later in the table of rankings. I do not think every game needs to say their rank, but surely thie first game, and each game where their rank changed from the previous week should mention the fact? I also see there is both a photo and sound clip of their visit to the WHite House, but no mention of this in the text.
• Overall I think this article has all the details needed, and sources look good for the most part (but see below please). I am guessing it would pass GAN with some cleanup required (never know what the reviewer might want fixed), but the language would be a problem at FAC. A copyedit would be very useful - see WP:GOCE for possible help.
• The little infoboxes for each game are uncited or at least it was not clear to me what the ref was for each. WHile it is not likely to be challenged that Brent Musberger did play by play, attendance figures and the like require a ref.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

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 _><>°^° 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look the article over Ruhrfisch! I will take the time to address them over the next few days/weeks and look for a future copyedit to bring it more up to par. Very helpful comments! Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 November 2010, 02:37 UTC)

---

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] New Testament Christian Churches of America

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

This article recently underwent a review for GA status, but failed. I corrected all the points which the GA reviewer brought up. I'd like a peer review to correct any faults which still remain so we can get this article to GA status. Please note that the reliable sources upon which the article is based turned up largely negative information on this church and if the article reflected the tone and majority content of the reliable sources, it would sound much more critical, and have much more critical information. It is already toned down the the bare facts to make it encyclopedic.

Thanks, BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 November 2010, 21:38 UTC)

---

[edit] Hygeberht

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 it to FAC, but I'm concerned with two issues - one, prose, which is always a problem for me, and two, comprehensibility by the non-specialist in medieval history. I hope it makes sense to someone who isn't familiar with ecclesiastical history or with Anglo-Saxon history. I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions towards either or both of those concerns.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have read this several times and like it - sorry it has taken me so long to review. The prose seems pretty good to me, though I know you often have copyediting lined up, I will try to point out places the language could be improved. I think the main area for improvement is a bit more background to provide context.

• The lead is very concise - the article is 9865 B of readable prose, so WP:LEAD says one or two paragraphs in the lead is OK. If the article is expanded any, it might be worth expanding the lead to two paragraphs.
• Is there any reason not to link the Archbishopric of Canterbury in the lead?
• Since so much of Hygeberht's life was governed by Offa (both are mentioned three times by name in the lead), I think it would help to add a few sentences on Offa and the Kingdom of Mercia and the whole situation in what became England at the time. I think most readers will not know Kent was its own kingdom, or that England was not a unified kingdom at the time.
• I also wondered if one of Offa's coins (three are pictured in the Offa article) might be used as an image in this article?
• I read the article on the Kingdom of Kent but am not really sure what "the recently subjected Kentish kingdom" means. If it was subjected by an external force, why is there still a Kentish king, Egbert II?
• If two versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle say the Council of Chelsea was in 785, why does the article say it was in 787? What other sources say that it was actually in 787?
• I assume the other version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle do not mention this council? Should that be stated explicitly somewhere?
• There is also an image of the first page of the Peterborough Chronicle in its article - could that be used in the Council of Chelsea section?
• Not clear what "at Rome" means in In 788 Hygeberht received a pallium, the symbol of an archbishop's authority, from Pope Hadrian I at Rome.[18] Assume it means Hygebehrt went to ROme to receive the pallium, but could also be seen as meaning that Hadrian was at ROme when he sent the pallium
• Is the year of Jænberht's death known? If so could it be added to .. though upon Jænberht's death, Hygeberht became the foremost prelate in England.[19]?
• Probably want to somehow identify ALcuin better - I thought he was the Archbishop of York. But, when Jænberht died, Hygeberht consecrated Jænberht's successor Æthelhard; though only after Offa consulted [noted scholar] Alcuin of York about proper procedure.[19]
• This raises the question of what the Archbishop of York thought of the new Archbishop(ric) of Lichfield. How did they interact? Or why was it only a Lichfield / Canterbury power struggle, and not a York / Lichfield struggle as well?
• As for language, I noticed the word "also" a afair amount - could probably be reduced in number
• Avoid passive voice if possible. Try to tighten the text ion places - so look for things like ... but it may have been because of a desire by Offa to supervise the entire southern church or it may have stemmed from an attempt by the archbishops of Canterbury to retain some authority over the province of Lichfield.[24] why not just "because of Offa's desire to supervise" or "stemmed from the archbishops of Caterbury's attempt to retain"
• I know there is a historical present tense, but to me it seems odd to have events that happened over 1000 years ago described with present tense verbs, especially when there are past tense consructions nearby By the time that Æthelhard held the Fifth Council of Clovesho, Hygeberht was no longer even named as a bishop, as he appears at that council as an abbot.[28] He remained an abbot until his death.[27]
• Please let me know when you take this to FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

PS given the recent concerns over copyright violations etc. I am now adding this to all of my peer reviwes. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but what do you think of the line?

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 November 2010, 22:53 UTC)

---

[edit] Social sciences and society

[edit] The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I need the insight of uninvolved editors to further improve the article in preparation for FAC.

Thanks, — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 November 2010, 23:00 UTC)

---

[edit] Famine in India

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 get feedback on what needs to be done before I nominate the article as a GA.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 November 2010, 19:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Culture of Malaysia

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've about reached the end of my independent thought process on the improvement of this article. I'm not sure where to go from here, what information people would want to see in such an article, how it should be organised etc. Any suggestions about anything at all would be most welcome, from copyediting to sourcing to the creation of whole new sections.

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article has a lot of interesting content, but the prose needs more work. I did quite a bit of proofing and made many small changes to punctuation and spelling. I'm sure I didn't catch and fix everything. I'd suggest a further close copyediting. You might be able to find a willing editor through WP:GOCE or WP:PRV. Here are other comments and suggestions.

Lead

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead is a bit skimpy on details and focuses a bit too heavily on the idea that the culture is a mix. I don't think the final sentence is necessary; it draws a conclusion rather than adding to the summary. I generally rewrite the lead of an article after I'm pretty much done with the main text sections. When I do this, I try to imagine a reader who can only read the lead and none of the text sections. I think it's important to work a little more of the specific detail into leads than I see in this one.

• The lead repeats the word "culture" 15 times. More variety would improve the prose.

Background

• "Cultural differences between Peninsular and East Malaysia until today." - Missing word or words?

• For foreign readers who live in distant parts of the world, it might be helpful to include a map showing where these places are. In lieu of a map, a general description in the text might help identify the hemisphere, the bordering bodies of water, and the bordering countries. It might help to give the name of the capital city and its location and perhaps the names of other major cities.

Ethnic groups

• "Malaysia is a multi–ethnic, multicultural and multilingual society, and the many ethnic groups in Malaysia construct different cultural identities based on this." - Is "construct" the right word? Suggestion: Malaysia's multi-ethnic, multicultural and multilingual society is a blend of various cultural identities."

• "Substantial influence exists from Chinese and Indian culture" - Shouldn't this be "cultures" since they are not identical?

• "Other cultures that heavily influenced the culture of Malaysia include Persian, Arabic, and British culture." - Suggestion to avoid repeating "culture" three times: "Other cultures that heavily influenced that of Malaysia include the Persian, Arabic, and British."

• "Due to the political structure of the government coupled with the social contract theory, there has been minimal cultural assimilation of ethnic minorities in Malaya and Malaysia." - This isn't logical. The theory is a set of ideas that can't be "coupled" with something else. I'm not sure how to fix the sentence because I don't know what the social contract theory might say about political structures.

• The government has historically made little difference between "Malay Culture" and "Malaysian Culture". - I think you mean "distinction" rather than "difference".

• "Hindu tradition remains strong until today in the Indian community of Malaysia." - Tighten by deleting "until today"? Words like "today" are inherently vague, and I don't think you need to specify a time in this sentence.

Policies and controversies

• "The Malaysian government has taken the step of defining Malaysian Culture, issuing the "1971 National Culture Policy". " - Tighten to "The Malaysian government defined Malaysian Culture when it issued its "1971 National Culture Policy"?

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests using straight prose when feasible instead of lists. The numbered list in this section would be easy to render in prose.

• "Some cultural disputes exist between Malaysia and neighbouring countries, notably Indonesia." - Link Indonesia?

• "Strong feelings exist in Indonesia about protecting their national heritage." - Maybe "that nation's" rather than "their"?

• "One dispute, known as the Pendet controversy, was raised due to the claim of the use of the Pendet Dance in a Malaysian tourism ad campaign, causing official protests." - "Claim" doesn't seem to fit, since the ad actually used the dance images.

• "This Balinese dance was however used only in a Discovery Channel ad, not an official Malaysian ad." - It might help to explain that Bali is part of Indonesia and that the protests came from Indonesia. Also, should Discovery Channel be linked?

Arts

• "In recent years, dikir barat has grown in popularity, and it actively promoted by state governments... " - Missing word?

Music

• "Drums and other traditional percussion instruments and are often made from natural materials." - Missing words or too many words"?

Literature

• "This orals were heavily influenced by early Indian epics." - Suggestion: "These works... ".

Holidays

• The word "celebrate" occurs in one form or another more than 20 times in this section. A little more variety would make this section stronger.

• "This practice is commonly known as balik kampung and this would usually cause vehicle crawls on most highways in the country." - Should "vehicle crawl" be briefly explained or linked to something?

Cuisine

• "This means that although much of Malaysian food can be traced back to a certain culture, they have their own identity." - "Much" is singular, but "they" is plural. Suggestion: "This means that although many Malaysian foods can be traced to certain cultures, the foods have their own identities."

Sports

• "Wau is a traditional form of kite-flying, where kites are created with intricate designs." - Since the kites aren't created during the kite-flying, this sentence should be revised. Suggestion: "Wau is a traditional form of kite-flying involving kites with intricate designs."

• "Kite-fighting sometimes occurs, where each tries to cut the opponents kite strings." - "Each" doesn't seem to refer to anything in particular. Perhaps "Competitors sometimes engage in kite fights in which the object is to cut the opponent's kite strings."

• "Many international sports have a great deal of popularity in Malaysia." - Tighten to "Many international sports are highly popular in Malaysia"?

• Link "lawn bowls" to bowls?

• "It runs for 310.408 km" - Convert to 310.408 kilometres (192.879 mi) to show imperial as well as metric distances? Would it be more readable as "about 310 kilometres (190 mi)"?

• "received recognition by the IOC in 1954" - Spell out and link International Olympic Committee (IOC) on first use?

Media

• "Peninsular based media gives low priority to news from East Malaysia, and often treats them as colonies of the Peninsula." - "Peninsular-based" needs a hyphen. East Malaysia is an "it", not a "them"; perhaps "often treats it as a colony of the peninsula"?

• "The Malaysian government has previously tried to crack down on opposition papers before elections when they were unsure of their political situation." - "Government" is singular; it's not clear who "they" and "their" refer to.

Other

• Citation 70 has a dead url.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Wau) that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 16:12 UTC)

---

[edit] Canadian Heraldic Authority

Previous peer review

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

I plan on taking this article to FAC sometime in the next few months, with an aim to having it appear on the Main Page on 4 June (23rd anniversary of its creation). I'm aware that some of the refs are currently dead links; please don't concern yourselves with that. I know where the updated links are and will be fixing them.

At this time I am more concerned about:

• Clarity of prose
• Adequate coverage of the subject
• Is anything overly detailed?
• Is anything important missing from the article?

Thanks, →ROUX ₪ 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article - I think it has some serious issues and need lots of work before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
• I have some concerns about close paraphrasing. I checked the first three sourced statements of the History section. The first sentence is a pretty close paraphrase and needs to be rewritten:

This article: Before the creation of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, Canadians wishing to obtain a legally granted coat of arms had to apply to one of the two heraldic offices in the United Kingdom: either the College of Arms in London, or if of Scottish descent, to the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh.[2]

Original: It should be noted that until the Authority was established, a Canadian wishing a grant of arms had to petition either the College of Arms in London or - if of Scots descent - the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh.

