From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: Wikipedia:PR Wikipedia: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: September 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: August 30 • Galveston Pirate SC August 29 • Princeton Tigers men's basketball 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)

Arts

Weezer (2001 album)

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

I am planning on making the Green Album into a Good Article. However, I don't know what else to do on the article. Hopefully, I can get some helpful comments on improvement. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 September 2010, 18:00 UTC)

---

Animal (Kesha album)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on listing it (soon) for GA and GA Topic once i complete Take It Off as well.

Thanks, - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 September 2010, 03:32 UTC)

---

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because extensive improvement by many dedicated editors has, in my opinion, brought the article close to an FA level since the last FAC review in 2005, but I feel that input from a wider group of editors would benefit the article greatly before another FAC nomination is attempted. Criticism on all aspects of the article are welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, Shirtwaist (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I suggest withdrawing this peer review request, as this article is still some distance from FA quality; it has several issues that do not comply with policies and guidelines, which FAs are supposed to be exemplary of:

• many paragraphs and sentences lack citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources), the worst of which is the Interpretation section (to be detailed later)
• possible original research: because statements are uncited, they could be personal judgments or conjectures and not published information; Interpretations are supposed to be compiled from reliable sources, not the personal original opinions of editors.
• violations of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; fair use of copyrighted images are meant to be stricter than the assumed accepted practices of US law. Many images here simply illustrate scenes that can be described with words (violating NFCC criterion 1) or are not supported by significant critical commentary in the text (NFCC 8).
• incorrect interpretation of sources: where in Steven Pietrobon's resume does it state that he was a NASA scientist? Getting a "NASA Research Assistantship" does not make a scientist out of an assistant.
• copyright violations: that youtube link is a copyright violation since neither Apple nor MGM (if it was taken from the film) authorised its uploading there; the same goes for the pages that post entire scans/transcripts of articles from MAD magazine, Playboy, and other magazines.
• sources of questionable reliability: Wikipedia defines "reliable" in a slightly different way. A source is reliable if it was heavily relied on by others (mostly because it is an expert on the subject and is often quoted). How are palantir.net, cinezik, Askville, starshipmodeler.com, avrev.com, and other assorted websites reliable? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged at FACs.
• several cleanup templates and tags are in the article.
• much of the prose are short paragraphs, coming across as stubs or items inserted haphazardly without a clear organisation.

All these are serious failings and should have been cleared. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 September 2010, 10:26 UTC)

---

Lat

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

My first BLP! It is about a cartoonist named simply Lat, short for bulat, which means round. This man is indeed a celebrity and for mostly the right reasons. He seems to have done nothing wrong (seriously, there is no reliable source that says otherwise) and is a respected figure in his country. Southeast Asian adults readily recognise his name. I was happy to find so much information on him (I had expected only his books and its introductions), especially those from scholarly sources. I am aiming for Featured Article for this and glady welcome any comments and criticisms that would help it achieve this. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am carrying out a full copyedit, but there are a few points in the text which you need to address yourself. The following relate only to the first few sections; I will post more over the next few days, as I go through the article. Most of these are minor points; the article makes enjoyable reading.

• Lead
  • "Lat spent his life in the rural..." Not idiomatic; we might say "in the countryside" or possibly "in rural areas". I think the former is preferable.
    • Changed to "in the countryside". Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Lat became a reporter" - Needs a little more detail; a newspaper reporter?
    • Fleshed out per your suggestion; I am not sure if "criminal/crime reporter" might be more specific and sound better, though... Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is an editorial cartoonist?
    • Linked it to an article, but I thought it was a fairly common term?
      • It probably is, except to ignorant buggers like me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Childhood and education
  • The phrasing at the end of the first paragraph is odd, with the two key words bracketed. Would it be better to use a complete paraphrase rather than this awkward semi-quote?
    • Used the quote with slight omission of "a". Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Who are "Sinaran Brothers"?
    • The publishers, I made it more explicit. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reporter to cartoonist
  • What is Berita Harian?
    • Umm... it is mentioned that it is the regular edition of Berita Minggu a few sentences back. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • So it is. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...and his regular job proved to have certain benefits to it." What benefits are you referring to?
    • Doh, it was supposed to indirectly introduce the movement of his job and such, but I later inserted his transfer detail (so I guess it broke the linkage). It does not really fit into the scheme now, so I changed the entire sentence the clause was in to "Aside from taking the job, he continued contributing cartoons to other publications." Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "groused" is informal, and very old-fashioned; "grumbled" would be more orthodox.
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "exposed to" → "introduced to"?
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The next instalment

• After the Kampung Boy
  • "A year or so later..." Too imprecise. And there isn't an obvious time reference at the end of the previoud section
    • Changed to 1981; although some sources and later versions of the book said 1980, the book (first print) itself states "copyright 1981". Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "One of the park's attractions is..." Presumably "will be", as the park doesn't open until 2011
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "His last involvement with animation was in 2009..." As he's still with us, wouldn't it be better to say "most recent" rather than "last"?
    • Agreed, it sounds better. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Aside from pulling a slight retreat from the cartooning scene..." "Pulling" in this context sound colloquial; I would say "Aside from retreating slightly from the cartooning scene..."
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• His art
  • "His" should not be in a section title, per "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)" in MOS:HEAD
    • Changed to "Art syle". Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • His portfolio was diverse" - shouldn't this be present tense?
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Lat started out drawing cartoons in Malay..." Do you draw in a language? Would it be more accurate to say "Lat's early cartoons, such as Tiga Sekawan and Keluarga Si Mamat, were captioned in Malay" or some such wording?
    • Changed to use "narration": some of his works (such as the Perak Wedding) had long text instead of brief sentences. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Later art style
  • "was reconciliatory of" is verbose and passive voice; why not "reconciled"? Also, "Rezda's judgement" might be better than "Redza's thought", and it is not clear to me which two views his "thought" reconciled.
    • Dropped the entire train for simple "judgement"; I was trying to link the evolution of Lat's art with Redza, but the results show this to be a poor attempt. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The art critic was not alone in having a high regard for Lat's works." Rezda or Lent?
    • I was referring to Redza (Lent is considered a comics scholar and was quoted earlier), but both are positive to Lat's art. Changed anyway to be explicit on Redza. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am unsure of the benefit of the quote box, which at present seems intrusive and also interferes with the adjacent image. Someone more adept than me can no doubt sort that out, but I am still unconvinced of its necessity.
    • I feel that Adibah's quote is an eloquent and succinct summary of the opinions on Lat's work. I dare not and find no way to summarise her view without hurting that eloquence, so I left it as a quote box. I fixed the formatting so that the box will not overlap with the image. I believe Adibah's quote (a local respected view) complement Lent's earlier thought (Western respected view), giving two cultural views of the author. Furthermore, it helped to set up a case for At a Sikh Wedding, illustrating Lat's particular sensitivity to the customs of other races. I did not set it up as a {{quote}} because I think the quote box makes for a nice break in reading (after all the earlier and before the later text) by giving an expressive opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Third instalment

(sorry this is short but I have other problems, e.g. TFA)

• Sensitive topics
  • "The local political scene grew comfortable with Lat's caricatures..." Can a "scene" grow comfortable? And what is meant here by "local"? In the UK, local politics means parish-pump stuff. Do you mean Malaysian politics (as distinct from international)? Perhaps reword as "Malaysia's political class soon grew comfortable..." etc
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "enough to compile into Dr Who?! (2004)" A published cartoon collection, presumably, but you should say so; "Dr Who" otherwise means something very different to the vast majority of Brits who watch TV.
    • Bah with the British Dr Who&madsh;<raise ruckus about systematic bias and such>—anyway, made it explicit that this is a book. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "He heeds the advice of his mentor..." We need to be reminded of this mentor's identity.
    • Rejabhad mentioned again. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Regardless" which begins the third sentence form the end looks unnecessary.
    • Agreed, dropped. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Interests and beliefs
  • First line "he revealed that listening to songs..." etc. Where did he reveal this?
    • Made explicit. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The quote marks around "fashionable girls" don't seem quite right - I'd get rid of them, and replace "girls" with "young women".
    • Eh, it is a quote. Is there some perculiar connotation with this phrase I am not aware of? Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You say "Malaysian society used to look down on cartoonists", implying that this was something in the past, but later in the paragraph we have "Despite the lowly reputation of his profession..." as though this still prevails. This needs clarification.
    • I meant "at that time" (now made explicit). However, he was proud at that time and remains proud till this day. Does the sentence now read better, or does it still remain confusing? Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 August 2010, 14:14 UTC)

---

The Deep End (TV series)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for GA.

Thanks, Bejinhan talks 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this will be my first peer review. I will try my best to give a few pointers.

Intro

• the first sentence does not flow very well, could maybe rewrite it. Y Done

Production

• co-executive produced, is that the correct terminology, or should it be created by or David Hemingson is an executive producer for the series who also produced how i met your mother Y Done
• you should also try to avoid small single paras like that. Y Done
• some of the refs dont have access dates, and they use various formats of listing sources, i.e. some use the cite web method others dont Y Done
• Might be an idea to use a similar article which has already made GA as a guide, for example cold feet series one. Y Done

sorry if its not much of a help but could get you on the right track to improving the article for GA nomination. You could also look at similar articles for help and inspiration here.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Bejinhan talks 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rearrange the first paragraph. Start off with what it is, then the content of the show, then how long it ran for, then its reasons for being cancelled. At the moment it is very disjointed. Also remove 'in-universe' content as that can be placed later in the article and may be confusing.

You may wish to add a plot section to explain the show in-depth.

Remove text stating where it was who was supposed to be producing it was initially reported. This is superfluous and irrelevant to the point you are trying to get across (which I presume is who actually produced it).

Actual lawyers reaction can go in the Reception section. Similarly, unrealistic plot elements could be put into a plot subsection, rather than being mixed in with the production section when they have little to do with that subject.

Remove this part:

"The show premiered on January 21, 2010 as a 2009—2010 midseason replacement.[4] Seven episodes were filmed but ABC only scheduled six episodes.[5] After speculation of the show's cancellation, ABC announced on May 14, 2010 that they would not continue broadcasting it because of poor ratings and viewership.[6][7][8]" - It is simply repeating what was said in the lead without adding anything substantial to it.

You could re-write this to make it longer and include more information, at which point it might be put into its own 'Broadcasting' (or similar with a better name) section.

Second sentence of Reception section needs to be re-written, it lists too many shows. We get the point after two. Similarly, this section doesn't need quite as many quotes as we get the gist of the issues pretty early on. The sentence: Although the Deep End received "loads of promotion" but Media Life Magazine claimed that the show "sank in its first outing - is not grammatically sound.

(Peer review added on Monday 23 August 2010, 10:57 UTC)

---

Pilot (Modern Family)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope someday it can become a good article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Comments by Jappalang

• Citations are not standardised, some are even bare naked urls: violation of Wikipedia:CITE.
• What makes movieweb.com, dailyactor.com, and tvbythenumbers.com reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on the criteria that Wikipedia typically deems reliability of a source by.
• Spotted several "noun + -ing" constructions that typically irks reviewers such as User:Tony1; look up User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing to see how to overcome this issue.
• "Haley goes downstairs to complain to Phil, who is preparing to shoot Luke. Phil accidentally shoots Luke, Dylan, and then himself."

  With a real gun?

• I sort of feel the Plot section is doing a blow-by-blow narration, instead of presenting the story in a coherent sense. What is it all about? A comedy? Family drama? If it is supposed to follow three different families before coming together in a final scene, would it not be better to clump each family's experience in their own paragraph before tying everything up in a final paragraph?

I have not done a detailed look but the above stand out as big obstructions to a further review or assessment of quality. Jappalang (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 August 2010, 22:34 UTC)

---

Géza Gárdonyi

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it can still be a good article.

Thanks, 1s9s9s4s0823 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in this article - I see you have never edited it, so I hope these suggestions for improvement are used by someone to help make the article better.

• The lead is too short and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Biggest problem with this becoming a GA is that it has no (zero) references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See Wikipedia:CITE and Wikipedia:V
• Another problem with this becoming a Wikipedia:GA is that it is not broad in its coverage - there is very little material in the Life section. The Wikipedia:FA criterion is that it must be comprehensive, which this is nowhere near.
  • What was the name of his college? When did he attend it and graduate? Where was he a teacher and cantor? What are some of the critical repsonses to his works?
• The language is also in need of a copyedit - GA and FA need very good to professional level English
• I see that the Hungarian article is a FA, but do not speak Magyar. It looks like it would be an excellent souce for expansion of this article as it is full of material and seems to be well-cited.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. In the ENglish WIkipedia there are several FAs on authors that would make potentially good models.
• It is hard to say much more as the article is fairly short and has no inline refs.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 August 2010, 23:56 UTC)

---

Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to receive some general feedback about the status of the article and what improvements should be made before I nominate the article for Good status. Should the reviewer have an opinion as to whether or not the article is GA-worthy or not, that feedback would be much appreciated. I included this in the Arts section since it is an entertainment award for music. The award was only presented once, so the article is short, but I think it has a unique background and I tried to incorporate as much information from various sources I could find about the subject. Thank you for taking the time to offer any suggestions or advice. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article. I don't think its shortness is a problem by itself, but perhaps it could be a bit more broad in coverage. Fads like hula hoops often come and go quietly, but this one seems to have ended with a bang. I wonder about Dahl's motives and the motives of the rioting mob. Were they expressing real anger or was it a case of a boring ball game and too much beer? It would also be nice to know what Dahl was thinking and what he said while burning the records. Was he hoping to start a riot? What motivated him? The various groups mentioned by Werner seem so different from one another, it's hard to imagine why they would all hate disco. What did they have in common? Why, for example, would feminists favor sexism, as Werner suggests? Some of these considerations may go beyond the scope of the article, but perhaps some of them could be worked in, at least briefly. Just a suggestion.

• No dead links, no dabs.
• Image licenses look fine. The Gloria Gaynor image was uploaded at 14 kb, but the image is available in a much larger size via the Flickr site. I'd think about downloading the largest possible one and uploading it to the Commons as an updated version of the 14 kb version.

Lead

• "The award category was discontinued before the 23rd Grammy Awards due to a backlash against disco." - Wikilink Disco here on first use?

• Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The award for Best Disco Recording went to Gloria Gaynor as well as producers Dino Fekaris and Freddie Perren for the song "I Will Survive". The award category was discontinued before the 23rd Grammy Awards due to a backlash against disco. A similar category, Best Dance Recording, began being awarded in 1998 to honor vocal or instrumental dance tracks, though there were concerns that the genre would be short-lived much like the disco category." - Usually active voice is punchier than passive. These two sentences could be flipped to active like this: "Gloria Gaynor and producers Dino Fekaris and Freddie Perren won the Best Disco Recording award for the song "I Will Survive". However, because of a backlash against disco, the academy discontinued the category before the 23rd Grammy Awards. In 1998, it began awards for a similar category, Best Dance Recording, to honor vocal or instrumental dance tracks, though there were concerns that the genre would be short-lived, much like the disco category."