• The second sourced statement is better, and the third is to the first ref, which does not work (not one of the four dead ones the EL checker finds) so I could not check it. The fourth statement is to a book and seems OK, but please check everything carefully before FAC and make sure nothing is too close to the original.
• The lead is not really a true summary of the article and does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - however the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland in The Republic of Ireland seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the History section (for one) does not seem to be in the lead, nor are the Heralds of Arms or the honorary heralds or the blazon.
• The abbreviation CHA should be introduced in the first sentence of the lead
• Another statement that seems to only be in the lead is well-known for its innovative designs, many incorporating First Nations symbolism. Who says they are well known for this? The words innovative and design appear only here. I assumed this would be referenced to some sort of external sources, like newspaper or magazine articles, but there are no newspaper articles and only one magazine article that I could see. I note that a Google books search finds a fair number of books that at least mention the CHA
• I would try to get more refs that are from independent third-party reliable sources. Google news did not turn up anything, but I find it hard to belive that the CHA has never been profiled or mentioned in a news article - if nothing else when it was established
• The Blazon needs a ref - I did not see one at least
• Please make sure the article follows WP:ITALIC in its use of bold font - why are Heralds Emeritus and Heralds Extraordinary in bold, for example
• I doubt that two uses of File:Coat of arms of the CHA.jpg in this article meets the minimal use criterion of WP:NFCC
• Could a free image of Rideau Hall be used in the article? Are there free images of any of the heralds?
• The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
• Any idea how many people have gotten arms through this office since it opened? How many in a year? Any famous people use it (Celine Dion or Wayne Gretzky?)
• Any criticisms of the CHA?
• Any idea of the budget? Staff numbers (or is all the staff listed)?
• Do the See also all meet WP:See also - usually for links not otherwise mentioned in the article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 November 2010, 19:59 UTC)

---

[edit] British Pakistanis

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently dealt with several issues which were identified on its GA review page. It would be nice to have some feedback on anything else which needs to be done to get the article upto a GA standard.

Thanks, Sansonic (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, but it will need even more work to achieve GA. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be a concise and inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of the main points of each of the text sections. The existing lead says nothing about culture, economics, media, politics, health, and some other topics covered in the main text. WP:LEAD has more information about writing a lead.

• Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections and subsections give an article a choppy look and feel. The existing article has many examples of both, starting with the one-sentence orphan paragraph in the lead. Two solutions to the problem are to expand or merge, depending on the situation.

• The article includes an unusual number of tables, some of which may contain unnecessary detail. In the "Education" section, for example, the table and accompanying graphs about GCSE pass rates include a lot of small details. Are the pass rates in 2004 in the London Borough of Redbridge and the London Borough of Ealing (or any of the others) necessary? Couldn't the essence of the tables simply be summarized in a sentence or two?

• Other tables could be summarized nicely in a single paragraph of prose. The table in the "Religion" section is an example.

• Although the article includes many citations, some parts of the article are not supported by reliable sources. For example, the "Radio" subsection is unsourced as are the last two paragraphs of the "Print" subsection. Most of the "London" subsection of the "Notable communities" section lacks sources. My rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph in an article in addition to sources for unusual claims, statistics, and direct quotations.

• The Manual of Style suggests using straight prose paragraphs where feasible rather than numbered or bulleted lists. For example, it would be easy to replace the short list in "Awards and societies" with a single paragraph of prose. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• Some of the citation urls link to Google Books previews. Since the previews are incomplete and unstable, they don't make good permanent references. (As Google says, " ...you won't be able to see more pages than the copyright holder has made available... When you've accessed the maximum number of pages allowed for a book, any remaining pages will be omitted from your preview." I use the Google previews to help determine whether a book is apt to be useful to me or not; the previews can be very handy. However, I generally try to find printed copies of books that I want to cite in Wikipedia articles; then I can look at all of the pages (possibly including important material not included in the preview) and source article claims to stable and permanent sources. Most, if not all, of the Google books should be available in lending libraries.

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds three dead urls in the citations.

• Other citations are incomplete or malformed. My rule of thumb for citations to Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if those are known or can be found.

• When all other changes and revisions are made, it would be good to seek a copyeditor to go over the fine points and to check the article against the Manual of Style guidelines. I see many small errors such as sentences that start with digits instead of words, but I don't have time for a line-by-line review. You might be able to get copyediting help via WP:GOCE.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 November 2010, 16:01 UTC)

---

[edit] Shapley–Folkman lemma

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has an exceptional graphic (better than any publication, imho) and is well-documented (although the formatting could be improved for consistency). It describes applications with greater specificity and range than the 2nd edition of Starr's "New Palgrave" article ([4]).

It does not seem helpful to duplicate proofs from the literature, which tend to be short (for mathematicians) or long (for economists).

(This is the first article that I've nominated for peer-review.) Why two peer-reviews, mathematics PR and economics (social science) PR? The Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical theorem that plays a central role in mathematical economics. Listing this article for two subjects is non-standard, and I apologize for not asking for guidance before hand. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by Paul M. Nguyen:

• Strengths
  • The article structure overall is very strong.
  • The lead section captures the topic well, though it could include a concise statement about Shapley and Folkman and at least the decade in which the lemma was developed. This addition would make the lead more comprehensive.
  • The article is well-referenced.
  • Appropriate images are not lacking.
  • Connectedness: other than the numerous (and appropriate) 'see also's and wikilinks, the article could use some navboxes like {{Geometry-footer}}, {{Economics}}, {{Microeconomics}}. See Category:Mathematics templates and Category:Economics templates.
• Weaknesses
  • Though the article is highly technical, more could be done to make the topic accessible to a non-technical audience without sacrificing the precision it presently contains. I recommend expanding the lead section to include a second paragraph that treats the applications in simpler terms, relating both the economics and mathematics to readers not experts in either field.
  • Mechanics of the article:
    • References should follow punctuation, not fall "inside", as is the case in numerous places.
    • The SFS abbreviation is introduced in the section on "Probability and measure theory" but the expanded form is used prior to that and the abbreviation is not used anywhere else. The abbreviation may be omitted or introduced at the first occurrence and used exclusively thereafter.
    • The statement of the lemma should be a blockquote rather than whitespace-delimited.

It was a pleasure looking at this one. I'd appreciate your input on GNOME's PR, if you're interested. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC): Thank you for the very helpful review.

I immediately incorporated some of your suggested improvements: Adding geometry and microeconomics footers and block-quoting the theorem. I plan to follow your suggestion on SFS abbreviation, and probably also to follow your suggestion about another lead paragraph (non-technical).

On the other hand, mid-sentence footnotes appear when each specifies a particular contribution, for example, in the sentence noting economic applications of the Shapley-Folkman theorem; combining such footnotes into the end section would impair their usefulness to the readers, imho. Nonetheless, I shall review the WP guidelines on footnotes, and seriously consider your suggestion for each footnote. No doubt, some of the in-sentence footnotes could be modified to follow punctuation.

Thank you for your help. I shall try to look at the GNOME article soon. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to follow your suggestions, I expanded the introduction and expanded the SFS abbreviation. Thus, only the footnotes remain unimproved despite your suggestions! Best regars, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated background material on convex sets and convex hulls. It would be preferable to develop graphics that are closer to Eppstein's illustration for the Shapley Folkman lemma, of course. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I included an illustration of Minkowski addition from the Italian Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup Review by Paul M. Nguyen: You're quick! A couple notes based on the revisions made since my review:

• Great job addressing connectedness.
• I was not clear enough in my comment about references. What I meant was that a reference should not fall between a word and punctuation that follows it (I suppose a dash would be an exception). Wrong example: fact^[12], next point.^[13] Correct: fact,^[12] next point.^[13] I did not notice any periods being "orphaned" by a reference, but there are several orphaned commas as in my example.
• Excellent work expanding the article. I think the convex geometry material helps.
  • The introductory sentence to the section, "Stating the Shapley–Folkman lemma requires some definitions and results." could be rephrased to be more active and declarative, like "The Shapley–Folkman lemma depends upon the following definitions and results from convex geometry."
  • The section title "Results from convex geometry" seems awkward to me. I think the article structure would be strengthened if the statement of the lemma and the requisite convex geometry definitions were to fall in the same == section, with the concepts upon which the statement of the lemma depends listed first. A more obvious (and more generic) title would need to be chosen for the top-level section, like "Definition" or even promote "Statement of the lemma" to encompass this information. The final subsection could then be titled simply "The lemma", following upon the convex geometry. I would, however, recommend keeping the theorem and Starr's corollary in a separate section, as they are presently.
• Lead section: wow! I think too much was added to the lead, though. For the present second paragraph, I recommend the following, which retains the added application-oriented context but condenses the middle as would be appropriate in a lead section:

The mathematicians Shapley and Folkman derived the Shapley–Folkman lemma to help the young economist, Ross M. Starr (1969), who was investigating the existence of economic equilibria when some consumer preferences need not be convex. Starr proved that a mathematical transformation that causes all preferences to be convex yields an economy that has general equilibria that are closely approximated by "quasi-equilbria" of the original economy. In Starr's corollary to the Shapley–Folkman theorem, Starr bounded the Euclidean distance between a Minkowski sum of nonconvex sets and the sum's convex hull; Starr's corollary is sometimes called the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem.

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Paul. You were very helpful and gave miraculously quick feedback.

Thanks especially for the clarification about footnotes. (I was needlessly afraid that I would have to change WP policy to keep in-sentence footnotes.) I shall fix the remaining footnotes tomorrow, following your examples.

Your suggestion about the lead paragraph was very helpful, and I shall incorporate it (nearly verbatim, I now believe) tomorrow.

Have a great day/night, and thanks for your help!

Yours gratefully, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul, Thanks again for your help. I incorporated your paragraph (crediting you in the edit summary), but your contributions have been so substantial that I wish that you make some official edit, so that you are credited as a contributor to the article. I also changed the footnotes to conform with the WP suggestion that footnotes follow punctuation marks. Thus, I believe that I have followed all of your suggestions. (I also incorporated an illustration of convex hulls and combined the illustrations of convex versus nonconvex sets.) Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions, which far exceed what I'd expected from this processs. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I edited a couple things just now, but nothing crazy. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the section/subsection(s) for the lemma and the preliminaries, trying to follow your suggestions. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from RJHall

Comment from RJHall The very first sentence of the article seems ambiguous, so I am not quite able to grasp what it is trying to say:

...the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.

Are you saying this applies to the net sum of a sufficiently large number of non-convex subsets, or it applies to many individual instances of the sums of non-convex pairs? What is meant by "many"? It is also vague about what is meant by "nearly convex". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Shapley–Folkman lemma applies to the sum of N sets when N > D, the dimension of the sets; thus it would apply also to the sums of subsets of M sets when D < M ≤ N.

Providing a short informal summary of the theorem is difficult. I'll look at the Carathéodory's lemma on convex hulls for inspiration. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what Starr's lead says in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics:

"The Shapley–Folkman theorem places an upper bound on the size of the non-convexities (loosely speaking, openings or holes) in a sum of non-convex sets in Euclidean N-dimensional space, RN. The bound is based on the size of non-convexities in the sets summed and the dimension of the space. When the number of sets in the sum is large, the bound is independent of the number of sets summed, depending rather on N, the dimension of the space. Hence the size of the non-convexity in the sum becomes small as a proportion of the number of sets summed; the non-convexity per summand goes to zero as the number of summands becomes large."

Starr's opening is more precise than ours. I'll paraphrase Starr's.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated Starr's ideas in a revised first paragraph:

In geometry and in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the closely-related Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem suggest that the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.^[1] The results of Shapley, Folkman, and Starr give an upper bound on the degree of non-convexity of the Minkowski sum of N non-convex sets. This bound on non-convexity depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets; however, the bound does not depend on the number of summand–sets N, when D < N. Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets, the average non–convexity of the sumset decreases as the number of summands N increases; in fact, the average degree of non–convexity decreases to zero as N increases to infinity.^[2]

Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Ruslik0

I want point your attention to some contradictions in the first paragraph:

1. This bound on non-convexity is defined in terms of the Euclidean distance and it depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets. I would say that the (upper) bound 'depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the D summand-sets'. The current phrasing means that the bound depends on non-convexities of all summand-sets.
2. The next sentence read Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets. I think the non-convexity itself depends on non-convexities of all summand sets as opposed to the upper bound.
3. I also noticed that you use either 'd' or 'D' for the vector space dimension. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear and focused comments, Ruslik0. It's late and I shall have to review the article & finish replying tomorrow.

1. Suggested phrasing (in reply): "depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the collection of the sums of D summand–sets". Argument: The selection(s) of D (or fewer) convexified summands depends on the point; even pointwise, a SF-bipartition lacks uniqueness. (I did not wrote "all" but the mis-imputation of "all" should be much harder now.)
2. As noted previously, I updated the wording to emphasize "the collections of the sums of D summand sets".
3. Regarding the dimension d or D: I capitalized all occurences of the dimension as D (having previously tweaked David Eppstein's original i to n and capitalizing the upper index N).

Reviewing the article today, I added a reference to Puri & D. Ralescu's 1985 article, whose Shapley-Folman application empowers R. Cerf's article (already cited).

Thanks again for your very helpful comments and suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to address 1 and 2. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the unfinished business. I appreciate your effort, and thank you!

I am sorry if I misunderstand your intention, or wrote poorly. I thought that I had addressed your comments. I am sorry if I seem irritated now when I write --- my time is very limited.

1. Your suggested phrasing errs in using the definite article "the" in "the D sets". First, the SF lemma gives the existence of a pointwise representation in terms of D convexified summand sets and N-D original summand sets. There are many problems with points having multiple representations, so uniqueness fails even pointwise. When (on some problems) the point varies, then the representation must vary, and so one needs to consider the collection of the sums of D convex hulls of summands (and N-D original summand sets). (Continued) Again, the phrasing never inserted the universal quantifier "all", so your imputation of "all" is unwarranted; as I wrote before, I tweaked the sentence so that this mis-reading should be more difficult.
2. The SF lemma and SF theorem and SFS theorem state bounds. Unless you can find a reference discussing "degree of nonconvexity" as you suggest, your suggestions seems to follow under original research.

Reading my responses, I am very unsatisfied with my progress on clarifying things. I apologize for having left a brusk & probably unclear response, now. I shall try to review and edit my response tomorrow. Thanks again for your suggestions. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 30 October 2010, 04:20 UTC)

---

[edit] History

[edit] Octavia Hill

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

I have listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it and got it to as high a standard as I can without the input of WP colleagues. The sources are all online: I confess that I have not opened a book in the course of researching the subject, and I have no ambitions to take it to FA, but it might, perhaps, make a respectable GA. Most grateful for any suggestions other editors may wish to make.

Thank you, Tim riley (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An important and interesting article. One thing that puzzles me is why it is aligned with WP's Christianity project. Here are some suggestions for enhancing the text:-

• Lead
  • First sentence: "particularly" and "especially" don't sit too well together in the same sentence. Perhaps the phrase "particularly concerned with" could be replaced with "whose main concern was".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Small point, but the three lead paragraphs begin, repectively, "Octavia Hill", "Hill" and "Hill". Some variation in style would be preferable.
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I wonder if the lead truly summarises the whole article? It seems to end in mid-air; there is a lot of legacy stuff at the end of the article that does not seem to be covered in the lead.
    • Done - I think. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Early years
  • For the sake of clear chronology, could we have an indication of when the Hill family's financial problems started. It would also be helpful if we had a one-line indication of the source of these troubles: business failure? bad investments? gambling, etc?
    • Done, as to date. No source that I can lay hands on says why Hill senior went bust. It may simply be that he was off his onion, but I cannot say. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why were the family "moving around the country"?
    • Not sure, and having failed to find a source that says why I have deleted. Peripheral at best. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also like to know how, and at what stage in her childhood/youth, Octavia came into contact with the works of Mayhew and Maurice.
    • She read Mayhew (no doubt her mother's or grandfather's copy) when young. Maurice was a family friend - now added. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The section is a little confused as to chronology. How old was she when she began glass-painting, or when she started working for Ruskin? Also, the last paragraph, describing her appearance and character, and her encounter with Frederick Temple, clearly relate the mature Octavia (Temple became Bishop of London in 1885, when Octavia was 46).
    • Done as to her jobs. Bishop Temple's hard time was tricky to fit in. I originally had a "character and reputation" section, but it didn't really work. It seemed to fit here better than anywhere else. I have now made it clear that her duffing up of the Rt. Rev came later. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Housing for the poor
  • "...the first of many tranches of legislation had been passed aimed at improving working class housing." I suggest "...the first of many tranches of legislation aimed at improving working class housing had been passed".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "needful" reads as rather old-fashioned. I'd prefer "necessary"
  • Not "Mr" Ruskin
    • Both above are in a quote (from The Times) and shouldn't be altered. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Rent arrears were not acceptable, and bad debts minimal". I think "tolerated", rather than "acceptable", and "bad debts were minimal".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Octavia Hill system
  • I think this heading breaches the WP rule re section headings: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article." See WP:HEAD
    • "The Octavia Hill system" or "The Octavia Hill method" is a sort of technical term, used in housing circles, but point taken. I've changed to "Housing management" Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "...its first independent unit, giving training..." The use of "giving" raises a familiar prose bugbear. Probably better as "which gave..."
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • The style of the article has been to write all out number values. This works with numbers such as "fifteen", or even "three thousand", but "one hundred and sixty" looks laboured and wrong. Personally, I think it would be better to use the WP convention of representing values of 10 or more numerically.
    • Having been immersed in old documents I find "one hundred and sixty" looks quite natural, but I'll examine my conscience. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Open spaces
  • "Octavia Hill" should be just "Hill"
    • This was to distinguish her from her (just mentioned) elder sister, but on reflection it is clear without. Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What does "above Buttermere" mean? North of?
    • Clarified. (Literally above - in the fells overlooking it). Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Later years
  • Could there be a brief explanation of the Gladstone veto?
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Legacy
  • First sentence: "she made a speech" → "Hill made a speech"
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Describing Toynbee Hall as "university-based" might mislead readers into thinking that TH was a seat of learning. Possibly "sponsored" rather than based?
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Can you simplify/split this unwieldly sentence: "This later changed its name to the Society of Housing Managers in 1948, and, after merging with the Institute of Housing Managers in 1965, became the present day Chartered Institute of Housing in 1994."
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided if possible.
    • I agree, but this sentence is needed and doesn't, I think, sit with any nearby para. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the subject of the article should be consistently referred to as "Hill".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Bibliography: Some of the entries are incompletely formatted.
  • Will revisit. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find this review helpful. I wish the article all success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for this very thorough review. It is immensely helpful, and I'm grateful. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 November 2010, 10:30 UTC)

---

[edit] William Warelwast

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on comprehensibility by the non-specialist as well as prose concerns, prior to taking him to FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's no surprise to me that this article is well-done. I have a list of fairly nit-picky suggestions for improving the prose and making terms more clear to the general reader.

Lead

• "A native of Normandy, little is known of his background before 1087, when he appears as a royal clerk for King William II of England." - This is nitpicky, but "little" is not what should be modified by "a native of Normandy". Suggestion: "Warelwast was a native of Normandy, but little more is known about his background before 1087, when he appears as a royal clerk for King William II of England."

• "The medieval chronicler Eadmer, who was a partisan of Anselm's," - To avoid the double possessive, "of Anselm's", maybe tighten this to "The medieval chronicler Eadmer, a partisan of Anselm,"?

• For readers unfamiliar with Catholicism, would it be helpful to link "papacy", "bishopric", and "archdeaconry" in the lead and "transept" in the infobox?

Early life

• ... in Exeter was given to Warelwast by "Willelmus, avus meus", or "William, my grandfather/ancestor". - Should this direct quotation have an inline citation directly after it?

• "claimed that Warelwast was a relative of the king's" - Double possessive; "of the king" rather than "of the king's"?

Royal clerk under William II

• "The first secure mentions of Warelwast... ". - "Reliable" rather than "secure"?

• "This case was between St. Florent Abbey in Saumur and Fécamp Abbey that was held at Foucarmont." - Maybe "This case, heard at Foucarmont, was between St. Florent Abbey in Saumur and Fécamp Abbey"?

• "were back in England with the legate, Walter of Albano, by 13 May 1095." - Since the bit about Walter of Albano is repeated three sentences later, perhaps "with the legate, Walter of Albano," could be deleted from this sentence, and Walter of Albano could be linked in the next iteration.

• Link "legate" to papal legate on first use?

• "while the king may have instructed his envoys to attempt to secure these objects, Rufus probably was willing to negotiate... " - Who is Rufus? I think it is the nickname of William II, but that needs to be explained in the text. Or am I just not seeing it?

• "It was also Warelwast who prevented the excommunication... " - Link excommunication?

Royal service for King Henry I

• "Warelwast in 1106 was the king's negotiator in the discussions that led to the settlement of the Investiture Controversy in England." - Would it be helpful to state briefly what the settlement was? It's pretty clear from context that the king got his way and was able thereafter to appoint and replace bishops and archbishops, but I can't be certain.

• "Henry had reserved the see of Exeter for Warelwast" - Link "see" to Episcopal see?

• "Unfortunately, Warelwast was unable to change the pope's mind," - Delete "unfortunately" since it expresses a point of view?

• "the primacy in the English Church" - Should "primacy" be briefly explained or linked to something?

Work as bishop

• "a provincial synod for Normandy" - Link synod?

• "In his diocese he started a new cathedral, which began construction around 1114 and was consecrated in 1133." - Since the cathedral didn't begin to construct itself, perhaps "In his diocese he started a new cathedral around 1114, and it was consecrated in 1133"?

• "Three royal charters granting churches to Warelwast survive, for churches in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Exeter." - Tighten to "Royal charters survive that granted churches in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Exeter to Warelwast"?

• "Warelwast also instituted the two offices of treasurer and precentor... " - Link precentor?

• "As well, the first sub-archdeacons, who were under the archdeacons." - This is not a complete sentence.

• "This office is not attested again... ". - It's not clear which office this refers to. Do you mean the office of sub-archdeacon?

• "He may have resigned his see prior to his death, and the 16th century antiquary John Leland thought that Warelwast resigned his see before 1127, became a canon at Plympton, and died in 1127, however the year of death is incorrect, but it is possible that Warelwast became a canon shortly before his death." - Too complex. I'd suggest expressing this in two or three separate sentences.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments: The article is entirely comprehensible to the lay person (to this one, at any rate), and enjoyable into the bargain. (Having just tangled with Klang (Stockhausen), I found this a breeze.) A handful of exceedingly minor comments:

• The article seems to be written in UK English, in which case, "signaled" needs a double "l". If, per contra, the spelling is to be American, there is a English "favourable" in the lead.
• Two typos: "arrising" and, I imagine, "Wiliam". (I didn't dare amend the latter and have left the former untouched along with it.)
• "… hostile chroniclers claimed that Warelwast was uneducated…" Pray ignore if you wish, but I had it drilled into me when young that one doesn't use "claim" as another word for "assert" or "allege", and reserves it for occasions when a real claim is at issue, such as claiming a right or title.
• "Devonshire" is not wrong, by any means, but is rather old-fashioned. "Devon", tout court is the usual form these days.

Finally, I hope you will permit me to say that it is a pleasure to read an article where the upper- and lower-case distinction between, e.g., "King William" and "the king" etc is scrupulously observed. O si sic omnes.

If (but only if) you have time and inclination, I too have an article up for peer review: Octavia Hill… – Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 15:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Coat of arms of Albany, New York

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

This is a recently-passed GA that could still use another review. What it really needs is a review by somebody that has some expertise in heraldry, as the terminology in the Description section may not be completely appropriate from a heraldic point of view (and I am not an expert). As noted in the FAC (which was closed because of the fact that I had another FAC open; it wasn't a speedy close), a technical type of review could be very useful, as I'd like to bring this to FA level. Thanks in advance for any help. upstateNYer 01:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 01:25 UTC)

---

[edit] Ronald Skirth

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to resubmit it to FAC and would like to get any suggestions on improvements that would help it to pass as FA. (A previous FAC process is archived on the talk page, and I believe all objections from that have been addressed.)

Thanks, Dwab3 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An intriguing article, that needs a bit more work.

• "...he made deliberate errors in targeting calculations to try to ensure the guns of his battery missed their aiming point." Perhaps I am naive, but...wouldn't the range simply be recalculated and the guns fired again? This point is reinforced later in the text, when we learn that he mistargeted the guns so that they "never once hit an inhabited target on the first attempt" (my emphasis

Y Have clarified this - it was on the first attempt, so that the enemy had fair warning to evacuate. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "On the same day he had an epiphany when he stumbled across the body of a dead German of about his own age..." Whose choice of phrase is "he had an epiphany"? If it is in the sources I suggest you put it in quotes, and attribute it.