• Actually, I really like a lot of that. Thank you for the suggestion--I will try to consider using an active voice more often. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "On July 12, 1979, just a few months after Newsweek had reported on the "[take] over" of disco music, a promotional event known as Disco Demolition Night was held at Chicago's Comiskey Park during a doubleheader intermission, where disc jockey Steve Dahl set ablaze a bin full of disco records, causing a riot within the stadium and gaining international attention." - A bit too complex, perhaps. Would two sentences be better? Suggestion: "On July 12, 1979, just a few months after Newsweek had reported on the "[take] over" of disco music, a promotional event known as Disco Demolition Night was held at Chicago's Comiskey Park. During a doubleheader intermission, disc jockey Steve Dahl set ablaze a bin full of disco records, causing a riot within the stadium and gaining international attention."

• Perfect. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"According to author Craig Werner, the "anti-disco movement represented an unholy alliance of funkateers and feminists, progressives and puritans, rockers and reactionaries. None the less, the attacks on disco gave respectable voice to the ugliest kinds of unacknowledged racism, sexism and homophobia." - Since the quote is embedded in The Independent article, you are quoting The Independent rather than Werner and should add something like "According to author Craig Werner, as quoted in the British newspaper The Independent,... " Would it be better to quote Werner directly? Does he say anything else about the rise and fall of disco in his book?

• I updated the sentence to include The Independent, as suggested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Award

• In 1979, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences decided to add the category for the 22nd Grammy Awards, just as disco was "preparing to die". - Add the category name here as well? Suggestion: In 1979, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences decided to add a Best Disco Recording category for the 22nd Grammy Awards, just as disco was "preparing to die".

• Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2003, the Academy moved the category from the "Pop" field into a new "Dance" field, which currently contains the category Best Electronica/Dance Album as well." - Rather than "currently", maybe "which in 2010 contains the Best Electronicica/Dance Album category" would be better. Or maybe just delete "currently"?

• Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to search for it, but I remember another reviewer taking issue with this same sentence in a previous FL review for another Grammy-related list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for much for taking the time to offer a thorough review. I hope you enjoyed the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 August 2010, 16:10 UTC)

---

André Messager

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have taken it as far as I can without further input. Ssilvers has copy-edited and made lots of excellent suggestions, and now I should welcome further suggestions from other interested editors on content, proportion and balance (e.g. between Messager as composer and as conductor, and whether there is too much about the English aspects of his career). I should also welcome comment on whether to aim for GA or FA with the article in something like its present form.

Thank you, Tim riley (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment This could easily be a great article with the mandatory ce and some re-writting, good job! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "famous" pov
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "extraordinarily"
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "He was the only French composer to write an original Savoy Opera." he is or was the first
  • The existing wording is correct, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Covent Garden" remove or indicate the locations of other operas
  • We need the location (there are other "Royal Opera Houses" in Europe). The Parisian ones are already made clear. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "well-known" redundant
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Biography

• "It was not a musical household, but the young boy had his first musical exposure on a piano in the house." sounds copied from a bio, bit colloquial. "His family were not practitioners of music, but ..." or something.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• DONT pipe in french wiki links. I don't want to go to a french wikisite, redlink instead.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Four of Messager's musical mentors: Saint-Saëns; Fauré (top); Chabrier; Gigout (bottom)" remove top and bottom, use (from left to right)
  • "Left to right" doesn't work when there are two rows, as here, but I'll ponder whether another form of captioning might be clearer than the one in situ

I agree. It is clear as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Also in 1883, Messager married a distant cousin, Edith Clouette.[1] Fauré played the organ at the ceremony.[10]" remove also, and try to remove also in the rest of the text when it starts.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Now the date seems to be 1885. Is it 1883 or 1885? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1883 it is. Hence my original "Also in 1883" after the digression to 1885, but all is clear now, I think. Tim riley (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Covent Garden" which links to Royal Opera House, don't do that. It should be clear what is linked. No surprises please.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Messager kept pace with the change in fashion in musical theatre," ? what does that mean?
  • It means what it says. As the fashion changed from operetta to musical comedy, Messager kept pace with it – most commendable in one of his advanced years. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "consciously adopting the styles of musical comedy, lightening his orchestration, *"but maintaining a Gallic flavour, mostly avoiding American dance-rhythm influences" is this from his presentation at the Opera site? That does not meet Wikipedia:RS being blatant advertisement. It also reads as advertisement.
  • Grove and all sources agree on this. En passant I wholly disagree about the Operette site, which is run by a valuable national institution: the Académie Nationale de l'Opérette was founded in 1971 by the musical director of the state-run Théâtre du Châtelet.

I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recordings

• Were any of his recordings published back then? If so they are public domain, and some of his work in a wave-file or ogg would be great!
  • I quite agree, but this is not within my area of expertise. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly obliged for these stimulating comments. I'll go through them carefully and amend as needed. Many thanks. – Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few initial observations, with more to come soon:-

• Can something be done about beginning the article with a one-sentence paragraph? Maybe move the second sentence of the second paragraph so that the opening reads:-

André Charles Prosper Messager (30 December 1853 – 24 February 1929), was a French composer, organist, pianist, conductor and administrator. His stage compositions included ballets and 30 opéra comiques and operettas, among which Véronique had lasting success, with Les p'tites Michu and Monsieur Beaucaire also becoming international sensations.

You would then need to tweak the second paragraph a bit, but I think you would have a much stronger beginning.

This was a super idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some of your image captions, particularly those relating to scenes from Messager's stage works, could be more detailed and informative.

I added more detail to the captions for some of the places, but I don't think we need too much more detail for the scenes of the stage works, since they are described in the accompanying text. I'd suggest keeping them as concise as possible. I'll let Tim "ponder" and also deal with the reference issues below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The "Notes" and "References" sections need attention. For example:-
  • The "Notes" cover too many different things: citations, some uncited footnotes, record reference numbers and some (to me) incomprehensible information - for example, ref 79. What is "8.553638" referring to?
    • I am aware that there is a move (e.g. among the Opera Project folk) to separate pure citation footnotes from footnotes that give incidental discursive information. You have done so in Mahler articles. I have much sympathy with the practice, but (furtive look over shoulder) there are those of the contrary opinion. I'll see what I can do to make the rough places plain. "8.553638" for example is the CD company's catalogue number, which I have put in as analogous to an ISBN. I'll make this clearer. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have no objection IF it's usual, eh Lord Chamberlain? Seriously, though, can you assure me that the newer FA biography articles are mostly doing it this way? It strikes me as busy and not really helpful. I would like to follow fashion on citation format, not lead it. Let's do whatever is now customary and required in BIO Feature Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk)
  • Some citations, e.g. "Buckle", "Massin", appear to be to whole books.
    • Indeed. They are not my contributions, but seemed to me too good to delete. I have ordered these two books at the British Library and will check the page refs before proceeding forrarder. Tim riley (talk)
  • References in foreign languages are not indicated.
    • Very good point. Shall follow up. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Small fact: By chance, Messager features in today's (Friday 27th) Composer of the Week on BBC Radio 3. Excerpts from Veronique at noon; stand by your beds. Brianboulton (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And very nice too! There is room for petits maîtres in between the Symphonists of a Thousand. Greatly obliged for your input on this one. Gabriel Fauré will be surfacing in due course, too, so stand by to repel boarders. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fauré was beastly about Tosca so he can expect no mercy from me. I await his appearance with eagerness. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 19 August 2010, 11:33 UTC)

---

The Game (film)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into this article I would like any comments or suggestions that would help it get promoted to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on right) shows the Scrooge link as a disambiguation; please fix it.
• Checklinks shows http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948705/review/5948706/the_game as a dead link; please fix as well.

Plot

• "he remains haunted by seeing his father commit suicide on his 48th birthday by jumping off the roof of the family's home"

  Not really sure what to make of this sentence. How about "he is haunted by the imagery of his father's suicide, which he witnessed."

• "Nicholas finds the game is real, which starts to put his business, reputation, finances, and safety at risk."

  How?

• "... and also comes under risk."

  Like?

• "... and fire upon them."

  With what? I know what "fire upon" means but I suspect it is a slang term (for firearm-related action) that is unlikely encyclopaedic. Also note the sudden incongruity of having game company employees shoot people; is there a better way to segue this information into the plot?

• "... until he learns the truth."

  What truth? Is it really the truth? Or do you mean "until she tells him the truth behind the game."

• "Christine realizes that Nicholas' gun is not a prop, as CRS was unaware of its presence."

  Does this sentence matter in the scheme of the whole summary?

Production

• "The Game began as a spec screenplay, ..."

  What is a spec screenplay

• "... who put the project in turnaround, ..."

  What does that mean?

• "Fincher intended to make The Game before Seven but when Brad Pitt became available that project took priority."

  I believe this can be ambiguous: "that project" refers to which? Can this sentence be rephrased as well? How was Pitt's availability a factor in prioritising Seven?

• "However, the actress had a scheduling conflict with the Robert Zemeckis film Contact and could not appear in The Game."

  The first part of the sentence suggest she would not join Contact, I think this should be rephrased, like "However, the actress was about to act in Robert Zemeckis' Contact and could not fit The Game into her schedule."

• "Deborah Kara Unger's auditioned for the role of Christine with test reel consisting of a two-minute sex scene from David Cronenberg's Crash."

  Something is wrong with this sentence (possessives and noun-gerund constructs).

• "... once Nicholas' left his protective world, ..."

  Again the possessives...

• "... known as ENR ..."

  Any way to get the full terminology than just presenting it as an acronym? Is there a Wikipedia article on this? Is there some reliable source that explains what this is?

• "The scene where Nicholas' taxi drives into the San Francisco Bay was shot near the Embarcadero with the close-up of Douglas trapped in the back seat filmed on a soundstage at Sony Pictures studio in a large tank of water."

  I think this is a run-on sentence, which can be effectively split into two.

Reception

• Effectively, it comprises a paragraph and two separate sentences... and the paragraph is mainly quotes. I would prefer a more thematic reception where key points of the reviewers are grouped.

Images

• File:TheGame poster323.jpg

  Was this image self-taken or from a website? Refer to Wikipedia:CITE#IMAGE for image source requirements. Furthermore, "This is a promotional poster for the movie this article describes" is a bit bare for a fair use rationale (the standard boilerplate 10-pointer is not much better). Consider beefing it up.

I am not certain but I get left with a feeling that there might be more to this film than what we have. Perhaps there is simply not enough information covered by reliable sources, but I think currently the article give a slightly more than bare bones feel. This might be unresolvable (and thus moot) if there are no more reliable sources that cover this film. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work! There isn't much more reliable sources that I could find. Hopefully, the long-rumored special edition DVD that the Criterion Collection might do will have substantial extras that will shed more light on this film.--J.D. (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 August 2010, 14:34 UTC)

---

Wannabe (song)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it have the potential to be a FA since all the major aspects are covered and the references are reliable. My biggest concern is the prose and grammar, since one of the requirements is that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". English is not my first language so is a little difficult for me to see the mistakes. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks,

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have worked through the first few sections, doing some copyedits as I go. I can't promise that I will be able to go through the whole article in the same detail, but here are some suggestions picked up in the first few sections. Some of these may be relevant to the later sections, also (specifically, the inclusion of too much trivial detail).

• General point: It is a cause of some confusion that you refer to the the Spice Girls individually as "Brown", "Chisholm" etc, when they were scarcely known by these names when they were an active group. It's hard to think of them as such, unless the article includes an introductory paragraph in which the five singers are properly introduced.

Thanks for reviewing the article, your comments were very helpfull. I did almost eveything you suggested but I have a few questions. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added information about how the group got together in the background section: In March 1994, father-and-son team Bob and Chris Herbert together with financer Chic Murphy, traded under the business name of Heart Management, placed an advert in The Stage, which asked the question: "Are you street smart, extrovert, ambitious, and able to sing and dance?". After receiving hundreds of replies, the management reduced their search down to a group of five girls: Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Halliwell and Michelle Stephenson. The group moved to a house in Maidenhead and received the name "Touch". Stephenson was eventually fired because she lacked the drive that the rest of the group had, and was replaced by Emma Bunton.

I also added some information of the group after they left their mangement on the recording section: Because of the group's frustration at their management's unwillingness to listen to their visions and ideas, they parted from Heart Management in March 1995, and eventually met with artist manager Simon Fuller, who decided to sign them with 19 Entertainment. The group toured record labels with Fuller and finally signed a deal with Virgin Records in July.

I don't know is this is too far behind from the group' history, or if you mean to called them by their nicknames that was how most of the people know them, Sporty, Baby, Posh, etc.

• Lead
  • "Written by the group members, Matt Rowe and Richard Stannard..." What?? They were members of the Spice Girls? Corrected
  • We don't say "press'" as a possessive form. In this case we just say "press interest". Corrected
  • The words "it was a commercial success" in the fourth paragraph seem redundant, in view of the information already provided about its reception Removed
  • "...becoming their only number-one single in that country". You need to define "their", i.e. "the group's" Corrected
  • "It became the best-selling single by a female group in the history of recorded sound..." Too over-the-top for an encyclopedia article, and in any event needs an "up to" qualifier, since it won't necessarily hold that distinction for ever. Reworded
• Background
  • What is a "showcase"? Wikilinked to Variety show
  • "...that he had found the pop group of their dreams". This wording needs to be in quotes; it is not an objective comment. Added quotes
• Writing and inspiration
  • The word "soulful", which you have pipelinked to "soul music", meanss "expressing profound thoughts or feelings". I'm not sure that htis applies to soul music ehich, unless I'm mistaken, is a combination of jazz, gospel and blues. So I'm not sure about the value of the link. Removed wikilink
  • "...the group wanted to write something a bit more uptempo." Try to use a slightly more formal style; "a bit more" is too casual. Likewise "a quite fast rhythm" Reworded
  • "the spirit of John Travolta"? Suggest reword, removing the ambiguity that suggests Travolta was dead. Changed to scenes
  • "making a rap during the bridge": for the benefit of the uninitiated, what does this mean? What is the "bridge"? Reworded
  • "adapted the word ... into" → "incorporated the word ... into" Replaced
  • last paragraph: too gossipy, overdetailed. Moved part of the info to the recording section, removed the rest
• Recording and production
  • "While most of the other songs on the album..." A reminder of the album's name would be useful. Added name
  • More unnecessary chitchat ("a sleeping bag on the vocal booth floor", etc) Removed info
• Composition
  • What is meant by "undislodgeable" piano notes? There is no such word, by the way.

Ohh, I really don't know what to do here, probably the author made up a word from the verb dislodge. The source have: Wannabe opens with immediately undislodgable piano notes, which act as stepping stones to the chorus. Don't know how to reword this, or perhaps it should be removed

• • • If the source says it, put it in quotes, add [Sic], and put a citation at the end of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the quotes and the sic, thanks for the suggestion. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• "ambiguously sexualised or broadly economic." What does this mean?

Ok the group have never actually said what the word means. They always said in interviews that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In many books from musicologists and scholar analyisis have pretty much concluded that "zigazig-ha" means sex or female desire. Most of them also said that this desire is ambiguous: desire for sex or for power. In one book they mention that it is an euphenism for penis or phallus, or maybe not the desire for the phallus itself but for the phallic power. Do you have a suggestion for this?