It was originally in quotes and a previous reviewer (I think at GAN) suggested removing it - see talk page. I am happy to put it back in, but maybe should get consensus on this? Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Skirth and a comrade "deserted their posts"? That is a capital offence in the face of the enemy. The phrase is also suggestive of cowardice. I would suggest a change to the less emotive "left their posts".

YGood point, thank you. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "He felt that the "just war" he had signed up for was anything but..." Why did he conclude that the war was unjust, rather than merely brutal? Does the source give any amplification?
• What reason is given for his declining the Military Medal though he accepted others?

Y Have given brief explanation of this. Dwab3 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Later Life" section: This deal with Skirth's life from 22 to 80, which can hardly describe as "later life". I suggest you find a more appropriate title. If the section is a summary account of Skirth's life, it is extremely thin - we learn almost nothing about him. Did he join or seek association with any pacifist groups? Was he religious, et. etc? Also, the section needs to mention the memoir, and perhaps indicate what caused him to write it, so many years after his experiences
• "After the war, Skirth returned to England to commence teacher training in September 1919, which he had signed up for before he had left to serve in the army." Needs better phrsaing. Suggest: "In September 1919 Skirth returned to England, to commence teacher training for which he had signed up before leaving to serve in the army."

YHave reworded as you suggest. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who was it that labelled him "crank, visionary, communistic and impractical"?
• Character and beliefs section: rather than keeping this as a separate section, you might consider distributing the material to earlier parts of the article. It would help flesh out the War service and "Later life" sections.
• Thomas D'Oyly Snow was a general. Unless we are told that, the point of John Snow's anecdote is largely lost.

YThanks for this good point - have amended. Dwab3 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Critical reaction: the comments of critics should be paraphrased and summarised, perhaps with the odd quotation of key phrases. They must not be presented in verbatim blocks (copyvio issues).
• Ref 38 needs to be formatted
• Page range in refs 20 and 34 need dashes not hyphens. 34 needs to be pp. not p., and for consistency the range should be written as "352–353"

YHave corrected these.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Patriot link goes to a disambiguation page.

YThanks - have fixed this.Dwab3 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions help. As I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, please leave a message on my talkpage if you have any issues you wish to raise regarding this review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 November 2010, 10:57 UTC)

---

[edit] David Irving

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

I haven't yet contributed to this article but I noticed it is really excellent and unbiased. It deserves to be FA, it's just too long. Please help me identify which parts should be shortened and if there are any other changes that should be made.

Thanks, Shii (tock) 02:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'll try to help with a few things, but I don't have time to go through the article closely to see exactly how to trim.

• At 151 kilobytes, the article is much too long. The upper limit for reading comfort is about 100 kilobytes. If I were thinking of preparing the article for FA, I would aim to cut it by one-third.

• Reading quickly through the article, I see many long quotes that would be candidates for reduction. Some of these appear in the "Notes" section. Is all that detail really necessary in an encyclopedia article?

• The "External links" section seems excessively long. I would eliminate any entries that are already cited in the main text.

• I would look carefully at all of the parts of the article that are unsourced or incompletely sourced. For example, the first paragraph of the "Author" section includes only one inline citation, and it supports only a single claim occupying half of a sentence. The rest of the paragraph contains many claims that are not common knowledge and that might be questioned. Something like the claim of 40,000 pounds in damages, for example, needs a source. Another example would be the short "Göring" section, which lacks a source or sources.

• The article is well-written. However, if I were thinking of working this up to FA, I would have to be sure that the existing text included no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. This would be an enormous job because it would involve tracking down the cited sources, reading them, and checking the existing text against them. Unless you can track down the main contributors and enlist their help, you will essentially be starting from scratch.

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds quite a few dead urls in citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

• I noticed when I reopened the PR after the bot closed it that the headers do not always follow WP:HEAD - some repeat his name, for example.
• The image File:Did_six_million_really_die.jpg‎ of the book cover is fair use but does not have a fair use rationale for this page. I am frankly not sure how it meets WP:NFCC in this article - how is the reader's understanding of Irving increased by seeing the cover of a book Irving did not write?
• The Persona non grata and Arrest and imprisonment in Austria sections need more references, and Post-release has zero refs.
• Avoid direct external links in the text - Time in Prison has an EL to his book written in Prison
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections - does Arrest and imprisonment in Austria really need three subsections?
• The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
• The article reads like a quote farm in places

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 _><>°^° 14:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

These are great comments. I will see what I can do to improve this important article to FA. Shii (tock) 06:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 November 2010, 02:42 UTC)

---

[edit] Geography and places

[edit] Montevideo

Previous peer review

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

Who would have thought an article on a national capital (in this case, Uruguay's) would make the rounds at WP:Did you know? It was on said section of the Main Page (an impressive 130+ KB, last I checked) when I tagged it for review. Quick-failed twice through WP:GAC, but hey—third time's the charm. It's come a long, long way since those trials, and I've started to make a good opportunity happen. (Some editors have been engaging in an active copyedit; see the talk page.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Uruguay began to stagnate economically in the mid-1950s; Montevideo began a decline, later exacerbated widespread social and political violence beginning in 1968 (including the emergence of the guerrilla Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros[25]) and by the Civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay (1973-1985). There were major problems with supply; the immigration cycle was reversed."

Rather unexplained. Supply of what? What immigration cycle? Why was it stagnating?

"In 2002, Uruguay suffered one of the worst banking crises in its history, which affected all sectors of Montevideo. Recently, economic improvement and stronger commercial links with neighbouring countries has contributed to economic development."

The worst financial crisis in its history merits a single sentence? Must not have been much of a crisis.

"One such hotel is Belmont House (established 1995), located on the Avenida Rivera in Carrasco.[74] It is set amidst gardens and has 24 rooms and suites and is served by the Restaurant Allegro.[75]"

Are hotel sections standard in city article? It smells like advertisement, but no one seems to have objected before...

"Main article: Port of Montevideo"

If there is no main article...

File:JardinJaponesMVD001 640x480.jpg is pretty terrible. Perhaps you could get a better photo, or at least have someone process it to not be so bright?

The Healthcare section is a mess - red links, needs copyediting, etc. The Media section would make more sense up by Culture. --Gwern (contribs) 01:29 27 November 2010 (GMT)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 November 2010, 17:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Mount Cleveland (Alaska)

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

This is a somewhat short GA right now. I am listing at PR with hopes for input for an FAC. I've combed all the sources for even the minute information bits, so it's as complete as it will be atm. ResMar 18:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 November 2010, 18:16 UTC)

---

[edit] Hoboken, New Jersey

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be brought up to at least a Good Article standard. Any feedback welcome.

Thanks, Rhvanwinkle (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

I found this an interesting article. I've never heard of Hoboken and don't know too much about New Jersey, or even US history/geography in general! Hopefully that will be an advantage here, rather than a disadvantage. I don't think the article's quite up to GA standard, although hopefully with a bit of work it could soon be there. I'll detail some more specific concerns I have section by section, but first, some general thoughts I had when I first read the article:

• I'm not sure if the structure works as well as it could. I'm more used to British settlements, and using [Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements this guide to structure]. I don't know if there's an equivalen for US articles, but looking at some current FAs might give you some idea (and seem to be more what I'm used to). For example: San Francisco, Erie, Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Hillsboro, Oregon and others in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles. Note that they tend to start with the history section, which I think would make sense here.
• The article is quite sparse on inline citations at the moment. I think quite a few more will need to be added and there are complete sections that are unreferenced. At a bare minimum, make sure that all quotes, statistics and extraordinary claims are referenced, but I'd also add refs for all statements that aren't common knowledge.
• The prose needs tightening up a bit. In general I'd say it's good enough for GA (with a few exceptions I'll point out) but it would really benefit from being copyedited from an uninvolved editor.
• Articles with maintenance templates are likely to run into trouble at GA. Make sure they're all addressed and removed, whether by doing what they say (eg. adding citations) or by determining that they're unnecessary

Ok, now I'll go through by section. I'll try and be thorough, but some issues crop up several times, so please try and check for other occurrences of things I mention! Infobox

• I don't think you need "United States of America" in the infobox title, it looks a bit unwieldy. Compare to those other articles. They don't all even have the state name.

Lead

• The lead seems a bit short and doesn't really adequately summarise the rest of the article. This is sometimes best left until you feel the rest of the article is ready, but WP:LEAD is part of the GA criteria.

Geography

• As I mentioned, I don't think this should be the first section
• The first sentence is a bit long and could perhaps be split into two. It's not grammatically 100% clear whether "between Weehawken and Union City" refers to Hoboken or to the West Village and Chelsea.
• I'd probably combine the first two paragraphs. They're not on dramatically different subjects. Here, and elsewhere in the article, you have some short paragraphs that make the prose a little "choppy" and disjointed.
• Is there a reference for these area statistics?
• "...though Clinton Street likely honors 19th century politician DeWitt Clinton." - reference?
• "Neighborhoods ... often have vague definitions ... subjective. " - reference? If it is covered by one of the ones at the end of the paragraph, I think it would benefit from moving it to the end of this sentence.
• Although this section is probably broad enough for GA, perhaps it could be expanded a little. Look around at similar sections in other articles. Climate, for example, could be mentioned.

Demographics

• In this 1st sentence perhaps link to the 2000 US census rather than to census
• Is there any reason this 1st-sentence reference is in the middle of the sentence, not at the end? (Also, I'll check sources later, but clicking on this link doesn't tell me anything about Hoboken census figures. This sentence mentions statistics from at least two sources & needs relevant refs)
• "The racial makeup of the city ... 7.63% from other races..." - perhaps link "racial makeup" to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census rather than "other races"
• "Furthermore 20.18% of those residents also consider themselves to be Hispanic or Latino." - who does those residents refer to? The total population of the city? The "other races"?
• Do all the statistics come from one cited source? (I'm asking because when I've worked on UK census figures, stats for one place tend to be spread over several pages) A reference for each paragraph would be helpful.

Name

• This might be able to be incorporated into the history section.
• "pronounced by some as HO-bo-ken" - this needs a source. Also, if that's how some pronounce it, how do others pronounce it?
• First two paragraphs can be combined
• "It is believed that the Lenape ..." - believed by whom? (see WP:WEASEL)
• Delaware Indian doesn't need to be linked as it redirects to Lenape, which is linked to three words earlier.
• "...settlers ... who may have bastardized the Lenape phrase, though there is no known written documentation to confirm it." - reference?
• "It also cannot be confirmed that the American Hoboken is named after ... It is not known what the area was called..." - presumably statements like these are as a result of some kind of research, or someone reliable somewhere has written down that these facts are unknown/cannot be confirmed etc?
• Last paragraph needs a reference

History (Early and colonial)

• This is one big paragraph that might be a bit more digestible split into two
• There is a weird wikilink to Michael Pauw
• This section is completely reliant on one source, are there any other reliable soures covering the early history?
• New Netherland or New Netherlands? Be consistent
• "...brewery, North America’s first." - an extraordinary claim, needs a citation
• The sentence ending "...may have discouraged more settlement" could really use a citation
• 1674-75 needs an en dash rather than a hyphen (see WP:DASH)

History (19th century)

• "...developed the waterfront as a resort for Manhattanites, a lucrative source of income..." - slightly unclear. Was the waterfront the lucrative source of income, or the Manhattanites?
• More refs needed for this section
• "...he world's first steam-powered ferry..." - extraordinary claim, needs a citation
• The sentence about Sybil's Cave could be slightly clearer. I'm not really sure what it is.
• "(In the late 1880s, when the water was found to be contaminated, it was shut and in the 1930s, filled with concrete.)" - I'm not sure why this needs to be in brackets
• "Stevens founded the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, which during the mid- and late-19th century was managed by his heirs and laid out a regular system of streets..." - this doesn't quite work. It's unclear what "and laid out" refers to, Stevens or the company.
• "The advantages of Hoboken as a shipping port and industrial center became apparent." - how so? This is a bit vague.
• Who is Edwin A. Stevens in relation to John Stevens?
• This may be my ignorance, but I'm not sure what a "great shipping line" is. Do we have a relevant article?
• There's no need to link "German" or "immigrants", or at least if you really want to, link to a more directly relevant article

History (Birthplace of baseball)

• Any reason why the first sentence's citation is in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end?
• Should "between Knickerbocker Club" be "between the Knickerbockers Club"?
• The first two paragraphs can be combined
• the Knickerbockers Club is linked twice in quick succession (see WP:OVERLINK)
• The end of the second paragraph needs a reference (as does most of this section)
• There is some underlinking in this section. Relevant links can be added to: Henry Chadwick, Alexander Cartwright, St George's Cricket Club, Harry Wright, George Wright, Cincinnati Red Stockings
• "America" is used a few times instead if the US. It's ok in quotes, but "America" shouldn't normally be used in this context outside quotes
• The beginnings of baseball could be a bit clearer, as I get the impression from this that the game just kind of sprang up in the New York/New Jersey area, but after reading the baseball article, it was brought over to North America by immigrants and had been played before 1846, just not officially recorded.
• "Henry Chadwick believed that baseball and not cricket should become America's pastime after the game drawing the conclusion..." - I don't really understand this
• It might be worth adding a sentence about when Elysian Fields closed.