Please work on these, and I'll get beck to it when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 August 2010, 20:12 UTC)

---

Michael J. Fox

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

I was looking to get some general feedback on the article. I believe with some tidying up it can achieve GA status. A big problem is with the refs, but I was wondering if the structure, prose, awards lists and external links were acceptable. Thanks for any help

Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ericleb01:

Hello, this is my first Peer Review, so I'll be giving general comments about prose, organization, and other things, but I'm not going to shoot you down with suggestions; I'll leave that to someone else.

Lead:

• "With a film and television career spanning from the 1970s to the present...'" - I think this (bolded) is redundant, seeing that you did mention later that he has not fully retired yet. done
• De-link Author and Comedian per Wikipedia:OVERLINK; common words do not need linking. done
• Wiki-link the first use of Advocate (in the first sentence) instead of the second (in the second paragraph)—if at all, because it is a common English word. done
• "In recent years, he has guest-starred on various television shows..." - This should be replaced ("Following his semi-retirement", or some sort of date) to help specify what time period in his career you are referring to. attempted to rework third para
• "Sweden's Karolinska Institutet gave him a honoris causa doctorate." - Why? I assume for his foundation, but try to specify. expanded
• The first paragraph isn't well sourced, yet gives a lot of awards and nominations. You can just re-use sources from the article to do so.
• The lead overall seems to be of good length, but see if you can try to include other information from the article to beef it up a little bit.

Early life:

• As far as I know, "Michael Andrew Fox" should not be bolded. In addition, consider rephrasing "Fox was born Michael Andrew Fox" to just "Michael Andrew Fox". done
• Final sentence of first paragraph is unsourced. source added
• "Fox co-starred in the Canadian television series Leo and Me (at age fifteen)...", etc. - I was bold and edited the age parts. done, good work
• "He was "discovered" by producer Ronald Shedlo..." - "discovered" shouldn't need quotation marks; I think it's pretty straightforward.
• The bits about Fox trying to find a good middle initial feels a little like it's dragging on; consider cutting a tiny bit of the information. cut a small section

Acting career:

Family ties

• "After which he played 'Young Republican'..." "After which" -> "After this," or something of the like. done
• "the positive reaction by the audience to Fox's character Alex P. Keaton meant that during filming of the fourth episode he became the focus of the show." -> Try "the positive reaction to Fox's performance led to his character becoming the focus of the show following the fourth episode." The sentence after that should be clarified, as I don't understand it. done, re-arranged paragraph to try to include sentence better.
• "drew one third of Americas households..." -> "one-third of American households" done
• Added a few commas to the final paragraph of "Family Ties"; in spite of this, it should be reworked, as it does not have much coherence. Final sentence is unsourced.

Back to the Future

• "he did not want to lose Michael to film stardom." - Needs clarification, if possible, as I do not understand the meaning of "film stardom" and why it is dangerous for Goldberg. Might be just me as well re-worked

Mid-career

• "Michael was reunited with his one-time, on-screen girlfriend Tracy Pollan from 'Family Ties'." - remove "one-time"; quotation marks should be consistent throughout the article. done
• "with Fox playing a famous actor who goes undercover to learn from a real police officer James Woods." - Incoherent sentence. attempt to clarify
• "He saw what good things were going on in television and wanted to return." - The entire paragraph is unsourced, therefore making this sentence biased. removed section, unlikely to find source
• "His twin daughters had just been born and he was halfway across the world, so television meant a more regular schedule and it would allow much more time to spend with his family." - Added a ^{[citation needed]} tag. removed likewise

Spin city

• "Spin City aired to critical acclaim and high ratings." - Unsourced. removed , unlikely to find source
• "(see list of episodes)" should be removed from the prose. The entire sentence is unrelated to Fox. done
• "(it was revealed that his character died in 'Trick or Treat')" - "Trick or Treat" should be wiki-linked to the episode article, assuming there is one. had a look at episode list but did not seem to be there (Odd?) anyway reads better without
• "Also in 2006, E! True Hollywood Story profiled Fox..." - "Also in 2006" -> "In the same year" or something, to avoid repeating yourself. done
• "(airing past midnight in some time zones)" - Irrelevant information. removed
• "He recently released a book titled [book name]. The book was released in April 2010." - "Recently" and that last sentence is redundant. reworded, removed redundant sentence
• "He guest starred on The Colbert Report on May 4, 2010 to promote it." - Unsourced claim. removed
• Added a few commas. In addition, the entire paragraph is sourced with only three footnotes, so I'm assuming a lot of it is unverified information.

Personal life:

• "Fox's drinking, which had been a problem for many years, became even more marked'" - I'm not understanding the meaning of this. Clarify? attempted to re-word
• "...was created to help advance every promising research path to a Parkinson's disease research through embryonic stem cell studies.'" - Likewise. reworded
• Final two paragraphs are unsourced. Additionally, single-lined paragraphs should be avoided. grouped like paras, added CN tag

Illness and advocacy

• The explanation for Parkinson's should be short; in general, it is irrelevant to the fact that Fox has it (but a small background is nice to have, in contrast). In particular, remove the symptom categorisation. reduced section
• "so Fox, like many PD sufferers, extends the life of its effectiveness by using it as little as possible." - Source says that extensive usage decreases the medication's effect, but no mention on whether Fox complies to this fact. removed, too much detail anyway
• Third- and second-to-last sentences do not belong in this section. relocated one, deleted irrelevant one

Filmography:

• The fact that Fox had been diagnosed with PD during Doc Hollywood has already been pointed out. No need to do so again, especially not in his filmography. agree removed
• Under "Television", you could try to link to articles for the episodes Fox starred in, if available. Why is "Segment" and one occurrence of the word "episode" bolded?
• Year ranges require an en-dash in-between. done

Awards and nominations:

• Some awards and nominations are unsourced.

Books:

• Try finding the link to the Google Books page for the books, and replace the red wiki-links with them. done

See also:

• Is >Back to the Future trilogy necessary here, seeing that they are already linked to in the prose? 'removed

References:

• Refs 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, and 24 are dead.
• Refs 12, 13, 21, and 22 require information.
• Refs 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 23, 24, 25, and 26 require publisher info.
• Some refs are missing access dates.
• Dates are inconsistent, likewise for ref format (some use Cite template, some don't).

External links:

• Sixth link from the top seems to indicate a Wikipedia:COI, since it is an unofficial website displaying general info about Fox. removed
• All but the first, second, fourth, and fifth links should be removed. completely agree, removed

There you go. Hope you find this information useful, as I broke my original claim to limit my suggestions I'm watching this page, so feel free to query on my points. Please consider reviewing another article, since there currently is a backlog which needs help eliminating. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, exactly what this article needed was a fresh look. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'm sure if the references alone are fixed, it would have a good shot at GA. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through the awards and have sourced the ones i can. The others i have either tagged or removed. It looks like someone has just copied the info from imdb (which is deemed unreliable for such matters). I have sourced the main awards and was wondering if you thought it would be better to remove the unsourced minor ones, for example American comedy awards, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, TV Guide Awards, TV land awards and Viewers for Quality Television awards.Monkeymanman (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you cannot find a proper source? Surely the sites of the award ceremonies in question would have a list of awards given. I found one for TV Land quickly. (I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment with an FAC prep, so I didn't check which year you needed.) Simply Google the name of the ceremony and you just have a reliable list waiting for you :) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I did try that. Some awards history only go back so far and dont include Fox's awards or nominations. Some are only recent updates. They are only minor awards and like i said it has been copied straight from imdb. Its not desparate so it can be decided upon later if needs be. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also wondering about the sentence One of the few people to know that Fox had Parkinson's Disease before 1998 was Charles Croughwell, one of his best friends and Fox's stunt double on Doc Hollywood. In later years, Croughwell and Fox developed a system of hiding the symptoms, as explained on E! True Hollywood Story, which does not have a source per say. The episode is not available on their website and dont think that another source will be found for it. I think it can be removed without much problem. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you really can't find any, then go ahead and remove it. Same with the symptom hiding one (not very useful anyway). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 August 2010, 16:35 UTC)

---

Girlschool

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I greatly expanded it and I need:

• advice on eventual grammar and syntax errors,
• suggestions for further research and referencing,
• comments on the general tone and about the lenght of the article.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing... I will be happy to review this. Give me a few days and it will be done. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be waiting. Lewismaster (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Review

Review Status: Incomplete (Vacation Until the 5th Of September review will continue then.)

Review is based on Good Article Criteria

• Grammar
  • Expand contractions such as to make "Don't" into " do not".
    • I checked them and the only contractions left are in citation or song titles. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove the "#" sign and make it either "No." or spell out number.
    • Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Syntax
• MoS Formatting
  • Change "Girlschool Lineups" which is a heading to something more generic or remove the sub-heading "Members".
    • Removed "Members". Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Research/Referencing
  • Possible Additional Referencing in the Following Areas
    • Lead
    • 1986 - 1990: ‘back to square one’
    • 1992 - 2002: living on tour
      • Very Large section without much referencing
        • I'll work on the references, thank you for the advice. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Tone
• Length
  • Length is fine, articles can be any length as long as they give accurate referenced information.

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right) shows two disambiguations; these should be fixed.
  • Fixed. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Right now, the article reads to me like a year book. With only one major section (Band history) and two list sections, it does not really come across to me as an encyclopaedic article.
  • I would prefer to see a structure more like Formation (how the band came together), Music (style/theme/appearance, their evolution or such), Reception (how they are perceived, their popularity, sales figures, merchandise, and such); i.e. break down the current history into thematic sections.
    • I based the structure on the Motörhead FA article, putting the bulk of information in chronological order. I agree that such a monolithic article is not easily accessible and needs work and new sections. I'll try to figure out how to do it. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not an extensive check on sources, but what makes MusicMight reliable? This is especially when their site say "Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!".
  • The MusicMight source is from a copyrighted article with only one contributor. I thought it could qualify as a reliable source. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• I only gave a cursory glance through, but some of the prose issues Joe has pointed out above are very distinct (contrctions).
  • Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Section titles such as "She-Devils or Strange Girls?" are more journalistic than encyclopaedic.
  • I liked it, but I changed anyway. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I would say that having all information of the band lumped into Band history is the biggest issue I have with this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful review. If you have more comments on the article, I'm eager to receive them. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I gave a quick scan based on an idea running in my head—for the Music or Formation section I mentioned above (or perhaps a Band members section), if there are sources and enough information, one can write about the influence each member had on the band. I note that it seems Kim McAuliffe has been there all the time, while Enid Williams and Denise Dufort were absent for a few years. Others just come and go. Formation (how the band came about), Music and image (the music they play and the band's projected image), Members (who are the core members, who had a big influence), Reception (how they are perceived, etc), or something like that (change according to your style and what is available from the sources). Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 August 2010, 09:27 UTC)

---

List of characters in South Park

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

I've listed this article because I was wondering what it needs to be ready for FAC. I was wondering especially about leaving the list as a table, or if it is really necessary to switch it into paragraphs as some people suggested at the previous FAC.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Sandman888
• First it's FLC, not FAC.
• I think tables works fine, but perhaps paragraphs wd give it a more prose-like feel.
• the role column doesn't seem to be referenced, neither is the first appearance. Suggest re-write using references and give me a nudge and I'll look over the prose.

Creation and inception

• "with an original idea" remove original
• "Merchandise" and the subsequent section doesn't belong in this list, but in the South Park main article.
  • • These two were requested during the previous FLC, with the reason that other character-list FLs have these two. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a preliminary review, but I suspect the prose to change when references are used. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 August 2010, 05:58 UTC)

---

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

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

Hi,

I haven't been a major contributor to this article in the past, but it's been several years since the last GA nomination and I think most of the problems have been addressed. I'd like to nominate it soon for GA and perhaps FA, but I'd first like to know if there are any major (or minor) problems that I can fix. Any and all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, —ems24 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-automated peer review here [1] Yousou (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: As you have not edited the page previously, I suggest that you contact the regular editors of this page, via the article talkpage, and discuss this nomination with them. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandman - implement at will.

Lead

• the signature just floats, put it in thumb if infobox is nono. (I think it wd be reasonable to make a small infobox, as length seems to be the main concern of Wikipedia:COMPOSERS.
• "He is among the most enduringly popular of classical composers." rewrite
• "keyboard" -> "keyboard instrument" to disassociate with electr. keyboard.
• "Already competent on keyboard and violin, he composed from the age of five and performed before European royalty; at 17 he was engaged as a court musician in Salzburg, but grew restless and traveled in search of a better position, always composing abundantly." too much happening in this sentence.
• "While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position." why?
• "He chose to stay in the capital, where he achieved fame but little financial security" , before but
• There's just too much "brilliant and awesome" in the lede. POV, please. Scale it down.
  • "Mozart learned voraciously from others, and developed a brilliance and maturity of style that encompassed the light and graceful along with the dark and passionate. His influence on subsequent Western art music is profound."

References

• threequarters to "Solomon, Maynard (1996) Mozart: A Life" is this the canonical work on Mozart?
• I'm unaware of length criteria, but at 5500 words, its a bit long.
• "Appearance and character" <- is this section really needed?

Main

• " Getreidegasse" delink
• "there were many variants." reword to make it clear what is being wikilinked
• "His father Leopold (1719–1787) was from Augsburg and deputy Kapellmeister to the court orchestra of the Archbishop of Salzburg, and a minor composer. He was also an experienced teacher. In the year of Mozart's birth, his father published a violin textbook, Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule, which achieved some success." choppy, re-write to improve flow. "His father was a deputy kapellmeister to the court orcestra of the archbishop of salzburg. An experienced teacher, he published a textbook in the year of mozarts birth." <- more to the point.
• "Biographer Maynard Solomon[5] notes that while Leopold was a devoted teacher to his children, there is evidence that Wolfgang was keen to make progress beyond what he was being taught. His first ink-spattered composition and his precocious efforts with the violin were on his own initiative, and came as a great surprise to Leopold. Father and son were so close that these childhood accomplishments brought tears to Leopold's eyes.[6]" smacks of guesswork from some overzealous biographer.
• "taught his children languages and academic subjects " which ?
• "Mozart's formative years," what are those?
• "Köchel catalogue" delete section
• That's a start, at least. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 11:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm away from WP for a week, but would like to work on these if no one else does in the meantime. Opus33 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 August 2010, 02:27 UTC)

---

Usher discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has the potential to be a featured list, but I want to know from you guys if it is good enough, has it got any errors, mistakes, please let me know in your reviews, as i'm not 100% sure.

Thanks, Rayman95 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After a very quick look one thing sticks out like a sore thumb: the references are simply bare URLs. They need to be formatted, showing the titles of pages, authors, publishing dates and accessdates et cetera. See the how-to guide on citation templates for more.

Thanks for the advice, I'll see that it gets fixed. Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nice job so far in improving the article, but it has a long way to go and is no way a potential featured list right now. Wikipedia:LEAD, it should only have four paragraphs. Featured singles positions unsourced, album appearances unsourced, music videos unsourced, soundtracks unsourced, promotional singles and other charted songs and unsourced, and the biggest problem, the references are all out of whack. Look at another featured discog such as Rihanna discography or something, and make sure you learn how to format refs well. Right now out of 73 refs, only the Allmusic and the cert sources are cited correctly. Good luck, happy editing! Candyo32 17:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, i'll add in more references and i'll try to improve its formatting Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me your opinion on the article now, and tell me whether it's feature worthy please. I think i've fixed(with some help from Adabow) the refernces and filled in the missing ones, Thanks. Rayman95 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment NZ certs from the last few years can be found at [2], others can be found on the RIANZ website by manipulating the url (see the New Zealand entry at Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS). Also, as File:Usherraymond (300dpi).jpg is used as the main image in the Usher (entertainer) article, maybe use a different one in the discography. Have a look at Category:Usher_Raymond. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the image, i'm not finished yet but what do you think of the references so far?

The dates are a bit funny. Format using either '2010-08-20', '20 August 2010' or 'August 20, 2010'. Italics should only be used for works in print, such as magazines and newspapers (this may require you to use the publisher field in {{cite web}}, rather than the work field). The certifications references still need adjusting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by certifications references still need adjusting, could you be more specific?Rayman95 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the NZ certifications with direct URLs (note "Moving Mountains" also went gold in NZ, which I added).

• Was "Confessions Part II" released as a double A-Side with "My Boo" in the UK? If so, specify this. If not, why are the chart peaks in a single cell?
• Why do "U Don't Have to Call" and "Confessions Part II" have superscript numbers next to them?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure they were released as dual singles, where would I specify this though, should I label them and put it in the note section under singles?

• Yeah, add a note somehow, maybe using {{ref}} or similar. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why they have super script numbers next to them, but I took them off.

Rayman95 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you see any other problems with the article? Rayman95 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, but this article is still no way ready to go up for FL candidate. In the lead several things are not sourced such as Usher being the first artist to have a #1 single in three decades. Make sure tidbits of info in the lead are all sourced. The Notes part in the singles section is redundant because the "-" notes if it wasn't released in a certain territory. Album appearances, and soundtracks are unsourced. According to Wikipedia:BADCHARTS, Acharts should not be used if there is another available source for chartings. Also in the references several sources are italicized that should not be. Allmusic, Allmovie, swedishcharts.com, charts.org are just examples of sources that are not publications and should not be italicized in the refs. This discog still needs quite a bit more work, good luck! Candyo32 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 August 2010, 21:58 UTC)

---

Illinois (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... the article was promoted to GA status several months ago with some suggestions for improvement. I have since made those changes and submitted it to Wikipedia:FAR, where it received feedback on the prose. While I was in the process of copyediting it, the nomination was closed. I would like someone else to take a look at the copy and see where it could use improvement so I can submit it again with some more professional language in the article. I would be happy to do the work of rewriting or collaborating with someone else to rewrite. Furthermore, I have some suggestions of my own on how to improve the article, but they are more straightforward and shouldn't be an impediment to FA or at least FA candidate status.

Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I don't have time to review this in as much detail as I would have liked, but here are a few pointers which I hope you find helpful:-

• The article is way too listy at the moment. The Personnel section should be shortened (too much small detail - WP asks for summary style) and written in prose rather than bullet-point form. It should be located earlier in the article; I would suggest immediately before the Reception section. The three tables (Sales performance, ratings and track listing) should be at the end of the article, preferably in the same or similar format.
  • Not done This is consistent with Wikipedia:ALBUM and other featured album articles (with the exception of 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Soundfiles and images
  • Soundfiles: The 3 sound clips are all of non-free material which might be thought excessive bearing in mind WP's commitment to free material. I will leave the fair use police to decide on this.
    • Done Removed 1 sound file that seemed to have the least value in the article. Jujutacular ^talk 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Images: It may not be justifiable to have two non-free album covers under fair use rationales. Why not use the image of the four album covers as the lead image and drop the other? Bearing in mind the etent to which the article is presently cluttered with images and soundfiles, I think the Bellow image is of marginal relevance and could be dropped.
    • Partially done Per Wikipedia:ALBUM, we should show the album's cover in the infobox and any alternate depictions can be placed in the rest of the article or at the end of the infobox using {{Extra album cover}}. You are right about the article being cramped with media, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Prose: Even with a fairly quick skim-through I found a number of instances of dodgy prose. Examples:-
  • "In preparation for creating the album..." ("Before the creation of the album...")
  • Present punctuation makes this impossible to fathom: "..with most of the material recorded in the Astoria, Queens studio The Buddy Project studio and Stevens' Brooklyn apartment" Suggest: "with most of the material recorded at The Buddy Project studio in Queens, and in Stevens' Brooklyn apartment"
  • "Like his previous albums, Stevens recorded in various locations," Begin "As with..."
  • Amongst → among
  • "...including the "Multiple Personality Disorder Version" was produced during a subsequent tour." (missing "which" before "was"?)
  • Accessibility: The paragraph beginning "Stevens employed low fidelity recording equipment..." is written in technical prose which the general reader cannot reasonably be expected to understand.
  • "swapped out" - informal/slang
    • Done I have amended all of these as you suggested and made the technical section more straightforward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• A few general points
  • The Background section should say something about the "grand concept" of an album for each of the fifty states, mentioned in the lead but not in the main article.
  • "Most notable is Stevens' use of large orchestral arrangements..." Whose view is this?
  • "Illinois" should not be used as a subsection title, since it is the title of the article.
    • Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 8 August 2010, 19:10 UTC)

---

Evanna Lynch

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… it was recently listed as a good article and I would like to know what needs fixing before it is ready for Wikipedia:FAC. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1

Lead

• Is the fact of her being a fan relevant to the lead?
  • No. Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "she was a source of friendly intimidation on the Harry Potter set." Aside from the clumsy "friendly intimidation", this does not seem important enough for the lead.
  • Agreed. Removed. Also, removed the rest of the second paragraph of the lead, because the article isn't substantial enough to warrant it. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• "Her father works as a history teacher and deputy prinipal at Our Lady's College,[3][4] a Catholic school for girls in Drogheda, County Louth—which Evanna attended.[1]" Possibly rephrase to make Lynch the main focus: e.g. "She attended Our Lady's Catholic College in Drogheda, County Louth, where her father was (works?) deputy principal." (Not sure the fact he taught history is too important).
  • I have made Lynch the focus. And, removed the fact he taught history. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Lynch became a prominent fan..." Prominent implies that she was known or stood out in some way as a fan at the time. Maybe just call her a fan.
  • She did stand out. See the reference -- a 2003 Drogheda Independent article (before she was cast) -- Evanna let out of hospital to get Potter book. Should I keep "prominent fan" or change it to "fan"? Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't actually see the article as it is subscription. However, if she received a limited number signed edition, that may be worth mentioning. If you have access to the article, it may give a little more context, which may be useful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article; I don't have a credit card. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• "She read the books several times" Too much? Maybe re-write the two sentences: "As a child, Lynch read the Harry Potter series and became a fan, sending letters to the author, J.K. Rowling." Harry Potter books series is clunky; the fact that she read them suggests they are books.
  • I agree. Changed to your suggestion. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "was released from hospital for the release of the fifth book" This is strange. What is the relevance of being in hospital, and it reads like she was in for a long time and was specially released for the book.
  • I don't know how long she was in hospital, what it was for, or if she was specially released for the book. I agree its strange. I honestly don't know what do with it -- I've removed it for now. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See above, sounds important enough to include if you have all the info. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article; I don't have a credit card. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Also in her childhood, she had performed in school plays, but she had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series" Maybe: She had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series, her experience limited to school plays."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Career

• "In 2005, casting began for the role of Luna Lovegood in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,[10] the film adaptation of British author J. K. Rowling's bestselling novel and the fifth instalment in the Harry Potter film series.[11] The following year, casting agents found Lynch through a London casting call..." A little wordy. Perhaps "In 2006, agents discovered Lynch at an open casting call in London for the role of Luna Lovegood in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth film in the series adapted from the books."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Are there any more details about the casting process?
  • Yes and I can source probably all of it. At the casting call, she waited in the line for four hours and there were an estimated 15 to 20000 auditionees. She went into a room with a portion of the auditionees and they were all asked to say their name and "where we came from". Two unnamed women then chose which people who were to continue on the casting process. And she continued through the process; she then got a call from "someone" that told asked her not to shave her eyebrows and told her that David Yates would call her the following Monday. She then did a screen test with Daniel Radcliffe (which assumingly went well). David Heyman later said she was 'not acting as Luna, but being Luna' (or atleast to a similiar effect.) // Then, she flew went back to Termonfeckin and got a call while shopping on her mobile phone from Fiona Weir who told her that she got the role. She had to keep it a "secret" for a week or so (before it was officially announced to the public by Warner Bros.) After the official announcement, she was escorted around Our Lady's College by bodyguards. That's about all I know, off my head. :) But, I've never seen an FA, or any biography of an actor, go into that much detail on their casting for a role, so I am unsure what to do about it. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. What about including details of the process (i.e. what she had to do) and any comments that people made on her performance. I think it is worth including (even for FA) as it is a very important part in her life so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, is everything I've read, from reliable sources over three months, about Lynch's casting for the role. Are you sure the article should mention that Lynch "had say her name and where she came from", and quote David Heyman -- "We had three girls that we're going to act Luna, but they weren't going to be Luna" rather than keep 'Producers were impressed with her affinity for the character'? Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, keep the producers bit, but for instance, you could add the number who auditioned, how long she had to wait, who she did the screen test with, maybe the comment from Heyman, that she had to keep it secret before the announcement. Hmm, maybe not the last one, but I think a few more details would show what she had to go through to get the role and in my view, add to the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have (finally) added the number who auditioned, how long she had to wait, who she did the screen test with and the comment from Heyman to the first paragraph in the Career section. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...and producers were impressed by her affinity with the character.[12] After a subsequent screen test, casting director Fiona Weir told Lynch that she had been cast for the role.[8] Rowling supported Lynch from the film's production, calling her "perfect" for the role.[13]" Wordy again. Perhaps "Producers were impressed with her affinity for the character, and she was cast following a screen test. Rowling believed that Lynch was perfect for the role."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Possibly clarify Rowling's role here as it reads like she was part of the casting process.
  • Added "Although uninvolved in the casting process, " to "Rowling believed that Lynch was perfect for the role" for clarification. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Lynch was appreciative of the role Luna played, calling her character "funny and really honest" and "a breath of fresh air".[14]" Possibly cut this to "Lynch enjoyed playing the role."
  • Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "($984.7 million in current year dollars)" I don't think it is necessary to add this as it wasn't that long ago.
  • Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Both the film[22] and her performance..." The information on the film is not necessary for this article.
  • Changed "Both the film[22] and her performance were well received:" to "Her performance was well received:". Alex Douglas (talk)
• "She was nominated for two awards..." Which awards and by whom? It names them in the filmography but really should say so here.
  • Changed to "She was nominated for the Scream Award for Best Supporting Actress and Young Artist Award for Supporting Young Actress for her performance in Half-Blood Prince" Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any info on who nominated her? i.e. the public, writers, critics, etc? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, only that she was nominated. Judging by the nomination process of the Young Artist Awards (1 and 2), I think Evanna or her parents might have nominated her. I'm not sure about the Scream Awards, perhaps Spike (TV channel) executives, perhaps not. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

• "Lynch attended Cartown National School, a public primary school in Termonfeckin, County Louth, until June 2004 and then moved to Our Lady's College, a Catholic school for girls, in Drogheda, County Louth.[31][1]" Move this to the Early life section, and make sure the refs are in numerical order.
  • Moved to the Early life section. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• What was she tutored in on set?
  • The reference does not state it and I've never seen any reference that has; presumably studying for GCSE or A levels though (as Emma Watson and Rupert Grint did.) Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "friendly intimidation" Can this be rephrased? Or removed?
  • Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "This knowledge also led to her being consulted by producers on the films' artistic aspects.[4]" This sounds slightly implausible. Which film? And would producers on such a big film consult a supporting character aged below 18? The ref doesn't really support it either: she had designed the ear-rings and the producers asked her about the house, but I'm still not convinced.
  • For Deathly Hallows apparently. It's sketchy. Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "helped design" Ref 4 does not really support this; does the DVD?
  • Pretty confident, the DVD says that she worked on designing the look of the CGI lion head hat that she wore in Half-Blood Prince. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Images seem fine but I'm no expert.
  • Cool. Also, I've removed the image from "personal life" because the content is not lengthy enough to support it. Alex Douglas (talk)
• Refs ok, but DVD/mp3 ones could do with a time reference.
  • Sounds like a good idea. But how? I've never seen anything like that done before. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure I have either, I'm confusing myself! Forget that one. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrite, sure. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 22 is a redirect.
  • Ref 22 removed as the fact that the film was well received is unimportant to this article. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• The article seems very brief, mainly as she is so young and her acting experience is so limited. It could do with more details of her life if possible.
  • It is brief, but it has everything (apart from casting and unencylopediac suff--like her pet names or bedroom wall color) that reliable sources have ever mentioned--I've been looking for sources for three months. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• A bit more on her acting would be good: has anyone done a more thorough review of her role?
  • Not that I'm aware of. Most reviews just mention her in passing (or note that she is a fan or cast from an open casting call), and so I've used notable film critics' reviews. It's not a "massive" or "minor" role by any means--her scenes are just 'engaging' because her character is eccentric, which is probably half the reason reviews even mention her at all. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the last two points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a bit more to do before FAC, but these are the main things I can see as a starting point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this article; I greatly appreciate it. It is the first article I have wrote properly, and I did it almost single-handedly; so I needed it. :) Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. It feels as though the article is moving somewhere. :) Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have resolved all your comments. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to reviewers: could you take a look at new sentences I've added and changes I've made, and their new sources.

• Added: the third sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Career section: "She will again reprise her role in the first of the film's two tie-in video games: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I." Note: whether or not she will reprise her role in the second of the film's two tie-in video games, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (video game), hasn't yet been mentioned/sourced/commented/revealed/etc. Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Added: the second sentence of the second paragraph in the Personal life section: "She has also recorded an abridged Audiobook version of Claire Keegan's short story Foster." It was broadcast in three parts from 31 August to 2 September 2010 on "Afternoon Reading" on BBC Radio 4. How much detail should we go into? Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Added: the fourth sentence of the second paragraph in the Personal life section: "She launched the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland's MS Readathon in 2010, a fundraiser that also promotes literacy." I thought it was unnecessary to mention that the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland was a "non-profit organisation that helps people with Multiple sclerosis" do it is obviousness and the common precense of multiple sclerosis societies internationally. Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Changed: the third sentence of the lead: "From 2007 to 2009, she starred in two Harry Potter films and their tie-in video games; she will return for the final film and the first of the film's two tie-in video games." Is that clear? Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 August 2010, 17:03 UTC)

---

Nappytabs

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a major rewrite to it and it needs a good copy edit/grammar check. Please help. I would appreciate it.

// Gbern3 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement, with the assumption that you will eventually try for Wikipedia:GA or even Wikipedia:FA.