History (World War I)

• "When the USA decided to enter World War I ..." - this sounds a little odd. A country can't make decisions.
• link World War I?
• You should consistently use either the US or the U.S., not the USA. (see MOS)
• "...many Germans were forcibly moved to Ellis Island" - given the fact you're discussing the war, when you say Germans what do you mean exactly? German Americans? German immigrants?
• "...forcibly moved to Ellis Island or left the city altogether." - presumably Ellis Island is/was not part of the city of Hoboken, so this sentence doesn't quite make sense, as going to Ellis Island would be leaving the city altogether. Perhaps forcibly moved to Ellis Island or left the city of their own accord. or something
• no need to link heaven, hell or Christmas
• more refs for this section!
• The Great Depression can be linked
• Why is the word tenements in quotes?

History (Post World War II)

• "The war provided a shot in the arm..." - which war? It might sound silly, but you've just finished talking about World War I, and you can't rely on the subheading to introduce the topic.
• Todds Shipyards is linked twice in quick succession
• GI can be linked for your non-US readers
• "Though some returning service men took advantage of GI housing bills, many with strong ethnic and familial ties chose to stay in town." - I don't understand this sentence. What were GI housing bills? What did they have to do with staying in town or leaving?
• fifties → 1950s, sixties → 1960s
• "...the throes of inexorable decline as industries sought (what had been) greener pastures" - What does the "what had been" mean? it seems to be referring to something not explained here at all. Where these other places no longer "greener pastures"? "Greener pastures" may be a little too colloquial, can you think of a more formal way of saying it?
• I'm no longer going to mention it every section, but, references!
• plane → airplane
• "so-called slums" - so-called by whom?
• "wasn't much work " → "was not much work " (avoid contractions)
• "Stevens stayed a premiere technology school..." → "Stevens stayed a premiere technology schoo stayed a premiere technology school" (also, according to whom?)
• "Maxwell House kept chugging away" - this is too informal
• "Italian-Americans and other came back to the "old neighborhood" ..." - and others?
• "Some streets were "iffy"..." - way too informal, and who has said this anyway?
• "...most were not pulled in at night." - I don't know if this is a cultural thing, but I have no idea what this means

History (waterfront)

• No need to say that the film "consistently listed among the five best American films ever" - this is irrelevant to this article. You could mention year & director for context. Maybe Elia Kazan's 1954 film On the Waterfront was shot in Hoboken. the rest of the sentence is not very neutral, or formal enough: "dramatically highlighting", "rough and tumble" - it sounds like it came from the DVD case.
• In general this section is not quite WP:NPOV and even verges on promotional, as if telling perspective buyers what the area has to offer. Eg. "smell of coffee wafting over the town", "provide contiguous unhindered access to the water's edge", "the spectacular backdrop of the New York skyline."
• "engaging in sometimes nasty, sometimes absurd politics and court cases" - wow. Really needs attribution and reference.
• The panorama would look better centred and not surrounded by text, as the text is pushed into a tiny space, making it a bit more difficult to read.

Before and after the turn of the millennium

• Not sure about this subheading; maybe "recent history"?
• That first sentence is really long and kind of lost me half-way through. Can it be split?
• "a wave of fires, some of which were arson" - "caused by arson" perhaps?
• You have a strange mix of informal language, word in quotes, and unsupported attributions: "upwardly-mobile commuters (known as yuppies), and "bohemian types"", "became a "hip" place to live", "so-called "newcomers" displaced some of the "old-timers" " Who is using these words? What sources are these descriptions from? Why are words in quotes if they're not quoted?
• "...and quick, train hop away" - this is a bit informal, and you're missing an article
• What's a "transplanted American"?
• "NY/NJ region" - is this an official name? If not, please spell it out. Many non-Americans are not familiar with your state abbreviations.
• "Hoboken felt the impact of the destruction of the World Trade Center intensely..." - does a city have feelings? (I'm sure there's a better link for the destruction of the WTC)
• Wouldn't hurt to add the year of the WTC centre destruction for context.

Government

• No need for those external links for the city councillors. WP isn't a directory. If they don't have articles, just leave them unlinked.
• Do we need two references for that list? Isn't there one that covers them all?

Fire Department

• There are words here which seem to be common nouns but have capital letters. Eg. fire station, engine, ladder - please check these.
• Hazmat can be linked to Dangerous goods; not everyone will know what that means
• "An interesting fact about the Hoboken Fire Department is..." - not very encyclopedic. (see also MOS:NOTED). Also, no apostrophe in that it's!
• I'm not 100% sure you need the list of Fire Station Locations and Apparatus.

Transportation

• "...currently undergoing extensive renovation...", "Currently, the City of Hoboken is planning..." - please give some indication of time here. This section could stay the same for 5 years.
• I don't think you need to include transport fares here. "...it is a well known fact that NY Waterway will charge ~$8.50 to travel some 400 meters across the Hudson River." "well known fact"?
• This section is mostly made up of lists that would work better as prose. Compare to FA standard city article to see how they've achieved it.

Education

• For us non-Americans, what's a K-8 school?
• These paragraphs are a bit too short and could be combined to make it less choppy.
• New Jersey Monthly can be linked
• The list of private schools should be prose
• Try to write a summary about the university rather than just linking to it.

Commerce and innovation

• This sounds slightly non-neutral
• Is this basically an "economy" section? I think it could be expanded a bit. compare to those other articles.

Notable residents

• No need to have this here. I'd move the link to the "see also" section

Local attractions

• Try to summarize the landmarks rather than just linking to another article
• The event section would be better as prose. They seem a bit random and many are linked to primary sources. it would be better to find a good source that details the notable events of the city. Otherwise, you're likely to get all sorts of people coming in and adding their event, with a link to their website.

Parks

• Again, less list, more prose, more references

Media

• "most of it daily papers " - missing letter?
• Is the blog listed notable? Or has someone just randomly added it?
• "This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references" - it's true! Try to turn this section into prose, and keep only the most notable appearances.

See also

• at least several (I haven't checked them all) of these links appear in the article already, so shouldn't be included here.

That's pretty much all I have for now. I haven't looked at the sources yet, but I will come back and have another look. Let me know if you have any questions/comments. --BelovedFreak 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comments from Belovedfreak

Citation format Generally the citations look pretty good, someone's worked on them, and some look like they've been added later with minimal information. Some of the following is just good practise rather than strictly required by WP:WIAGA, but it's important to make sure each one has enough information to meet WP:V

• Link sources if they can be (eg. newspapers like The Union City Reporter)
• Make dates consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or Month Day, Year" It's your choice but I personally recommend the latter since the yyyy-mm-dd format is not familiar to everyone outside north America. Many don't know which number refers to the monthe, which to the day. (see WP:DATESNO for more info; not a GA requirement)
• Include all of these where you possibly can: title, author, page numbers, work, date of publication, date of retrieval (for online-only sources), isbns (for books). Not all of these are strictly required by GA, but the article must meet WP:V. For example, if the information comes from a book, it really needs to include page numbers to allow readers to find it. Bare URLs and refs consisting of just a title will not necessarily fail GA, but they should eventually be dealt with.
• The IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source. Although it's generally considered ok for cast lists, or to demonstrate that a film exists, some reviewers don't like to see it at all and I'm pretty sure you could find a better source for the fact that On the Waterfront is set in Hoboken.

Sources

• Make sure that each source used meets WP:RS. If any look dubious, don't use them. If you're not sure, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. The main thing is that you know about the sources and can explain how/why they're reliable if they get questioned. You'll need to check each one (especially if not added by you) before you nominate at GA. Just looking at the first few:
• Ref #4 (American FactFinder) doesn't mention Hoboken or its FIPS code. If it's not possible to link to the actual page with the data, and the database must be searched each time, a note to that effect should be in the citation. However, there are two citations for the same thing, and the other one is ok, so I don't think this one is necessary
• Ref #6 ("US Board on Geographic Names") seems to be a generic "about" page, not about Hoboken
• Ref #7 (Hoboken Museum). This may not get questioned at GA, but it may do. The "history" page doesn't cite its sources and its hard to know if the information was added by someone authoritative or some more lowly museum employee.
• Ref #9 ("How Hoboken became a city," ) is broken
• Ref #11 ( "Our Towns;In Hoboken, Dreams of Eclipsing..." - I don't know if I'm missing this but I can't see where that source says the Knickerbocker Club started playing at Elysian Fields in 1845.
• Ref #12 (Doughboys of NYC) - I can't see anything at this website suggesting that it would meet WP:RS
• Ref #15 (Port Authority if New Jersey) - this doesn't really back up that sentence. Its nothing hugely controversial, but it doesn't say anything about agreements being made in the 1990s
• In general, the article (the parts that are well-sourced) seems to rely quite a bit on newspapers and possibly-reliable, but not exactly authoritative sources like the museum and fire department. What would be great would be to see some books consulted. I'm sure there must be some relevant to the city, particularly its history. If you live locally, try your local library. If not, I did a quick search on google books and immediately found a few possible sources.
• Check for dead links using the link checker

Images

• All look ok with regard to licensing although some may need more source information

External links

• I think you've got a few too many links, remembering that Wikipedia is not a directory. Try to only include the most important ones, that really add something to the article if it was at a complete, FA level. I'd say you don't need unofficial guides, or for example, the website for the local newspaper (especially as it has its own article here)

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now! Don't be put off by the big long list. I see you've already started work on it. It shouldn't take too much to see this passing GA. Good luck! --BelovedFreak 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 November 2010, 16:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Engineering and technology

[edit] List of Interstate Highways in Washington

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for a non roadgeek's opinion of the two table styles. I am torn on what I want to include / use in the tables, and was wondering what would make this table usable for someone who isn't familiar with the topic.

Thanks, Admrboltz (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 November 2010, 00:48 UTC)

---

[edit] GNOME

Previous peer review

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

WP:LINUX wishes to take this article to FA quality. I copyedited the article recently but received no attention at Talk:GNOME#Peer_review_imminent. I just finished rearranging the sections in order to convey a stronger article structure and I would like some outside input on the scope and depth of coverage in this article. I think it is sourced fairly well, but I do not know what all is expected of an FA-class article in terms of what is already present in this article and what else should be added. A quick glance at current FAs would lead me to believe this one is short.

Many thanks, –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is the GPL and why is it important? (Yes, I know the answer to this)
• The third paragraph of the History section is actually about KDE and appears to be taken from an article about KDE or desktops
• I don't think having a gallery in the body of the text is stylistically acceptable
• The "Future developments" section appears vestigial and extraneous.
• The "GNOME 3.0" section does not explain why this is an important version that deserves inclusion in the article, considering the main History header is only 3 paragraphs. Remove it?
• The article should not be primarily constructed around primary sources. Please find outside sources such as Ars Technica or reliable Linux news sites, and fix {{fact}} tags
• Too many lists in the "Project structure" section
• Too many one-sentence paragraphs
• Screenshots are too squinty and could be improved

Shii (tock) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be going over all of that and any dangling issues from the previous PR on my way to FA. Thanks, again! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to explain what KDE is in the start of the History section. The text presupposes a knowledge of these projects. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 November 2010, 02:49 UTC)

---

[edit] U.S. Route 30 in Iowa

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 this article to WP:FAC. I've been looking at this article for seven months, I'm certain there is something that's obvious to someone else that I can't see. So, I would like a few more sets of eyes read over it to help it become a better article.