• Any review proicess like Wikipedia:GAN or Wikipedia:FAC will ook at the images. I am not sure that the article meets Wikipedia:NFCC for its use of multiple Wikipedia:FAIR USE images.
  • The Nappy tabs logo seems justifiable as a fiar use image to me, but I would discuss it in the text and not just the caption. Y Done
  • The magazine cover and image from the music video shoot both seem to me to fail NFCC #1, which reads in part "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.) While it is not replaceable, I do not see how a simple description in the text could not convey the same information. The reader already knows what they look like from the free infobox image, so the magazine cover seems solely for illustration. The video and artist and his Tshirt are not explicitly discussed in the text that I could see. I think that they would both not be seen as valid fair uses.
  • Could the infobox image be cropped so there is less background and more of them? Ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this. As it is, their faces are pretty small in the picture. Y Done
• The language is decent, but could use a copyedit - unfortunaltely I do not have time for one (PR is more a place to have problems pointed out, than it is to fix them). One thing I noticed is lots of sentences with verb plus ing. For example in the lead: After moving to Los Angeles in 1999, they began back-up dancing for musical artists, teaching at both dance studios and conventions, and choreographing for professional sports' dance teams. Many reviewers at FAC will strongly object to constructions like this. It could also read somethimg like After they moved to Los Angeles in 1999, they were back-up dancers for musical artists, taught at both dance studios and conventions, and were choreographers for professional sports' dance teams. I am not sure of the possessive apostrophe on professional sports either. Y Done
  • Removed apostrophe, working on the [verb]-ing.
• I know biographies often do not include the birth dates again after the lead, but since this is the biography of two people, I would include their birth dates. Y Done
• Are they really Filipno and Italian (which implies they are immigrants to me at least) or are they Filipino American and Italian American? Y Done
  • Since there are separate parameters in the infobox for nationality (American) and ethnicity (Filipino/Italian), I left it as is; however, I changed the ethnicity links to the Filipino American and Italian American articles.
• Although this is generally nicely cited, some places still needs refs. For example It is very rare for them to work apart or this He was later joined by his wife Tabitha and they are now permanent faculty members. In addition to Monsters of Hip Hop, they still teach classes at The Edge Performing Arts Center. (and do we really need to be told again that Tabitha is his wife?) My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Y Done
  • Done, except for It is very rare for them to work apart because the entire article proves this statement to be true. They work together on everything. All of the sources I've used (except for the two about Tabitha's fitness DVDs which she did sans Napoleon) mention both of them.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example current ref 17 is just "Guest Choreographers". http://www.xtremedanceforce.com/directors/guestchoreographers.asp. Retrieved 2010-07-28." and needs the publisher. See Wikipedia:CITE and Wikipedia:V Y Done
• I also am not sure that all of the sources used are reliable sources, but I am not an expert on dance so I do not know. This would be a potential issue at GAN or FAC especially.
• Under Critical reception, would it make sense to have a subheader "So You Think You Can Dance" and then have the seasons be subheads under that? Y Done
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FA biographies that may be useful models, but I do not know of any of a couple.
• The Wikipedia:MOS says that numbers under ten are usally spelled out (Season seven, not Season 7) Y Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, thank you so much for taking the time to review this. I will work on the verbs plus "-ing" in the article. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 2 August 2010, 15:11 UTC)

---

Language and literature

Central Atlas Tamazight

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the previous Featured Article Review didn't pan out and I would like to ensure that this article is up to standards before trying again. Please be very picky! I have been looking at this article for so long that I think I am blind to any current problems with it.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 September 2010, 01:59 UTC)

---

The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it for a possible FA run.

Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Background

• I believe a slight description of Potter's success with her first six books would make the article a better piece; otherwise, for readers less familiar with her circumstance would know of her simply as a successful writer, and not the creator of Peter Rabbit.

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Composition and publication

• As the two ideas are placed together in the last paragraph, I am not too sure how Potter's remark of her similarity with a 1940 illustration of Jemima relates to her restraint with Aris. The disconnect between the two is quite big in my view.

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Concepts separated into different paragraphs. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merchandising

• The same here for how would the addled eggs (what is addled?) relate to kittens replaced by ducklings.

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical response

• Some parts seem more like they should be in a Themes section (since they describe the themes rather than critical responses to these themes or such). In the end, the section seems more like a Critical analysis than response.

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Section renamed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Adaptations

• Anyway to integrate this section into others, or can the content here be substianted further? Right now, it looks more like a list of trivia: basically, this was printed, that was made and such.

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Section removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

• Not a fault of the article's primary editor, but File:Beatrix Potter1.jpg (the image in the navbox below) will certainly be a failing point if brought to FAC; no date, no source, no author, so what proves it is PD-old?

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a well-written article, but some ideas seem scattered and not grouped very well (organisation). I think the above questions could help point to further improvement. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above issues were addressed, but I have some more thoughts of the article's current state. There are some very short paragraphs in Composition and publication (I think as a result of resolving my above concerns). I think the section should be re-examined to see if these can be merged with others of a common theme, expanded, or eliminated. The effect of these short paragraphs gives a "list-y" feel, especially if a short paragraph is of a theme disconnected with its surrounding paragraphs. I think once this is resolved, the article will be in fine shape for FAC. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 August 2010, 01:10 UTC)

---

Lupin III

Previous peer review

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

Lupin III underwent a Good Article reassessment last year and was retained following several fixes. Now, with the article being well-sourced, expanded, and very stable, I would like to know the opinion of fellow wikipedians on what else needs to be done to further improve this article. If this review goes well, I believe it would be time to finally nominate Lupin III as a featured article.

Thanks, AutoGyro (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... criticized for language ..."

  In what sense?

• "For several years, issues relating to the copyright of Maurice Leblanc's intellectual property meant that the Lupin name was removed from releases outside of Japan. However the copyright has now expired, allowing foreign releases to use the Lupin name."

  This seems quite wrong. You cannot copyright a name. You can copyright the physical appearance/design or writings of the character, but not his name. What we have here is more of a trademark infringment and that is a separate matter from copyright. Furthermore, if we believe this to be a copyright issue, note that France's copyright law bestows a 70-year pma copyright. As Leblanc died in 1941, that means the copyright of his works is persisting until 2012 (1941 + 70 + 1).

  Frankly, what makes the source http://www.lupinencyclopedia.com/manga reliable? It is a fansite and the only source for its information is a forum post? The errors in the information sourced from this fansite makes it seem even more unreliable.

Plot

• Although I heard that Plot sections are assumed to be sourced to the subject itself, I think it might be help to cite the information (with the subject) to head off any concerns about unsourced information.

Production

• "However Monkey Punch did not ask permission to use the character's name, leading to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate."

  Again it is not the use of a name. It is the plagiarism of a character, his personality, history, and such (using an artistic creation without permission). Find a reliable source for information on why such tactics (renaming of characters) are used to avoid plagiarism charges.

• "Monkey Punch enjoys writing outlaw characters, and both Lupin III and Pinky Punky made use of outlaws as central characters."

  Tense consistency.

• "Monkey Punch enjoys puzzles and mysteries such as Columbo and Agatha Christie novels, and was also inspired by The Three Musketeers."

  Again.

• "The appeal of drawing Lupin comes from being able to go anywhere without obstacles and being able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. However, this is contrasted by the appeal of Zenigata's strict personality"

  Monkey Punch can "go anywhere ... to do whatever he wants ..."? I think these two sentences could be rewritten to clearly state why Monkey Punch wants to draw these characters.

• "... but due to its popularity, Monkey Punch continued to draw it. However, despite his happiness at its success, he has expressed confusion over its popularity."

  This clause and following sentence should be rewritten with greater clarity. Some more information can help it out. How popular was the series in those three months of release? Why should confusion over its popularity be disruptive to his happiness (are such emotions related)?

Manga

• "Tokyopop licensed the second series, and released the first 9 volumes between September 2004 and July 2007, Tokyopop later chose not to relicense the series due to low sales."

  Is there supposed to be a comma in front of the second Tokyopop? By "[choosing] not to relicense the series", does it mean they cancelled printing the series after the ninth volume or what? Is the "low sales" referring to the first series or second series?

Pilot film

• "... TMS Entertainment and Toho produced a Lupin III anime film adaptation featuring Lupin wearing a red jacket outfit."

  Please read User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing; this applies to all such constructions in the article.

• "... but the voice cast was different, with only Kiyoshi Kobayashi and Eiko Masuyama, voicing Daisuke Jigen and Fujiko Mine respectively, in both versions."

  The number of commas in this clause make this a very difficult read. It is strange too; the voice cast is different in both versions with only two voice actors or what?

• "By the time the pilot was completed in 1969, because of budget concerns and other problems between Toho and TMS, the film was never released in theaters."

  Rearrange the clauses; right now, it is quite disconcerting in this order.

Television series

• Rather than writing a chronological credit list of famed animators/artists involved with this series, what impact/substantial contribution did they have on the series?

Films

• "Because the pilot anime film was never released in theaters, the first Lupin III theatrical feature was a live-action movie produced in 1974 during the hiatus between the first and second television series."

  This phrasing is wrong. It suggests that because the pilot was never released, they produced a live-action movie.

Television specials

• I seriously think not many of us would like to read "<Insert your series title> was broadcast on XX YYY ZZZZ" a hundred times in a row. What significance are of these titles? How did they affect the direction of the franchise? Were they popular with the fans? Did they cause any controversies?

Video games

• Practically the same problem as above: this is a listing of video game adaptations. There is no context for why each title was significant. Listing them in prose without commentary of their impact or importance to the franchise makes a dull read.

Soundtracks

• Better in terms of prose, but still the same problem as the two subsections above. So what if there were soundtracks?

Reception

• Again check the facts (and get reliable sources) for the duration of LeBlanc's copyright and the Western publishers' attempts to avoid plagiarism charges.
• "The Lupin III franchise still remains popular in Japan;"

  Possible imprecise language: best to find a way to cast this in an encylopaedic light; furthermore, it is the manga that is rated as Top 50, not the franchise.

• As for the rest, I think it is quite messy at the moment. It appears that reviewer quotes are collected and used here without much organisation. Look for common points among the critical content; understand what made this franchise special and use those comments by the reviewers to back up a summarised view of those features.

Sources

• Lupin Encyclopedia is quite heavily used here, but as stated in the concerns over how the plagiarism issue is addressed, its reliability is of big concern. What makes this source reliable? Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches. The contents of these two dispatches are often used to evaluate the reliability of sources at FAC.

Images

• File:Lupin Manga 1.jpg

  The FUR is really skimpy here and would be better beefed up; key questions that should be answered by the FUR are why should this particular image (and not posters or other manga covers) be used to identify the series, how does seeing this cover identify the series for the reader, etc.

I am not enamoured with several single-sentence paragraphs (or the appearance of very short paragraphs against big chunky paragraphs); the content should be reorganised. Also most of the subsections in Media turn out to be simple production listings; these should have been describing the impact such products had on the franchise, be it changes to the direction of the franchise or notable events. One of the biggest obstacle to FA would be the reliance on Lupin Encyclopedia, a site of unknown quality. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 25 August 2010, 17:04 UTC)

---

Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie

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

I started this without any planning; saw a redlink and wanted to fix it.

Even though the article is a bit sparse, I think I have extracted just about as much information as I can from a Google Books search. Any comments on what should be improved are greatly appreciated.

I know this is a rather general request, but be picky :)

Thanks, —fetch·comms 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• "'Fore" or "'fore"?

  Composition titles do not make mention of shortened forms and the book puts it as the lowercase form.

Overall, I think not much can be faulted of this as a short article. However, it does seem a bit short and cursory of information. Do any of the reliable sources delve further into the poems? What I suggest is putting extracts of her poem (the part that surrounds a portion critically analysed by a source) into quote boxes, then placing it next to a paragraph that "chronicles" the analysis. This does two things: giving the readers a first hand experience of the work (albeit in extracts), thus perking their interest, and expanding the comprehensiveness of the article. Jappalang (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The title is listed with both capital F and lowercase f in the sources. The NYT uses F, People uses f, some of the books use f and others use F; one even seems to use both in separate sections. However, the cover uses lowercase. I've moved it to the lowercase f.
• No, I don't have access to any sources that go more in-depth, although a Google Books search brought up one or two promising possibilities, with no preview. I also checked the NYT archives and JSTOR; none had more than what has already been mentioned in the article. I can put excerpts up, but there's just not enough of the criticism to make that worthwhile. —fetch·comms 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, substantial critical content is needed to support fair use of the extracts. Pity. However, if you do come into such sources, that would be great. Best of luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 August 2010, 00:11 UTC)

---

Family Guy (season 1)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…I belive it is close to getting to an FLC stander and i wish to get it to it so i have added to the PR jope you can help me

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments; Much work has obviously gone into this. Unfortunately, it is clear that English is not the main editor's first language, and the prose needs a great deal of attention if it is to have any hope of achieving featured status. It needs a competent English prose writer to work with the main editor through the whole article to bring it to the required standard. You also need to check whether this qualifies as a "list" in WP terms. It has more prose that is usual for lists, and the list itself has only eight items.

I have made a partial list of prose problems, though this should not be taken in any way as complete; I have only read in detail down to episode 3, and even then didn't list everything. My list does however indicate the scale of the problem that needs to be addressed.

• "employment from the company" → "employment with the company"
• What is a "short"?

Done

• While working on the series, the characters of Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian" This reads as if the characters were working on the series

Done

• "Several premises were also carried over from several 1980s Saturday morning cartoons..." Repeated "several", also repeated "namely" hereabouts.

Done

• "If a majority of the writers agree on an episode idea, it is then approved..." Why present tense?
• "Season one also saw the introduction of several new recurring characters..." - "new" is unnecessary.

Done

• "...#1 in "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans" Do not use the hash sign in prose.

Done

• "...the 1998–99 United States television season" - The United States has a television season? I thought it went on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
• You don't "receive" a total of viewers; you might "achieve" it.

Done

• List of episodes: Since the numbers in the first two columns are the same, and the heading "Total" is inappropriate, why not have a single column headed "Episode number"?
  • I would oppose this reccomendation, simply because it breaks from the seven other seasons who use the two columns. They are all hubbed on the List of Family Guy episodes article, and it would be somewhat awkward to have seasons 2 through 8 use your reccomended format. So although this task was performed, I've reverted it, and think the two column should remain. Gage (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter claims to compile with her statement," - "comply with her request"?

Done

• "and obtains a hangover" Not idiomatic; perhaps "acquires a hangover"

Done

• "newfound" → "new-found"

Done

• "Although distraught, Peter he resolves..." Delete "he"

Done

• "...and ensures Meg a new convertible once she gets her license in exchange for taking the blame for the power outrage". I can't ally work this out, but "outrage" should be "outage"

Done

• "in order to" used again and again

Done

• "Meg and Lois search for Peter and Shatner, killing the former and hospitalizing the latter in the process. As Peter recovers..." "Killing the former" means Peter, so how can he recover?