Thanks, –Fredddie™ 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, generally clear, and nicely illustrated. I have a fair number of suggestions, most of them related to prose, Manual of Style issues, and layout.

Lead

• "the first transcontinental highway in the United States" - I don't think you need to link United States here since you've already linked U.S. state. Y

Route description

• The first paragraph needs a source. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source or sources for not only every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim, but also every paragraph. If one source covers a whole paragraph, the citation can go right after the terminal period of the last sentence of the paragraph. Y

• "Small towns are dotted along the entire route, connecting the larger cities and towns of Denison, Ames, Cedar Rapids, and Clinton." - Maybe "which connects" rather than "connecting" to avoid suggesting that the small towns do the connecting. Y

Western Iowa

• "For seventeen miles (27 km)" - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence. Shouldn't this be 17 miles (27 km)? Y

Central Iowa

• "which is 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km)" - I'd recommend expressing all the fractions in the article as decimal fractions. This one, for example, would become 1.5 miles (2.4 km).
  • For imperial measurements, the MOS allows for fractions so long as they're consistent. As a matter of personal preference, I think fractions allow a sense of fuzzy math that decimals do not allow; 1.25 seems overly precise compared to 1+1⁄4 despite their equivalence. In the route description, distances don't have to be exactly precise, because precise measurements are given in the junction list below. –Fredddie™

• "From the interchanges to the Story County line 1.738 miles (2.797 km) away" - The level of precision here seems odd in light of the rounding to whole numbers or tenths elsewhere. I think "about 1.7 miles (2.8 km)" would be better.
  • Keeping the fractions consistent, I changed it to 1+3⁄4 miles. –Fredddie™

• "Continuing east, it travels 6+1⁄2 miles (10 km)" - "It" seems ambiguous here. Y

• "One-half mile (0.8 km) east of the casino, US 30 becomes a two-lane road, a configuration which it stays for the next 30 miles (48 km)." - "Keeps" rather than "stays"? Y

• "It turns east again by a roadside park, on the south side of which is the famous Lincoln Highway bridge." - Delete "famous"? It's an editorial judgment and slightly peacockish.
  • Rather than famous, I called it Tama's Lincoln Highway bridge. –Fredddie™

Eastern Iowa

• "3+1⁄2 miles (5.6 km) southwest of Newhall" - Sentences in Wikipedia articles use words rather than digits to start sentences. Y

• "US 30 / US 67 head east along Lincoln Way" - The front slash may have some special highway meaning; I'm not sure. It's usually best to replace front slashes with something more specific such as "and". Ditto for other front slashes in the article.
  • The forward slash, in highway articles, means the two routes are a concurrency and they're traveling as one. –Fredddie™

History

• The first paragraph needs a source or sources. Y

Lincoln Highway

• "the only certainty being the route would pass through Iowa" - Maybe "the only certainty was" rather than "the only certainty being"? Y

• "The ribbon of concrete, which was 16-foot (4.9 m) wide, 7+1⁄2-inch (19 cm) thick" - Plurals (feet, inches)? Y

• "cost $34,936.81" - Round to "about $35,000" for ease of reading? Y

1960s–1980s

• "In the 1960–1970s, freeway segments along US 30 started to emerge." - "Emerge" might not be the right word. Even though passive, "to be built" might be better. Y

Legacy of the Lincoln Highway

• "In 1992, the Lincoln Highway Association (LHA) was reformed with a chapter in each state through which it passed." - The association didn't pass through any states. Maybe "the highway" instead of "it"? Y

Layout

• On my computer screen, File:Lincoln Highway Bridge, Tama, IA.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. You could fix this by moving the image up a paragraph or two. Y

• File:US 30 Iowa 1926.svg also overlaps sections and displaces an edit button. This is a little tougher to fix because the "1930s–1950s" section is so short. You might have to shrink it further or move it elsewhere or perhaps merge two subsections to make a bigger subsection. Y

Images

• The image licenses all look OK to me except that the license for File:US 30 Iowa 1926.svg says that "It was first published in 1926, making it public domain due to age anyway." I don't believe this is true. It would be true if the image had first been published before 1923. Since the image is in the public domain by virtue of having been published in the MUTCD, it's not necessary to add the 1926 claim. I'd recommend deleting the 1926 sentence from the license page.
• I didn't make the image, but I will do that. –Fredddie™

Sources

• What makes the Iowa Lincoln Highway Association a reliable source per WP:RS? The link goes to what appears to be a personal web site.
  • The Iowa LHA is a state office of a national organization whose members pay dues and elect officers. I'll will admit, the Iowa organization's website is an amateur hack job. But it's not a personal website. –Fredddie™

Overlinking

• I'm not sure it's necessary to link town names like Ogden and Tama more than once in the lead and once in the main text. Ditto for counties and highways. Too many repetitive links devalue the other links because readers stop paying attention to them. Ames and Iowa State University are both linked twice in the "Central Iowa" section. I'd recommend deleting these redundancies and looking for others.
  • I don't have access to AWB, but I will ask someone who does to check for overlinking on my behalf. –Fredddie™

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 November 2010, 23:13 UTC)

---

[edit] Nikola Tesla

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a top importance article, and I would like to list it here first before putting listing it as a good article nominee.

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since your goal at this point is GA, I reviewed the article primarily with the GA criteria in mind. The article is generally well-written and quite a few editors have contributed to it. But there are a number of issues and there is some more work required before it is up to the GA standard. Here are some comments I hope will be helpful:

• More than a few of the issues raised at Talk:Nikola Tesla/GA1 when the article was delisted remain unaddressed. All of the issues raised there should be fixed. For example:
  • There are still a couple of dead links.

Y Done, dead links removed.

• • Author names in the references are still inconsistent.
  • ISBNs have not yet been provided.
  • There are several direct quotations that are not referenced.

• Images should be relevant to the section in which they appear. Many of the images seem out of place where they appear in the article. There should not by any images in the Further reading section.

Y Done Removed image from Further reading section, re-arranged some images to different sections.

• Images should also not force the sandwiching of the text or other strange formatting. Many of them do. Some of them will probably have to be deleted to allow the article to format correctly.

• There are quite a few copyright problems with the images. Most of them are probably public domain, but the claims and/or sourcing are not clear. Unless corrected, the problematic images should be deleted. The issues I found are:
  • File:Tesla young.jpg claims PD-Old, which is life of the author plus 70 years, but does not say who the author is
  • File:RMFpatent.PNG claims PD-US-patent and GFDL. If it is an original patent drawing, only PD-US-patent belongs.
  • File:TeslaWirelessPower1891 adjusted.png claims PD-US, which means it was published before 1923. But there is no source or publication data.
  • File:US390721.png claims PD-US-patent and PD-old-50. Which is it?

Y Done, changed to PD-US-patent only.

• • File:Tesla colorado adjusted.jpg and File:WirelessBulb-Tesla.png claim PD-US but there is no date of publication.
  • File:TeslaWirelessLightsCS.png, File:Teslathinker.jpg, File:Milutin Tesla.jpg claims PD-old with no author.
  • File:Twain in Tesla's Lab.jpg has no author (but should be PD under PD-US)
  • File:Teslabust adjusted.jpg claims Non-free 2D art, which applies on to 2D images, not sculptures

Y Done changed to Non-free 3D image with a fair use rationale.

• • File:Tesla statue at niagara falls.jpg and File:Aug09 TeslaPlaque.jpg are problematic because photos of 3D art are derivative works. Unless the sculputures are PD, the photos are copyright violations.

Y Done, tagged both for deletion.

• • File:Spomen ploca Nikola Tesla 0108.JPG is probably OK, since Croatia grants freedom of panorama to public plaques. But it should use the PD-Art tag.

• There is still some overlinking. Common terms like horse-riding, investors, and the like should not be linked.
• Underlinking: Lord Kelvin, liquefaction, X-rays, Roentgen rays, and similar terms should be linked.
• The list of devices and principles belongs in a list article, not in the article body. It should be moved and linked to in the See also section.
• Many sections are still undersourced. There are whole paragraphs without a single citation. One citation per paragraphs is a good rule of thumb. Extraordinary claims like his language fluency, mysophobia, and the death of the pigeon (for examples) must be sourced. All of the claims in the Legacy and honors sections should be sourced.
• The external links are excessive. See WP:EL for guidance.

• There are multiple source issues. I did not check exhaustively, but a spot check reveals these issues:
  • 13 does not link to the PDF

Y Done, now links to PDF.

• • 16 does not contain the information cited

Y Done, now contains the information cited.

• • 21 does not link to the source information. Regardless, page numbers need to be provided for the many claims sources to this book.
  • Teslasociety.com, www.tesla.hu, keyrr.net and www.cyberspaceorbit.net are not reliable sources

Y Done, unreliable references removed.

• • 93 does not link to the source.

I hope these comments are helpful and appreciate all the work that has gone into the article thus far. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm an expert in the field, but I feel I have a reasonable enough armchair understanding of the topic. This sentence in the lead seems highly suspect and I can't see any support for these claims in the body:

"In addition to his work on electromagnetism and electromechanical engineering, Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar, and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics."

Tesla was a gifted inventor and extremely hard worker, but I have to question his ability to contribute to nuclear physics for one. The body of the article doesn't go into this at all, nor does it mention ballistics, computer science, robotics (mentioned, but apparently incorrectly) or theoretical physics. Several of these claims seem to be found on this website, although that might just be copying something else (even this article). And having written the majority of the History of radar article, the claim to priority here is essentially groundless and only leave it in to avoid edit wars. Without real support, these claims need to be removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it back, the radar article has been so expanded my contribution is now a tiny minority of the body. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 November 2010, 19:40 UTC)

---

[edit] Natural sciences and mathematics

[edit] American Kestrel

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's passed a thorough GA review, and I'm hoping to take it to FA eventually but I want to see what can be improved first. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, —focus 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 November 2010, 04:08 UTC)

---

[edit] Protactinium

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article has the potential to become a Featured Article. It has a great amount of information, and I think this would be extremely informative to everyone.

Thanks, AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong article. This one is rated start-class. Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 November 2010, 02:30 UTC)

---

[edit] Rutherfordium

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed GAN due to copyediting issues. I hope some reviewer will help spot some of the problems with the text.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis Well here goes, with my chemistry knowledge in hand!

• Second paragraph on the lead needs rewriting, probably splitting (History and Properties)
  • First sentence is written badly, probably should split into two sentences with perhaps more exact dates (there was a three year difference)?
  • As much as I love science articles on wikipedia and their use of wikilinks to even more sciencey articles to explain terms, the sentence "Improved experimental techniques allowed for partial chemical characterization of rutherfordium. The chemical properties compare well with the chemistry of the other group 4 elements, even though some calculations had indicated that the element might show significantly different properties due to relativistic effects" needs to be translated into English! Elaborate on the chemical properties of the group 4 elements, explain whatever "compare well" means, and perhaps add an "initially" after "even though". Also, add more wikilinks here.
• History
  • "Researchers there bombarded 242Pu with accelerated 22Ne ions and separated the reaction products by gradient thermochromatography after conversion to chlorides by interaction with ZrCl4", one long run on sentence. At present it is also unclear on the order of events. Are the products converted to chlorides or the ions?
  • The main article you have listed in Naming Controversy youve wikilinked in that section. Remove the wikilink or the main, and if you leave the main perhaps consider changing to a see also or some such, as it deals with more then Rutherfordium.
  • Perhaps more dates in the naming controversy, and reordering. You jump from initial names to IUPAC back to initial names and so on.
  • Last paragraph in naming controversy. NOTHING TO DO with naming controversy!
• Nucleosynthesis, start by removing repetition about names such as in the third paragraph of hot fusion studies.
• You have two main article links to Isotopes of Rutherfordium. I suppose the main link for the Isotopes section would be more appropriate.

• Don't know if this has to be said, but deal with that citation needed. It opens a whole section of the article, definitely not minor.
• Give a short maybe even halfsentence summary of what things like Nucleosynthesis and Isotopes are, for the uninformed.

Most of the article seems to be a basic explanation of the different aspects of Rutherfordium, so I won't go into all the changes that could be made. What I suggest is getting someone you know with little to no background in chemistry, and seeing how much they understand when they read the article. If they have issues and you can explain it to them, try rewrite the article in a similar manner to your explanation. Additionally, add more wikilinks throughout the entire article, just for ease of clarification and help!