Done

• "as Cheesie Charlie's" → "at Cheesie Charlie's"

Done

• "he decides to return out of courage to face the "Man in White" alone." I've no idea what this means

Done

• "Peter invites their wife’s..." → "...wives"

Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• "at his on expense" → "at his own expense"

I'm sorry to bring up so many problems, but FLC and FAC are hard places, which in each case require prose to be of a professional standard of English. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not finished every one but please strike each one till now so i can explain, see what is left and you can add more. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment. You'd probably be better off putting the overall viewers in the episode table, in the last column. A separate table for it, especially when you only have 2 figures, really isn't worth it. That, not put them in any table since you already list them in the reception section and it's already redundant to relist them in a separate table. Since you don't have figures for every episode, it'll be a bigger problem in an FL review if you're missing more than half of the figures. It's better to probably keep them in the reception and just do away with the table itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, it looks good. I removed the image of the actor who voices Cleveland. You have an image of MacFarlane just above it, and it tends to crowd the text to have two images so close like that with not a lot of prose in between. I took out the listing of the writers and directors because it's almost insulting to the average reader to list them in that section knowing that they are listed again in the episode table. If there was context for them, then naming specific ones would be fine, but just listing them all is unnecessary. The reception section could benefit from more paraphrasing and less direct quoting. That's about it. There was apparently some dissention over my changes to the lead paragraphs, as another editor just blindly reverted them without explanation and even put back in grammatical and HTML issues. If there are questions about my changes, I'd be happy to defend them and make concessions where necessary, but the revert seemed to me like I had messed with "someone's work" and they didn't appreciate it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you big, i will fix the reception, do you think after these changes do you think it may have FL stranded --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done a lot of FLs, but it looks like most of the regular FL season pages that are coming out to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 11 August 2010, 10:25 UTC)

---

Everyday life

Donald Brashear

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a GA and I'm not sure about some thing.

1. I'm not sure if the intro is long enough and if not any suggestion on how to expand it.

2. The section subheadings, I used a very vague early career, mid-career, and later career and not sure if they should be changed. Common hockey articles have "team (years)" as the heading but since Brashear was such a journey man the sections would be too small to justify their own sections. I could make them "team-team (years)" but i want to keep some dividers in place since the article is long.

3. I had someone look at it for grammar so it shouldn't too bad but another pair of eyes can't hurt.

4. The awards section is a common thing on hockey articles but there is only one award and it is mention in the prose, I am wondering if I should just scarp it entirely.

Plus anything else thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 3 September 2010, 03:51 UTC)

---

Boixos Nois

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

I would like some feedback of this article according to potential GA status, and perhaps a little copyediting as it is close to going in DYK. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

One nagging thought as I read this article is its slant. It is quite a negative portrayal of its subject (with words like "skinheads" and constant condemnation of the group, what would you expect). However, the project's policy is to reflect published information by reliable sources; if none of them had anything good to say, the article here would likely be of the same state... However, the phrasings we choose to use should be less emotive and controversial (Wikipedia:NPOV); i.e. tone down any superlatives or adjectives, look at things from a detached viewpoint.

• Which superlatives? I have only written what academic sources have to say on the subject. Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which source stated "some members [were] convicted for death threats and murder"? Only one member was convicted for murder, and that does not make the whole lot guilty of what was written. What has the murder of a transvestite to do with Boixos in all that ruckus mentioned in the fourth paragraph? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the article is still lacking: there is only one History and a very short Current issues section. As far as I know, FACs are not enamoured with "current"; please find another way to present the information there. Try Origin/Formation, Demographics, Ideals, and Public perception.

• So public perception would be fine? Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Public perception or something. Basically, an article with one single big History section and nothing else does not make for conducive reading. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of cataloguing every act of theirs that made it to the papers, find common themes among these acts (crass, violence, or some other motivation or theme) and present them, using one or two examples for illustration.

• I must insist that this is how they are presented and their murders and crass celebrations important for understanding them. I'm sure our article on Nazi Germany catalogue Auschwitz, Genocide, war crimes etc. etc. and not merely use them to illustrate a point Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is this: right now, the article is mostly a simple list of acts. No analysis of the factors that gave rise to these acts are given. Neither is there a critical analysis of football hooliganism and such. As it is, it is all a list, akin to simply saying: they did this, then they did that; that happened, the newspapers reported they did this, they did that, all without themes to bind them together. What happened to "Expert A looked at the background of the club and suggested that things might have been different if this did not happen; expert B thought it was more likely that circumstance that encouraged such acts to happen. All in all, historians agree that without event C happening, the Cs would never had taken power in the first place."

Why was it stated that Nunez "[used] them for his own political gain", yet not explained what were the "gains" nor the effects? What were the effects of the restrictions that had been placed on the Boixos? The article, by constantly listing the acts, did not analyse if these restrictions were of any use. What I suggested was to look for such analysis and present them with summarised versions of the acts in support. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, what sources are "Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul", "Dobson, Stephen; Goddard, John A", "Simonis, Damien", etc? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now with the way things are presented, I am not sure if this can be reach Good article quality or not. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 August 2010, 06:15 UTC)

---

Galveston Pirate SC

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it back in June and have yet to get a full rating. All comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Treyvo (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 August 2010, 05:46 UTC)

---

Princeton Tigers men's basketball

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to nominate this at Wikipedia:GAN and want to prepare it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 00:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 August 2010, 00:58 UTC)

---

Super Mario Kart

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting ready to nominate the article as a Featured Article candidate. This article has recently undergone major expansion and was recently promoted to Good Article status.

Cheers, CarterRodriguez 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, and I think I would like playing the game, but the article is not ready for FAC. The main problem is a lack of precise prose, especially in the earlier sections. This leads to confusion about three words: player, character, and kart. They need to be kept distinct, and the language used to describe them needs to be exact. The article also needs line-by-line copyediting to fix errors in grammar, logic, and word order, and to repair or eliminate some of the compound adjectives. I made a few c/e changes to the lead. Here are some specific suggestions or comments, but they don't cover every small problem.

• No dabs, no dead urls in citations. This is good.

Lead

• "The game is also seen as having been key to expanding the Mario series into non-platforming games... " - "Non-platforming" needs a link or a brief explanation. What is a platform game?

Gameplay

• "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the other human player." - It's important to maintain a distinction between living human players and their virtual karts. Suggestion: "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the karts of the other human players."
• "During races players can pick up power ups... " - I changed a couple of these to "power-ups" in the lead, but this one and any others should be changed too. Just add a hyphen.
• "Having more coins increases the racer's top speed and protects players from spinning when hit by another kart... " - Here's another sentence that confuses the living human players with the players' karts. The players don't spin, but their karts do. Also, I think you may mean "characters" or "avatars" sometimes when you say "players".
• "Players also lose coins when they are hit by power ups and when Lakitu returns them to the track after they fall off." - Confusing. Players (I guess) may lose coins, but they are not hit by power-ups; their karts might be. Furthermore, is "hit" the right word? Do power-ups hit karts, or do karts hit power-ups (bananas, shells). The language needs to be precise.

Game modes

• Shorten subhead to "Modes"?
• "In Mario Kart GP one player races against seven computer-controlled characters in a series of five races called cups." - Shouldn't this say, "In Mario Kart GP one player's character races against seven computer-controlled characters in a series of five races called cups"? I think you could use "avatar" instead of character to avoid using "character" twice in the same sentence, but either would maintain the important distinction between the human player and his or her virtual character.
• "In order to continue through a cup a position of fourth or higher must be achieved in each race." - The position doesn't continue. Suggestion: "In order to continue through a cup, the player's character must achieve a position of fourth or higher in each race."

Legacy

• "and the Mario Party series of board game based, party games" - Quite a few compound adjectives with multiple parts appear in the article. They are often awkward and seem to demand hyphens, but this can lead to too many hyphenated strings. Another kind of solution is to re-write them to eliminate the strings, like this: "and the Mario Party series of party games based on board games".

Sequels

• "Eurogamer stated that problems emulating the Mode 7 graphics were responsible for its absence." - The problems didn't emulate the Mode 7 graphics. Maybe "problems developers encountered while trying to emulate the Mode 7 graphics... ".

Images

• It's doubtful that you can make a convincing case for using three fair-use images. The lead image should be no problem, but do the other two convey information that isn't and can't be conveyed by text alone?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

I was going through the article at the same time as Finetooth, so I might be repeating some of his concerns.

General

• Why are – used in place of —?
• Watch the noun plus -ings...

Gameplay

• Super long paragraph; can be split; recommend at "... attack the other human player. During races ..."
• "While racing the player's viewpoint is from behind the kart, the view behind the kart can be displayed on the lower half of the screen in single player mode."

  "Racing the player's viewpoint"? This is where commas help: "While racing, the player's viewpoint ..." Even then, I am not entirely certain whether it is grammatically sound... Suggestion: "During a race, the player's viewpoint is from behind his or her kart." I would drop the second clause in the original sentence because I think the possible location of the display for single player mode is not that important. Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "In race modes players attempt to finish in front of other opponents – which can be computer controlled or controlled by other human players – or aim to complete a circuit in the fastest possible time."

  Why not simply, "The goal of the game is to either finish a race ahead of other racers, who are controlled by the computer and other players, or complete a circuit in the fastest time." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the other human player."

  There is a mode in which the game monitors and judges your physical assault on another player?

• "... player can <do this> ..."

  I am not particularly enamoured with this sort of sentence, although I understand the difficulty in writing about gameplay. Use it sparingly. If the action is very much common, it is better to use an assertive voice to describe it.

• "During races players can pick up power ups by driving over question mark tiles on the track; these are used to gain an advantage during the race. Examples of power ups include shells and bananas which cause racers to spin if hit and stars which make the player temporarily invulnerable to attack."

  As such, "Tiles marked with question marks are arrayed on the race tracks; they give special abilities (power ups) to a player's kart if the vehicle passes over them. Power ups, such as the ability to throw shells and bananas, allow racers to hit others with the objects, causing them to spin and lose control. A kart that obtains the star power up is temporary invulnerable to attack." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "Computer players have specific special powers associated with each character, that they are able to use throughout the race."

  Human-controlled characters do not?

• "In competitive race modes coins can be picked up along the tracks. Having more coins increases the racer's top speed and protects players from spinning when hit by another kart: they instead lose a coin. Players also lose coins when they are hit by power ups and when Lakitu returns them to the track after they fall off."

  Who is Lakitu? Is he or she that relevant? "Lines of coins are found on the tracks in competitive race modes. By running over these coins, a kart collects them and increases its top speed. Having coins also helps players when their kart is hit by another: instead of spinning and losing control, they lose a coin. Coins are also lost when karts are struck by power ups or fall off the tracks." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "Players are able to "power slide" around corners in order to maintain their speed, although power sliding for too long causes the kart to spin. Karts are also able to hop which can facilitate faster, tighter turning."

  "The game features advanced maneuvers such as power sliding and hopping. Power sliding allows a kart to mantain its speed while turning, although executing the maneuver for too long causes the kart to spin. Hopping helps a kart execute tighter turns: the kart makes a short hop and turns in the air, speeding off in the new direction when it lands." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "IGN stated that the gameplay mechanics defined the genre."

  Defined what? In what sense?

• Why is there a See also to Mario Kart#Gameplay when this section is more detailed than that?
• I think an opinion (and likely copy-edit) from a non-gamer viewpoint is needed. As such, I am not going through the other parts of Gameplay.

Development

• "The intention to create the racing modes of the game had been present from the start of the project ..."

  I am quite certain no one would create a racing game without having "racing modes" as their initial design... or is there a particular mode or such that this sentence is about?

• "The choice was made after the development team, when observing how one kart looked to another driving past it, decided to see what it would look like with Mario in the kart."

  This sentence does not feel quite right to me...

Reception

• "Aggregate scoring sites GameRankings and MobyGames both give an average of more than 90 percent, ..."

  If I still remember my last interactions with WP:VG correctly, MobyGames is not a reliable source for aggregate scores. Regardless, do we need another two (GameStats and TopTenReviews)? Do we need any even?

• How are Thunderbolt and HonestGamers reliable (or often quoted experts by third-party sources)?

Images

• File:Super Mario Kart characters.jpg

  Fails NFCC#1 and #8, File:Super Mario Kart screen shot.jpg can also "illustrate the playable characters and their design which is described in the article text"; furthermore, Super Mario Kart screen shot.jpg shows gameplay, which is harder to describe than a rectangular screen with two rows of four boxes that shows the characters in them. How much critical commentary is focused on this character selection interface? Whatever is there in the article points to actual gameplay graphics than the selection screen. I would concentrate on beefing up the rationale for the gameplay screen shot since it helps on more fronts than this character selection screen.

I agree with Finetooth in that some more work needs to be done. In particular, a non-gamer's viewpoint should be considered. A copy-editor should also be roped in to give the prose a final polish. Jappalang (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 August 2010, 00:19 UTC)

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that its very close to FL standard. I'd like a few more pairs of eyes to see if anywhere can be improved before I nominate it. At the time of writing, there are 12 red links which will be gone soon. Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• I shouldn't worry too much about redlinks, FL candidates should have a majority of bluelinks but a few reds aren't a problem.
  • Indeed, but I thought I should mention it since red links are ugly (in my opinion).
• Positions for players in the first half of the list are largely anachronistic, specifying defenders and midfielders, not half-backs and full-backs. The key already seems to account for those positions, strangely enough.
  • I should really change them over for the pre-1965 players!* Credit to WFC for that table, which I nabbed from List of Watford F.C. players.
    • On this point, why is there a key to playing position abbreviations when the abbreviations aren't actually used in the list......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• The key states wartime goals are excluded, presumably the same goes for appearances. Probably best to explicitly explain that wartime matches are not generally included by statisticians rather than call them unofficial.
  • Good point. I'll add that to note C.
• I take it the expunged games from the abandoned 1939–40 season are not included.
  • Included in note C.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• *Nevermind. I did a few and previewed it just now; it made the list more cluttered and I forgot about note B which provides a link for specific positions. I like the table in the key so I'll leave it for now and if I have to take it out in FLC then no worries. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that the old photos are tagged as PD-US on the grounds that they were published outside the US prior to a certain date. If you do take this list to FLC, expect to be challenged to confirm/prove exactly where and when they were published, which is not currently stated on any of the image pages as far as I can see. For the use of that tag, as I understand it, "published" means exactly that - the image has to have been published prior to the date, not merely created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I feared that. Do you have any suggestions? A different tag maybe? I'm not an expert when it comes to pictures on Wikipedia. If there isn't a solution then I'll have to remove them because I have no publication dates or author names. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert either. They'd certainly be eligible to be tagged with {{PD-UK}}, although I've seen conflicting opinions on whether or not that is acceptable........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems much better than the current tag. I'll change them over later and see how it holds up in FLC. If some people don't like it then I'll just have to remove them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 August 2010, 21:25 UTC)

---

Hell in a Cell

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know if this article could become a Good Article and if there's anything I need to do to make it Good Article good.

Thanks, --Nascar king 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this - be warned, the article is going to need some work.