As a last point, may I express my own disappointment is wasn't named kurchatovium :( Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62 Hey mate! I don't have much interest in writing chemistry articles anymore, but I would be happy to provide some feedback. I'll be leaving comments on the article's prose here and copyediting as I go.

• "Chemistry experiments have confirmed that rutherfordium behaves as the heavier homologue to hafnium in group 4." This sentence overlaps with the chemistry information presented in the second paragraph. I suggest merging this into the second paragraph, and perhaps replacing it with a statement about how the different isotopes decay.
• "The priority of the discovery and therefore the naming of the element was disputed between Soviet and American scientists, and a final decision was taken only in 1997." Awkward phrasing. How about "Because both teams of scientists claimed to have independently discovered the element, a dispute arose over which team should have the right to name it. The final decision to use rutherfordium, as proposed by the American team, was not reached until 1997."
• "The team identified spontaneous fission activity contained within a volatile chloride portraying eka-hafnium properties." This is the first usage of the "eka" notation, which is not mentioned in the lead and not explained adequately in the article. More importantly, how would they have had any idea what properties eka-hafnium had? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "The team identified spontaneous fission activity contained within a volatile chloride that had properties similar to hafnium."
• "conclusively synthesized" What does "conclusively" mean in this context?
• "The American synthesis was independently confirmed in 1973" Confirmed by whom?

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sweet, this was really fast. I will take a close look over Thanksgiving break and fix all the issues you guys fount. Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 November 2010, 07:27 UTC)

---

[edit] Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's always good to be criticized. For improvement of my contribution and my future contributions, I have to know what I need to do better. Also, to distribute more knowledge for other people the site must be as good as possible. Thanks, Yrsukrutt (talk)

• The article name is not easily found, I recommend changing it to "History of ~". However, it seems like the article could be merged into the main SNRI article. It covers a wide variety of SNRI-related topics, most of which shouldn't be shunted aside into an independent article.
• The introduction should not start with the incomplete sentence "Discovery and development of dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors". You might change it to "This article describes the history of serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) ..."
• The timeline is difficult to read.
• The "Overview of SNRIs" is a list of one-sentence paragraphs which do not explain why SNRIs are good for all these different things. It has no relation to either discoveries or developments, although either could concievably be added to supply useful context. Perhaps merge it with the "Products of SNRIs" section.
• "Mechanism of action" is neither a discovery nor a development, but belongs in the main SNRI article. The other sections are similarly questionable. Please consider how to balance the SNRI article with this article if both are too long.
• However, "Clinical trials" does have historical relevance, so it might belong in a shortened history article.
• It's not clear what the "Current status" section is related to. Current status of what?
• Otherwise, the article is generally informative and supplies important information.

I found this in Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog, feel free to help out with the others there. Shii (tock) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 November 2010, 15:02 UTC)

---

[edit] Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's on a topic that is constantly evolving. Furthermore I'd like some second opinions regarding the renaming of the page from Discovery and development... to just Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as there is a lot of development history which might seem out of place with the current article title.

Thanks, Hinemash6 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 00:26 UTC)

---

[edit] Shapley–Folkman lemma

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has an exceptional graphic (better than any publication, imho) and is well-documented (although the formatting could be improved for consistency). It describes applications with greater specificity and range than the 2nd edition of Starr's "New Palgrave" article ([4]).

It does not seem helpful to duplicate proofs from the literature, which tend to be short (for mathematicians) or long (for economists).

(This is the first article that I've nominated for peer-review.) Why two peer-reviews, mathematics PR and economics (social science) PR? The Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical theorem that plays a central role in mathematical economics. Listing this article for two subjects is non-standard, and I apologize for not asking for guidance before hand. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by Paul M. Nguyen:

• Strengths
  • The article structure overall is very strong.
  • The lead section captures the topic well, though it could include a concise statement about Shapley and Folkman and at least the decade in which the lemma was developed. This addition would make the lead more comprehensive.
  • The article is well-referenced.
  • Appropriate images are not lacking.
  • Connectedness: other than the numerous (and appropriate) 'see also's and wikilinks, the article could use some navboxes like {{Geometry-footer}}, {{Economics}}, {{Microeconomics}}. See Category:Mathematics templates and Category:Economics templates.
• Weaknesses
  • Though the article is highly technical, more could be done to make the topic accessible to a non-technical audience without sacrificing the precision it presently contains. I recommend expanding the lead section to include a second paragraph that treats the applications in simpler terms, relating both the economics and mathematics to readers not experts in either field.
  • Mechanics of the article:
    • References should follow punctuation, not fall "inside", as is the case in numerous places.
    • The SFS abbreviation is introduced in the section on "Probability and measure theory" but the expanded form is used prior to that and the abbreviation is not used anywhere else. The abbreviation may be omitted or introduced at the first occurrence and used exclusively thereafter.
    • The statement of the lemma should be a blockquote rather than whitespace-delimited.

It was a pleasure looking at this one. I'd appreciate your input on GNOME's PR, if you're interested. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC): Thank you for the very helpful review.

I immediately incorporated some of your suggested improvements: Adding geometry and microeconomics footers and block-quoting the theorem. I plan to follow your suggestion on SFS abbreviation, and probably also to follow your suggestion about another lead paragraph (non-technical).

On the other hand, mid-sentence footnotes appear when each specifies a particular contribution, for example, in the sentence noting economic applications of the Shapley-Folkman theorem; combining such footnotes into the end section would impair their usefulness to the readers, imho. Nonetheless, I shall review the WP guidelines on footnotes, and seriously consider your suggestion for each footnote. No doubt, some of the in-sentence footnotes could be modified to follow punctuation.

Thank you for your help. I shall try to look at the GNOME article soon. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to follow your suggestions, I expanded the introduction and expanded the SFS abbreviation. Thus, only the footnotes remain unimproved despite your suggestions! Best regars, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated background material on convex sets and convex hulls. It would be preferable to develop graphics that are closer to Eppstein's illustration for the Shapley Folkman lemma, of course. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I included an illustration of Minkowski addition from the Italian Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup Review by Paul M. Nguyen: You're quick! A couple notes based on the revisions made since my review:

• Great job addressing connectedness.
• I was not clear enough in my comment about references. What I meant was that a reference should not fall between a word and punctuation that follows it (I suppose a dash would be an exception). Wrong example: fact^[12], next point.^[13] Correct: fact,^[12] next point.^[13] I did not notice any periods being "orphaned" by a reference, but there are several orphaned commas as in my example.
• Excellent work expanding the article. I think the convex geometry material helps.
  • The introductory sentence to the section, "Stating the Shapley–Folkman lemma requires some definitions and results." could be rephrased to be more active and declarative, like "The Shapley–Folkman lemma depends upon the following definitions and results from convex geometry."
  • The section title "Results from convex geometry" seems awkward to me. I think the article structure would be strengthened if the statement of the lemma and the requisite convex geometry definitions were to fall in the same == section, with the concepts upon which the statement of the lemma depends listed first. A more obvious (and more generic) title would need to be chosen for the top-level section, like "Definition" or even promote "Statement of the lemma" to encompass this information. The final subsection could then be titled simply "The lemma", following upon the convex geometry. I would, however, recommend keeping the theorem and Starr's corollary in a separate section, as they are presently.
• Lead section: wow! I think too much was added to the lead, though. For the present second paragraph, I recommend the following, which retains the added application-oriented context but condenses the middle as would be appropriate in a lead section:

The mathematicians Shapley and Folkman derived the Shapley–Folkman lemma to help the young economist, Ross M. Starr (1969), who was investigating the existence of economic equilibria when some consumer preferences need not be convex. Starr proved that a mathematical transformation that causes all preferences to be convex yields an economy that has general equilibria that are closely approximated by "quasi-equilbria" of the original economy. In Starr's corollary to the Shapley–Folkman theorem, Starr bounded the Euclidean distance between a Minkowski sum of nonconvex sets and the sum's convex hull; Starr's corollary is sometimes called the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem.

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Paul. You were very helpful and gave miraculously quick feedback.

Thanks especially for the clarification about footnotes. (I was needlessly afraid that I would have to change WP policy to keep in-sentence footnotes.) I shall fix the remaining footnotes tomorrow, following your examples.

Your suggestion about the lead paragraph was very helpful, and I shall incorporate it (nearly verbatim, I now believe) tomorrow.

Have a great day/night, and thanks for your help!

Yours gratefully, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul, Thanks again for your help. I incorporated your paragraph (crediting you in the edit summary), but your contributions have been so substantial that I wish that you make some official edit, so that you are credited as a contributor to the article. I also changed the footnotes to conform with the WP suggestion that footnotes follow punctuation marks. Thus, I believe that I have followed all of your suggestions. (I also incorporated an illustration of convex hulls and combined the illustrations of convex versus nonconvex sets.) Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions, which far exceed what I'd expected from this processs. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I edited a couple things just now, but nothing crazy. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the section/subsection(s) for the lemma and the preliminaries, trying to follow your suggestions. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from RJHall

Comment from RJHall The very first sentence of the article seems ambiguous, so I am not quite able to grasp what it is trying to say:

...the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.

Are you saying this applies to the net sum of a sufficiently large number of non-convex subsets, or it applies to many individual instances of the sums of non-convex pairs? What is meant by "many"? It is also vague about what is meant by "nearly convex". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Shapley–Folkman lemma applies to the sum of N sets when N > D, the dimension of the sets; thus it would apply also to the sums of subsets of M sets when D < M ≤ N.

Providing a short informal summary of the theorem is difficult. I'll look at the Carathéodory's lemma on convex hulls for inspiration. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what Starr's lead says in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics:

"The Shapley–Folkman theorem places an upper bound on the size of the non-convexities (loosely speaking, openings or holes) in a sum of non-convex sets in Euclidean N-dimensional space, RN. The bound is based on the size of non-convexities in the sets summed and the dimension of the space. When the number of sets in the sum is large, the bound is independent of the number of sets summed, depending rather on N, the dimension of the space. Hence the size of the non-convexity in the sum becomes small as a proportion of the number of sets summed; the non-convexity per summand goes to zero as the number of summands becomes large."

Starr's opening is more precise than ours. I'll paraphrase Starr's.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated Starr's ideas in a revised first paragraph:

In geometry and in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the closely-related Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem suggest that the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.^[1] The results of Shapley, Folkman, and Starr give an upper bound on the degree of non-convexity of the Minkowski sum of N non-convex sets. This bound on non-convexity depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets; however, the bound does not depend on the number of summand–sets N, when D < N. Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets, the average non–convexity of the sumset decreases as the number of summands N increases; in fact, the average degree of non–convexity decreases to zero as N increases to infinity.^[2]

Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Ruslik0

I want point your attention to some contradictions in the first paragraph:

1. This bound on non-convexity is defined in terms of the Euclidean distance and it depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets. I would say that the (upper) bound 'depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the D summand-sets'. The current phrasing means that the bound depends on non-convexities of all summand-sets.
2. The next sentence read Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets. I think the non-convexity itself depends on non-convexities of all summand sets as opposed to the upper bound.
3. I also noticed that you use either 'd' or 'D' for the vector space dimension. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear and focused comments, Ruslik0. It's late and I shall have to review the article & finish replying tomorrow.

1. Suggested phrasing (in reply): "depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the collection of the sums of D summand–sets". Argument: The selection(s) of D (or fewer) convexified summands depends on the point; even pointwise, a SF-bipartition lacks uniqueness. (I did not wrote "all" but the mis-imputation of "all" should be much harder now.)
2. As noted previously, I updated the wording to emphasize "the collections of the sums of D summand sets".
3. Regarding the dimension d or D: I capitalized all occurences of the dimension as D (having previously tweaked David Eppstein's original i to n and capitalizing the upper index N).

Reviewing the article today, I added a reference to Puri & D. Ralescu's 1985 article, whose Shapley-Folman application empowers R. Cerf's article (already cited).

Thanks again for your very helpful comments and suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to address 1 and 2. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the unfinished business. I appreciate your effort, and thank you!

I am sorry if I misunderstand your intention, or wrote poorly. I thought that I had addressed your comments. I am sorry if I seem irritated now when I write --- my time is very limited.