• Layout
  • First off I advise moving the image over to the right actually, I just did this. Much better
  • The image needs a caption. See Wikipedia:CAPTION
  • I advise adding more section headers to break the article up.
• Language
  • Language such as Their next match was meant to be a normal steel cage match, but the WWF took it one step further is probably not greatly appropriate. Try and rewrite the content using more neutral language.
  • There is a lot of use of the word "generally" and similar in the article. Avoid the use of -ly words because they aren't the best grammar (and are a little vague for an authoritative article)
  • The article needs a good clean for language and grammar
• References
  • The article relies on a single reference. You need a lot more reliable sources for this to be a good article. Sources should support as much of the content as possible
  • The list of incidents, specifically, needs sourcing

Further Comments

One thing that isn't clear is what events are within the canonical storyline of the wrestling - and which are real life mishaps. The list of times the fighters leave the cage is, for example, ambiguous. For example was the injury described in In the first Cell match, the door was unlocked to allow the removal of an injured cameraman real? or part of the story?

I hope this helps you improve the article! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 August 2010, 22:26 UTC)

---

1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the GAC2 reviewer suggested some copyediting at PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree that the article needs copyediting, but PR is not the place to seek it. The reviewers here do some incidental c/e as they go, but they are generally spread too thin to polish whole articles. You might ask someone at Wikipedia:PRV or trade c/e favors with another Wikipedia editor. Copyediting this article does not look like a really big job because the text is fairly short. What's needed is careful proofing and a bit of polish. Here are a few other suggestions or comments:

• Here's an example of a small but useful c/e change: "between October 26, 1974 — December 8, 1974 to move to a 21–4–4 record" - In constructions like this, replace the em dash with the word "and" so that the sentence makes sense when read aloud; i.e., "between October 26, 1974, and December 8, 1974". Even better would be "between October 26 and December 8, 1974".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 13:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• No dead urls, no dabs.
• Image license looks fine.
• References look fine.
• Does it make sense to sort the players in the "Skaters" table by first name? A last-name sort would be useful.
  • They are sorting by last name (except bench minor, which is not a player)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Should something appear in the empty boxes for "Acquisition" in the "Skaters" table?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 13:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Can the missing data for Bench Minor be added? Or is Bench Minor a category rather than a player? If so, should this be explained? If minor players are missing from the list, can they be listed in a footnote?
  • A bench minor is when the team is penalized for a minor infraction that is not attributed to any individual player. Now noted below the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Stanley Cup Finals" section is too long for comfortable reading. Two or three paragraphs would be better.
  • Thanks. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 13:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 August 2010, 16:30 UTC)

---

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article of this type that I have worked on, and I would like to get to get it up to GA (and maybe eventually FA) standard. My previous work has all been on cricketer biographies, so I'd like some input on how this can be improved. Specifically, information on whether I need greater detail on each competition (ie more about the actual games), or whether the balance is mostly alright as it is. Generally, my use of language, grammar and the overall layout of the article.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 11:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be good to know what their team structure was, eg 4/5 bowlers, 1/2/3? spinners....etc If the pitch at Somerset is more spin or pace oriented as well. Apart from that, their limited overs strategy is of interest, whether they go really fast at the start or accumulate all their resources for the last 20% of the innings. I think more detail in the FC is especially desirable, and in the T20 section it describes some important points in the matchs without explaining what the strengths and weaknesses of the team were YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from TRM.

• Lead is a little brief.

• Yeah, I was coming to this conclusion myself!

• Avoid bold links.

• What would you suggest to avoid it? Not linking Somerset County Cricket Club , or not having it in bold?

• Probably just unbold it. No need to get hung up on having bold in the lead if it's being forced... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The 2009 season also saw the retirement of Justin Langer from the team, relinquishing the captaincy to Marcus Trescothick for the following 2010 season." no need to say both "following" and "2010".

• Removed 'following'. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason that "Quarter-Final" is capitalised thus?

• Changed to "Quarter-final"

• Is NatWest Pro40 the same as Pro40? If so, why is the former red-linked?

• The red link leads to the specific article for the 2008 NatWest Pro40.

• Ok, understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Style" doesn't need capitalising in the table column headings.

• Fixed.

• Don't like leading zeros on single-digit days of the month.

• It's just the way that the template does it I think.

• Sadly it makes the article internally inconsistent... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are all the squad styles, dates of birth etc, referenced somewhere?

• No, I'll add them to the table.

• Tresco's caption needs a full stop

• Fixed.

• "The pitch at the County Ground, Taunton did not help their efforts, the imbalance in favour of the batsmen" reads a little ORish unless you have a specific ref.

• Will look for one, I know there's something about it!

• Added a reference for this now. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bwl, not Bowl, is the heading for bowling points.

• Fixed.

• "Source: [26]" remove space and remove full stop.

• Added name of source.

• Are penalties/adjustments referenced anywhere?

• In the previous source, will clarify.

• Any reason why match log table isn't sortable?
• A key to the colours would be useful to a non-expert here.
• Would advocate a clear key for BBI, BBM, 5wi... I know they're linked, but it'd still be useful.
• Alfonso's caption needs a full stop.

• Fixed.

• Season standings, what does bold text indicate?

• I assume you're just referring to Somerset being emboldened; this is just done to make it clearer where Somerset are.

• "Won by 5 wickets: Duckworth–Lewis method used." no need for full stop here.

• Fixed.

• de Bruyn's caption needs a full stop.

• Fixed.

• So does Walter's. So does the stadium image.

• Fixed.

• "with the match scheduled for Tuesday 28 July 2009" any need for the day of the week?

• I don't remember, it felt necessary when I wrote it, I'll reassess.

• refs 3&4 have spare full stops.

• Fixed.

• And ref 37.

• Fixed.

• Ref 112 needs an en-dash.

• Fixed.

• Be consistent in the refs with either spaced or unspaced slashes.

• I've used whatever the source used, rather than applying my own formatting to their titles. Should I change them?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed some of your issues already, while others I will either do with other edits, or have a look at later. How do you feel the article works as a whole; your points so far have been technical in nature, but do you feel there is enough content, that the scope is about right, or should I include more (or less) detail on any issues? Harrias ^talk 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Have responded directly to a few above. I think you've pitched the scope about right, don't think you need to do too much more in that respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 15 August 2010, 11:06 UTC)

---

Phil Taylor

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked very hard on improving this article over a month and wan some more feedback on it so I can get it to GA or even FA status. I feel it is near to GA so I want to be able to get it to GA with the reviews. I don't care how much critism I get, at least it will help me improve it more.

One section I think needs close attention is 'Recent form', another is 'Outside darts'

Thanks, Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, it's big but I'll gave a go. I generally use a standard procedure that I developed for GA reviews:

• Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per Wikipedia:WIAGA.
• Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
• (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
• Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
• Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.

A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.

As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review.

If you disagree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible.

Please don't respond until I ask - in such long article I'm very likely to have second thoughts at several points. --Philcha (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Coverage from Philcha

• (comment only) No obvious gaps at the top level, when I check each section I'll look at Coverage in the section.
• Need to check Biographies of living persons as soon as possible, as this may force us to drop some content. At present I think "Biographies of living persons" is quite clear, but we both must check through the article. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure from Philcha

• This is difficult in such a big article and I expect second thoughts. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• For now I think I'm go with the current order of sections. I'll look at the internal structure as I get to each section. --Philcha (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Early career from Philcha

• Does not give birthdate - but gives the birthdate in the lead, which violates Wikipedia:LEAD. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative emphasis seems to say otherwise. _wjemather^bigissue 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Put at the start of paragraph. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Born to Elizabeth and Douglas Taylor in in Burslem, ... to hold both titles at the same time" is a copy of Taylor's Biography, you've violated Wikipedia:COPYVIO. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  Please see note on Talk:Phil Taylor. It has been established that that biography was copied from Wikipedia. _wjemather^bigissue 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see no obvious connection between "Born to Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor in Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent" and "Taylor left school at the age of 16", and I'd split them and then make the first one active voice. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Split and slightly reformatted. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "and entered work at JF Sale and Co. in Burslem" is superfluous and I'd remove it. This article is long, and anything that makes it easier to read is help.--Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - removed whole sentence including "He left school at the age of 16" as it would be pointless if I left it there. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re "One of his early jobs was making ceramic toilet roll handles for which he earned no more than £52 a week," Phil Taylor says he's ready to reclaim world title - mirror.co.uk supports "making ceramic toilet roll handles ... £52 a week" but not "One of his early jobs". --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - found better reference that supported all the claims that was on BBC. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• In "for which he earned no more than £52 a week," IMO "no more than" is over-emphasis. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - removed "no more than". Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• The rest of the 1st para, "Between jobs there were spells of unemployment ... The money meant that Taylor could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments" has no citations at all - and this is the time when Taylor became a pro darts player. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✗ Not done - Found one reference put didn't cover all of it so I placed a CN tag on it and if it is not replaced with a reference i'll remove the sentence. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "to claim the first of his world titles at odds of 125/1" is superfluous and I'd remove it. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - removed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "It was the first of many clashes between the two players at world championships" is superfluous and I'd remove it.--Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - removed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re "decided by a tie-break leg in the final set of the match": --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 1992 Lakeside World Championship Results says nothing about a tie-break leg.

    ✓ Done - removed part about tie-break leg. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • At Classic Arrows - Phil Taylor v Mike Gregory 1992 "Phil Taylor and Mike Gregory go all the way in the 1992 BDO World Darts Championship," the BBC's text "decided by a tie-break leg in the final set of the match" does not support a tie-breaks.

    ✓ Done - removed part about tie-break leg. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • That leaves the video. When I see one of these, I tell the editor to specify where in the video gives the useful part. But this clip doesn't let the user move to a specific part, it forces the reader to see the whole clip. A reviewer can check several passages of text in the same time. Can you find another citation? --Philcha (talk)

    ✓ Done - removed video because it was un-needed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Need to explain "leg" and "set" - as far I can seen this is the first time either term is used. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - explained in brackets. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Split in darts from Philcha

• In "In 1993 darts suffered a devastating split as the world's top players broke away", "darts suffered a devastating split as" is Wikipedia:PEACOCK and should be removed. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - removed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the last unified World Championship to be held" is not supported by Darts: Taylor dethroned by spoiler Spiolek. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Added citation. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• " In the first ever WDC World Championship in 1994 Taylor lost to Priestley, but would go on to dominate the event for the next decade and beyond" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Added citation. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PDC career from Philcha

• "After losing the first final of the PDC World Championship in 1994, Taylor went unbeaten for the next eight years in the tournament" is not supported by 2003 PDC World Championship Results --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Added reference. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history, between Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld, in which the game was tied at 6–6 in sets and Barneveld had a 2–1 lead in legs, Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg so he won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" is supported only by PDC Ladbrokes.com World Championship 2007, but this citation has 2 issues: --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It has no chance of being a reliable source, see pluto.spaceports.com.
  • And PDC Ladbrokes.com World Championship 2007 is a dead link. For a good source I'd try to find a backup at the Internet Archive, but not in this case.

  ✓ Done - Found far better reference on the PDC website. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "a shocking turn of events" is Wikipedia:PEACOCK, please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Removed "shocking". Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1997 he beat Richie Burnett in a Battle of the Champions head to head contest" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Found reference on dartsdatabase. 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how Darts Database Player Statistics supports "Taylor holds records for high scoring in darts, his three-dart average per match records are higher than anyone else in the history of the game." --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✗ Not done - I'll explain the problem; In the player statistics section of dartsdatabase, you see the Stat part on the page and a drop-down menu beside it, select Averages from the drop-down menu, then make sure each drop-menu at either side of that one is set to All and All Tournaments, then see the Date From section and set it to "1900" or something before averages started recording. The problem is that there is no exact URL for that section, do you know what to do? (sorry for the awful explaining, i'm not very good at it). Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• You can make "Such has been Taylor's dominance for almost 20 years that no other player has a successful winning head to head record against him. The player with the most wins against Taylor is Raymond van Barneveld, but their head to head record is very one sided towards Taylor – almost 4 times as many wins as loses, a 79% win success rate" much more concise. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Cut alot out of it but no important stuff. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Taylor has won a record 63 PDC/BDO Major titles; 4 BDO Majors (though three of these came before the split) and 59 PDC ones" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Removed it because it is not needed as there are plenty of stats all over the article. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside darts from Philcha

• Please move the location of Taylor's home immediately per Wikipedia:BLP --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✓ Done - Removed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What happens next

In a real GA review, the reviewer would probably conclude that there already too defects of in each of: missing or faulty citations; prose, including clumsy writing, superfluous text. The reviewer would probably "put the artice on hold" for a week to fix all defects, not just those the reviewer mentioned - and the result would be a "fail". If you like ( :-P ) I'll wait a week and see how it looks. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, i'll notify you via your talk page when I think I have the defects fixed. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

I've had a glance through Philcha's suggestions, so I will try not to duplicate or contradict anything there. I'll go through and make suggestions by section. Feel free to deal with Philcha's first or whatever. Not everything I mention will be directly applicable to GA, but may just be a general improvement.

throughout

• This article has a lot of numbers, and would benefit from some consistency. In general, per MOS:NUMBER, numbers under ten are spelled out as words, while numbers over ten are digits. It's a bit more complicated than that though, and in this article you have a lot of scores, for example. Wikipedia:ORDINAL gives some good examples of how to write numbers. One area you could be more consistent is where you have "9 dart finish" and "nine dart finish", both used throughout.
• Citations go after punctuation, not before, and with no space in between. For example his way to the final,¹ not his way to the final¹, or his way to the final, ¹

Infobox

• Just a thought, but I'm wondering if the photo could be cropped a bit better. I realise it's from a larger group photo, but it might be better as just head and shoulders.
• Song titles should be in quotes ("The Power" by Snap!)
• Ranges of numbers should be separated by En dashes rather than hyphens. (see Wikipedia:ENDASH).
• The "other achievements" list has a mix of tenses eg. "Achieves his first televised...", "Scored world record..."

Lead

• Ultimately, the lead will need to be a bit longer, covering all the main points of the article (Wikipedia:LEAD)
• "Nicknamed "The Power"..."; this doesn't need to be italicised, you already have it in quotes
• I don't know much about Phil Taylor, but it's clear that he's had a successful career. However, the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive. I'm not saying you need to dredge up something negative to include, but make sure it's as balanced and neutral as it can be.

Early career

• Watch out for Wikipedia:OVERLINKING; don't add wikilinks to common words (like Unemployment) that won't add any further context to this article
• "he was brought to the attention of Eric Bristow, one of the most popular and well known figures in the game" - the fact that Bristow was one of the most popular & well known figures needs citing
• Watch out for redundancy in the prose, or using words that aren't needed. For example, "Bristow decided to loan Taylor £10,000" could simply be Bristow loaned Taylor £10,000
• "He lists the win as the favourite of his career." - this could probably be worded slightly better; one thing doesn't make a list.

Split in darts

• "Professional Darts Corporation" can be linked at this point
• "From it's peak..." → From its peak (no apostrophe when its is possessive)

PDC career

• Is there any more detail on his career between 1994 and 2003, other that he was unbeaten?
• You have a mixture (throughout) of "Barneveld" and "van Barneveld"; this should be consistent
• "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history, between Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld, in which the game was tied at 6–6 in sets and Barneveld had a 2–1 lead in legs, Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg so he won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" - this is a really long, unwieldy sentence that's not easy to read. Also, does the source cited support that the match is regarded as the best? (I haven't checked) Who exactly regards it as the best? Fans? Commentators? Players?
• "the first PDC world championship which didn't feature Taylor" → the first PDC world championship which did not feature Taylor (don't use contractions (like didn't, don't, wouldn't) unless they're in direct quotes
• "But Taylor came back the following year..." - not a good way to start a sentence
• "by battering his old adversary" - this is a bit informal. I presume he didn't literally batter him!
• "in a one-hour challenge dubbed "The Match of the Century"" - who dubbed it the Match of the Century? Also, that needs citing.