1. Your suggested phrasing errs in using the definite article "the" in "the D sets". First, the SF lemma gives the existence of a pointwise representation in terms of D convexified summand sets and N-D original summand sets. There are many problems with points having multiple representations, so uniqueness fails even pointwise. When (on some problems) the point varies, then the representation must vary, and so one needs to consider the collection of the sums of D convex hulls of summands (and N-D original summand sets). (Continued) Again, the phrasing never inserted the universal quantifier "all", so your imputation of "all" is unwarranted; as I wrote before, I tweaked the sentence so that this mis-reading should be more difficult.
2. The SF lemma and SF theorem and SFS theorem state bounds. Unless you can find a reference discussing "degree of nonconvexity" as you suggest, your suggestions seems to follow under original research.

Reading my responses, I am very unsatisfied with my progress on clarifying things. I apologize for having left a brusk & probably unclear response, now. I shall try to review and edit my response tomorrow. Thanks again for your suggestions. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 30 October 2010, 04:19 UTC)

---

[edit] General

[edit] Spinal cord injury

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

This article is a high priority article for the medicine wikiproject and high neurology task force and needs lots of work for it to improve. I can tell by just giving it a quick look over that it will require loads of work and I am looking for recommendations on specific things that I should change about the article. All feedback is welcome!

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 03:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62:

• The first thing I noticed is how heavily dependent the article is on lists. Lists should be used sparingly. "An encyclopedia should seek primarily to teach, and only secondarily to inform."
• There are huge chunks of text (such as the Classification and Location of the injury sections) that do not have footnotes. Yikes!
• The tone of the article is, in some places, unencyclopedic. Here's an example: "One can have spine injury without spinal cord injury."
• The How Occupational Therapy Can Help Address Occupational Performance Issues seems to be written like an advertisement.
• More images would be nice.

Hope this helps! Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you want more specific feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from garrondo: Following sections proposed at the manual of style for medical articles would be a great improvement.

• In this sense treatment and the two sections on occupational therapy should be combined, most probably into a section named management (recommended title for chronic problems).
• Everything still under research in the treatment section should be moved into a "research directions" section.
• Similarly there is wayyyy toooo much info on occupational therapy: some parts could be summarized, others moved to other articles, and others simply eliminated.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 03:43 UTC)

---

[edit] Steven Caulker

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a fairly well written article but would like to know how I could improve it to be applicable to Featured Article status.

Thanks, Ytfc23 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 19 November 2010, 16:15 UTC)

---

[edit] Pilot (Desperate Housewives)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve it to at least good article status. I am particularly concerned with the Casting and Filming sections.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks generally good. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

Overlinking

• I would not link the names of the actors or characters more than once in the lead plus once in the main text. For example, Susan Mayer and Teri Hatcher are linked once each in the lead, again in the "Plot" section, again in "Casting", as well as in the infobox. I'd at least remove the repetitious links from "Casting" and probably the repetitious ones from the infobox. It's a short article, and readers will not find all of these links useful. Also, I would not bother to link "swimming pool", and I would not link "slut" more than once in the article; it's linked in "Plot" and "Casting".

Lead

• "struggles with the disillusion of her marriage to Rex (Steven Culp)" - The word disillusion is so close to dissolution that I'd suggest altering the sentence to simply say, "struggles with her failing marriage to Rex (Steven Culp)".

Plot

• "a plumber who has recently moved onto Wisteria Lane" - Maybe just "to Wisteria Lane" since "onto" would put him in the middle of the street.

• "Meanwhile, Gabrielle, a former model, grows increasingly unhappy with her marriage to Carlos (Ricardo Antonio Chavira), who buys her love with extravagant gifts, and continues an affair with her sixteen-year-old gardener, John Rowland (Jesse Metcalfe)." - It's not completely clear from this whether Gabrielle is having an affair with John or whether Ricardo is having an affair with John. Suggestion: "Meanwhile, Gabrielle, a former model, grows increasingly unhappy with her marriage to Carlos (Ricardo Antonio Chavira), who buys her love with extravagant gifts. She continues an affair with her 16-year-old gardener, John Rowland (Jesse Metcalfe)."

Creation and development

• "The network ordered thirteen episodes of the series." - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits unless they start a sentence; i.e., 13 rather than thirteen.

Casting

• "Marcia Cross, who originally auditioned for the role of deceased series narrator Mary Alice Young, was cast in the role of "Stepfordish perfect homemaker" Bree Van de Kamp." - Words inside direct quotes should not be linked since the links were not part of the original. You might use a work-around like this: [Marcia Cross]], who originally auditioned for the role of deceased series narrator Mary Alice Young, was cast in the role of Bree Van de Kamp, a "perfect homemaker" reminiscent of The Stepford Wives.

Filming and subsequent casting changes

• "Filming took place for thirteen days in March 2004.[3] ABC picked up the series for thirteen episodes" - Change to 13 and 13?

Ratings

• "among the demographic of women from ages 18 to 49" - Tighten to "among women aged 18 to 49"?

Critical reception

• "[a]s involving as any new drama and funnier than any new sitcom [because it] matches high visual style with a witty-but-never arch sensibility." - The first set of brackets look odd. Maybe putting the "as" outside the quotes would make this tidier; i.e., as "involving as any new... "? Ditto for at least some of the other brackets. They make the text harder to read; sometimes they are necessary and useful, but it's good to keep them to a minimum.

• "tragique tribute and back again" - Is the misspelling of "tragic" in the original?

Quote boxes

• Curly quotation marks are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia articles since they don't follow house style. (See WP:MOSQUOTE) Just use normal quotation marks snug against the quotes.

References

• In citations 37 through 40, use Wikipedia house style for the search-engine data; e.g., "Felicity Huffman" rather than "FELICITY HUFFMAN". Ditto for the other words in all-caps.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 November 2010, 01:05 UTC)

---

[edit] Winged scapula

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Jaimeem (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You haven't said why you want a review, but I'll give it a try. My main concern is that the article relies too heavily on a few sources and, at least in places, imitates them too closely.

• The one sentence that is sourced in the lead says, "Scapular winging has been observed to disrupt scapulohumeral rhythm, contributing to decreased flexion and abduction of the upper extremity, as well as a loss in power and the source of considerable pain." The source supports the claim. The problem is that the supporting sentence in the source says, "Disrupting scapulohumeral rhythm, scapular winging contributes to loss of power and limited flexion and abduction of the upper extremity and can be a source of considerable pain." Changing a few words in the original isn't good enough to avoid plagiarism. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE for a full explanation.

• The first parts of the article (lead, causes, epidemiology) are too dependent on a single source. If you read multiple sources and absorb the information, you will be less likely to parrot any particular source.

• Wikipedia articles do not use "one" as a pronoun, although sources sometimes do. The article says, "In some serious cases, the ability to perform activities of daily living such as changing one’s clothes and washing one’s hair may be hindered." The source says, "Scapular winging is a rare, but potentially debilitating condition that can affect the ability to lift, pull, and push heavy objects, as well as to perform daily activities of living, such as brushing one’s hair and teeth and carrying grocery bags." Wikipedia might say, "Scapular winging may interfere with dressing, grooming, lifting, and other daily activities."

• Similarly, the "Epidemiology" section too closely imitates the source. The article's list has the same content and form as the original.

• Writing about a highly technical medical topic is difficult. Part of the difficulty lies in using language that is accurate yet understandable by an audience of ordinary people. Links can help, but linking "scapulohumeral rhythm" to rotator cuff, for example, may not be enough. What does "scapulohumeral rhythm" mean in plain English?

• Five of the six citations in the "Reference" section are incomplete. You may find it helpful to look at other health-related articles to see various methods of handling citations. The one complete citation in the article uses the "cite journal" template; you can find the other members of the "cite" family of templates at WP:CIT.

• WP:FA#Health and medicine has a list of featured articles that you might find interesting. They can serve as useful models.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting citations would be a good and easy idea to improve the article. If you find an article, such as those you use, in pubmed you can use the pmid number and paste it here to obtain a nicely formatted citation. Searching in pubmed for more sources on the issue as proposed above would also be a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 November 2010, 23:07 UTC)

---

[edit] Lists

[edit] 1983 Virginia Slims World Championship Series

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked hard since creating this list to turn it into a good standard. I would like to get some feedback on the list as it is one of many that are currently being worked on across the tennis project. The singles summary is in the process of being written so this PR should be about how the article is as it stands (discounting this section).

Thanks, 03md 04:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 November 2010, 04:58 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients has undergone some recent major work and I am looking for some feedback to be able to get the list to Featured List status. Any feedback or assistance with this page would be helpful.

Thanks, Flyguy33 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 November 2010, 00:57 UTC)

---

[edit] Backstreet Boys discography

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i think it meets the FL criteria

Thanks, Skaterboy2012 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good but it not quite ready for FLC yet. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

• I would unlink "Backstreet Boys" in the infobox to avoid double bolding. WP:MOSBOLD includes a relevant guideline under "Contraindications".

• The image license for File:Backstreet Boys Concert 2.jpg is incorrect. If you click through to the Flickr source and click on the "Some rights reserved" line under "License", you will see that the original was licensed with a "no commercial use" (NC) restriction. That means it should not have been uploaded to the Commons and can't be used by Wikipedia. The license problem is not your fault; still, you can't use the image. Perhaps you can find another that has no NC restriction, or perhaps you can convince the photographer to change the license to CC-by-SA without the NC clause.

• Should the music-video total be added to the infobox?

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Aria) that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The lead might be improved by moderate expansion. For example, it could say more about singles, compilation albums, and music videos.

• Would the singles certifications be more effectively presented as part of the "Singles" table? Jamelia discography, a featured list, combines them and might provide a model to imitate.

• Would "Videos" look better in a table? Alice in Chains discography, a featured list, might provide a model. Maybe more data about these videos could be added? Publisher? Running time? Subject matter? Awards, if any?

• Citation 35 is missing the author date (Fulton, Rick), and Daily Record should be in italics. Similar problems occur in Citation 29, where Billboard needs italics, and the missing author is Dominic Pride. Citation 47 and 48 have date formats that differ from most of the rest of the citations. In the reference section, the date formatting needs to be consistent throughout. Citation 107 seems malformed and incomplete.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 November 2010, 22:20 UTC)

---

[edit] Linkin Park discography

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this one is close to be a featured list.

Thanks, Neo139 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 November 2010, 00:08 UTC)

---

[edit] List of awards and nominations received by Santana

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

Please review this article; is it ready for FL? I'm not sure about the lead. thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good research, but I don't think this is ready for FL yet. Work needs to be done in each of the following areas:-

• (General note) The list seems to have been prepared on the same template as other lists of artists' awards. As this format has been accepted for all the featured lists in this category it is I suppose OK, though it does not work well in this case. Of the 17 sublists, 12 have only one item; this makes for an unfortunately fractured presentation.
• You need, in each case, to explain who makes the award and what it is for. In most cases, no information at all is given (Amigo Awards, Billboard Music Video Awards, Blockbuster Entertainment Awards etc)
  • Y Done
• Where you do give information, it should not state what is immediately evident from the table, e.g. "Santana has won two AMA" and "Just Feel Better" was awarded in 2007".
  • Y Reworded
• Lead: this seems rather short. It also has various prose issues:
  • Pronoun conflict: "It first came to public attention after their..."
    • Y Done
  • Awkward repetition: "...followed in the next two years by successful follow-ups..."
    • Y Done
  • More repetition: "The band has received numerous awards, including ten awards[1] and two nominations[2][3] for the Grammy Awards, three Latin Grammy Awards".
    • Y Done
• References:
  • Some of these are lacking publisher information: 10, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23
    • Y Edited
  • Give the names of the website publishers, not the website name. For example, the publisher for ref 1 is The Recording Academy, for 2 and 3 it is Rock On The Net (is this a reliable encyclopedic source, by the way?), etc.
    • Y Reworded
  • Ref 5 does not have a title.
    • Y Done

I hope these points are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 November 2010, 10:47 UTC)

---

[edit] WikiProject peer-reviews

• WikiProject Military history: Battle of Ebelsberg • Interstate TDR • Sword • First and Second Battle of Wonju • Battle of Magdhaba

[edit] Archives

• 2010:
  • November (current)
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October
• 2009:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2008:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2007:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2006:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2005:
  • January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
• 2004 and older:
  • December 2004
  • Archive 3, Archive 2, Archive 1