Form

• "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years." - if he's done it before, then it's not unique. Perhaps This was unusual for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years.
• "3 defeats in his first four matches" - this is a good example of where numbers could be made more consistent.

Outside darts

• "His popularity among darts fans has led to increasing business opportunities, such as writing his autobiography.." - this is not very neutral. It's probably fair to say that most people who have articles on Wikipeida because of their sporting or entertainment careers have fans, and are popular with their fans. A good many of them go on to write autobiographies. It's ok to mention his autobiography, but I don't think you need to frame it in those terms.
• "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money..." - this is Wikipedia:OR really, we're not supposed to be presuming anything. I'm also not sure that this needs mentioning at all, it's fairly trivial.

References

• I've not checked out all your sources but it might be worth asking someone to, perhaps from a sports wikiproject. I'm not familiar with a lot of the ones used so don't know how reliable they are. You need to make sure that they all are though. Just one example at random: Mindthegap.tv - what makes that a reliable source?

On the whole, I think the article's getting there. I think the main issues are more citations (which you're aware of), and tightening up the prose and style. Good luck with it, --BelovedFreak 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Belovedfreak, thanks for the comments. But guess what, I think there is room for different views on 3 points:

• I think the MOS issues dependent on how far Mr.Kennedy1 wants to take article. If he wants to go for FA eventually, then he should get accustomed to the whole MOS. But if Mr.Kennedy1 only wants to go to GA, Wikipedia:WIAGA uses a very strict subset of MOS and any more would be a waste of time. In particular, hyphens are OK for GA. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said, I wasn't specifically reviewing it against GA criteria, but for general improvement. --BelovedFreak 15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• In "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money", I agree that "Presumably a reference to" is weak. But the BBC said that commentator Sid Waddell said "Taylor wouldn't give you the dripping off his bacon sandwich." That has 2 points: it's part of Taylor being ahead his competitors in keeping himself in the best possible shape; and it's funny - in general I'm against "superfluous" text, but that makes this joke even better. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Re "the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive" and corresponding main text, Taylor's superiority really is overwhelming. van Barneveld is regarded as the 2nd best player ever, and Taylor's record against van Barneveld is summarised at Phil Taylor#van_Barneveld. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How it looks to a GA reviewer

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, here I put on my GA reviewer's hat. It's always the nominator's responsibility to get the article 100% right before the start of the review. I'm afraid there enough serious faults that the reviewer would identify some of them and then put the article on hold for a week:

• No citations in:

  "Between jobs there were spells of unemployment ... could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments" in section "Early career".

  ✓ Done - Removed as there were no refs anywhere. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In "2006" there's a very easy way to get rid of the [citation needed] tag.

  ✓ Done - No refs so removed sentences. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  "He ended 2007 without holding any of the five Sky televised major trophies for the first time since the PDC started in 1994" in section "2007" has a [citation needed] tag.

  ✓ Done - Couldn't find one so rewrote whole paragraph. Mr'.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  No citations at all in section "2008".

  No citations in most paragraphs in section "2009".

  No citations at all in section "2010".

  You need to check the whole article. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose:

  Section " Early career" still has "Taylor's first job was making ceramic toilet roll handles for which he earned no more than £52 a week" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "PDC career", "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history ... won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" is monster sentence. I'd cut the play details "Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "PDC career", "... a shocking turn of events saw ..." is pure sensationalism and you should cut it. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "2006", "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years", "unique" is exaggeration and possibly false, if Taylor lost 2 majors in a row 13 years ago, --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  No period in "I would probably put this one as the best" in section "2007". Wikipedia:WIAGA includes grammar and spelling as well as smooth, clear prose. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't continue. An illness appears to hit me about 5:00 and has left me chilly, weak and sleeping for most of the time since then. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please copy User:Philcha#Tools, I think you'll find them useful. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 August 2010, 18:51 UTC)

---

GLaDOS

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

I've listed this article for peer review because, after recently expanding it exponentially, I would like to give it a good ol' GA push [in spite of my less-than-great writing ability]. Thanks, The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing...:Took a once-over and didn't find much. A few disambigs, the need to use Template:Cite web on some refs, and the concept art needs to be shrunk 20-30%. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the reception? For some of it, I just kinda randomly placed it, so I get the impression that I should rearrange it so the content fits better. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Kaguya-chan's comments

Lead

• "GLaDOS (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System) is a fictional character in the [2007] Valve Software video game Portal." I think year of release would help here.
  • Done.
• neuro-toxin ---> neurotoxin
  • Done.
• "player's character" is a little odd. Personally, I would rewrite it as player-character/player character, but then again I have very little experience with video game articles.
  • Done.
• "He found it hilarious, stating that people were finding lines funnier just by the virtue of being spoken through this."
  • Done.
• "He found that play testers were more motivated to complete a chamber with her guiding them." I'm guessing Wolpaw?
• Wolpaw seems to find a lot of things, any other verbs?
  • Done.
• You've mentioned that Ellen McLain voiced GLaDOS twice now. I would do away with "...and was voiced by Ellen McLain" in the second sentence
  • Done.
• "The physical appearance of GLaDOS had gone through several redesigns, including one of a large disk below her[,] before she was given a body." seems lost right after the part about the song. Perhaps, put it with the part about GLaDOS' development?
  • Done.
• "She has been described as a narcissist, passive-aggressive, sinister, and witty, amongst other descriptors."
  • Done.
• "Ellen McLain was chosen to voice GLaDOS , who [and] had to imitate the text-to-speech program using her own voice. " Sounded like GLaDOS was doing the voice-imitating.
  • Done.
• "The song has been met with success and popularity, appearing as a song in the Rock Band series." Already know it's a song.
  • Done.

Description

• It has no sources and no ref for that quote. :( (However, she also has a fully-functional disk operating system, and is described as being "arguably alive.")
• "Her personality has been described as passive-aggressive, witty, and sinister." By whom?
• "For much of Portal, GLaDOS is a voice which acts as a narrator and guide for the players' character, Chell." Twice this has been mentioned in the body (well not the Chell part, but still that could be worked into the section somehow)
  • Done.
• If you can't find any reliable third-party refs, than you could cite quotes and stuff from the game (like the manual if it has a character section about GLaDOS).

Appearances

• Again, it has no refs for appearances. And another quote with no ref. (he AI claims that the regular test chamber is unavailable due to "mandatory scheduled maintenance".)
  • That quote is from the game, rather than a person. I should probably unquote it.
• "A mechanical arm descends and extinguishes the cake's candle, suggesting that GLaDOS is still alive[, which] [t]he end song, "Still Alive", confirms that she is still alive."
  • Done.
• "Apparently dormant, she is awoken by Chell (who was placed in stasis over the centuries) and immediately vows to get her revenge on Chell for killing her." but if she didn't die (like the previous paragraph stated), how could she get her revenge for being killed?
  • In response to the comment of how she could be killed without having died, it is because while the song indicates that she is in fact still alive, she states in the trailer for Portal 2 that Chell had killed her. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • So she just believes that she died? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• PlayStation 3 is linked twice
  • Done.

Development history

• "Before development of GLaDOS had begun, writer Erik Wolpaw was writing [the script?] for the [2005] video game Psychonauts..." The rest of the sentence ("...where they hooked up "temp dialogue", where they would go around the office to find people to hook it up") makes very little sense to me. What exactly was he (them?) doing and what is "temp dialogue"?
  • Done.
• "People found the lines funnier than they were worth, with Wolpaw commenting that "No amount of writing is funnier than this text-to-speech thing reading it." Opinion ("funnier than they were worth") and a ref-less quote
  • Done.
• Section has some very close paraphrasing ("When I was working on Psychonauts, we'd hook up this temp dialog. We'd just get people around the office to hook it up. One depressing thing I noticed is that a couple of times I'd run out of people to do, and I'd just use a voice-to-text thing. And people were laughing at that way more than what the lines were worth." compared to "writer Erik Wolpaw was writing for the video game Psychonauts, where they hooked up "temp dialogue", where they would go around the office to find people to hook it up. Once they ran out of people, however, he began using a text-to-speech program. People found the lines funnier than they were worth")
  • Done [I think; it was a bigger issue than the others, so I may have missed something or created a new flaw. :p]
    • Personally, I would just do a quick check of the section and make sure that there isn't any more close paraphrasing.
• No source for end of 1st paragraph
  • Done.
• "The team liked the voice, it being described [describing it] as "funny" and "sinister"..." Missed quotes.
  • Done.
• "It was discovered that play testers were more motivated with the voice, Wolpaw commenting that [because] they became attached to the voice."
  • Done.
• "Wolpaw commented that while GLaDOS did yell and fire rockets at the player, she fulfilled his desire for a villain who has not been "done to death"" Ref-less quote alert!
• "...they are putting her through the wringer emotionally." Sounds slangy.
• "The game was designed to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Wolpaw stated that with each new part, GLaDOS' personality changed with it."
• "However, once the player-character escapes, she begins to speak as herself, referring to herself as "I" rather than "we"." Bit odd. ---> "...she begins to speak in first-person singular rather than first-person plural."
• "Eventually, they settled [on] the design [of] used in the final version of game, the robotic figure hanging upside down."
• "The large chamberitself that the player-character encounters was the result of the team wanting to build a space that brought a great deal of attention to her."
• "Another early design was when GLaDOS was only a cube, which was used for the removed laser battle mentioned below." seems to belong with the sentence about the early designs for GLaDOS, not after the large chamber.
• "In designing the final encounter with GLaDOS, one of the important aspects to it was giving the players a predisposition to the Weighted Companion Cube." What is the Weighted Companion Cube?
• "This incarnation of the final boss was dubbed "Portal Kombat", which Swift describes as a "high intensity rocket battle"." Ref-less quote.
• 1st paragraph in Final battle has no sources
• "However, Wolpaw stated that it sucked, commenting that it sucked so much that he would not let Swift speak, citing the fact that no one was paying attention to what GLaDOS was saying." Slangy and sounds like it might be close paraphrasing.
• "Wolpaw described the pacing as horrible, stating that they would wander around lost until they found the corridor, at which point a series of pistons would spring out of the walls, which he says failed in every way imaginable." Slangy ("which he says failed in every way imaginable") and some odd sentence construction. Maybe something along the lines of "Wolpaw sharply criticized the pacing, which caused the players to wander around until they found the corridor, at which point a series of pistons would spring out of the walls."
• Caption is very long. Try condensing it to "Conceptual art of the player-character encountering GLaDOS"
• What was the "fire pit" puzzle?
• "One playtester helped them by pointing out the quality of the "fire pit" puzzle, stating that it was both dramatic and exciting, but also a difficult puzzle. Wolpaw stated that this made no sense, commenting that it was one of the easiest puzzles in the game." ---> "One playtester helped them by pointing out the quality of the "fire pit" puzzle, stating that it was both dramatic and exciting, but also a difficult puzzle."
• "He added that the battle itself was a dramatic high-point, [since it was] due to it being the first time GLaDOS directly tries to kill the player-character [and] as well as the first time that players have to use the environment to their advantage."
• "Another influence on the change from a complex battle to a simple one was a fellow Valve developer who was working on Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The developer commented that the final boss of that game would have 100 Striders, as well as allowing players to drive a car while fighting mini-Striders, following up by asking Wolpaw what he had planned for Portal's final boss.[13] Eventually, they implemented a mechanic involving a timer ticking down from six minutes, where neurotoxin would eventually kill the players' character." --->After learning about what fellow Valve developers had planned for the final boss battle in Half-Life 2: Episode Two, the Portal developers decided to implement a neurotoxin would kill the player-character in six minutes."
• "This made it easier on the writers, who only had to write six minutes of dialogue versus an infinite amount previously." An infinite amount of dialogue makes for a really long game, doesn't it? ^_^

Cultural impact

• "Similarly, GamesRadar editor Tom Francis described her as hysterical [and] as well as being an aspect of Portal that gamers will love."
• Cinema Blend listed GLaDOS as the best character of 2007, stating that she breathes life, emotion, and hilarity into the lab of Portal.[44] GamesRadar listed Portal as having one of the best video game stories ever, citing GLaDOS as the primary reason for this." Any other verbs besides listed?
• IGN editor Hilary Goldstein awarded her the "Best of the Worst Guiding Voices", commenting that it was between her and BioShock character Atlas. However, he gave the award to GLaDOS, citing her humour as the prime reason.[49]" Hilary is typically a woman's name.
• "GameSpy awarded her the "Best Character" award, stating that she came from the most unexpected place - a game that could have gotten by without a story." ---> "GameSpy awarded her the "Best Character" award, stating that she came from the most unexpected place – a game that could have gotten by without a story." No hyphens taking the place of dashes.
• I strongly suggest making Analysis its own section
• "LucasArts developer Noah Falstein described her as the best AI he had ever encountered - "more convincingly psychotic than HAL, with a more emotionally engaging death than Floyd, and funnier than C3PO and R2D2.""--->"LucasArts developer Noah Falstein described her as the best AI he had ever encountered – "more convincingly psychotic than HAL, with a more emotionally engaging death than Floyd, and funnier than C3PO and R2D2."" No hyphens taking the place of dashes.
• [The Daily Telegraph]] editors Nick Cowen and Tom Hoggins listed her as the ninth greatest video game villain, stating that she is as diabolical as a female AI can get, mentioning SHODAN as being inferior in this respect.[63] --->"The Daily Telegraph editors Nick Cowen and Tom Hoggins listed her as the ninth greatest video game villain, stating that she is as diabolical as a female AI can get, mentioning SHODAN as being inferior in this respect.[63]"
• "The video game Halo ODST features a computer AI called the Superintendent, which Bungie Software director Lars Bakken said would never get "too intense". When asked if it would take a similar twist to GLaDOS, Bakken said "No nothing like that!".[64]" Seems to belong in the Halo ODST article and a trivial reference to GLaDOS
• "His view is that GLaDOS is conflicted between her wants and needs - her want to be liked, and her need to test the portal gun"--->"His view is that GLaDOS is conflicted between her wants and needs – her want to be liked, and her need to test the portal gun" Same as before.
• "He also commented that where he felt disinterested in other bosses, using Bowser in Super Mario Sunshine, he was driven to find GLaDOS and destroy her, a feeling of want that he states that he does not know if he's ever felt that before." ---> "He also commented that where he felt disinterested in other bosses, using Bowser in Super Mario Sunshine, he was driven to find GLaDOS and destroy her, a feeling of want that he states that he does not know if he has ever felt that before." No contractions in formal writing.
• "However, Croal argues that GLaDOS is not as much defined or revealed as she is depicted. Additionally, he commented that the boss battle with GLaDOS is similar to the "Room 19" encounter with Andrew Ryan, citing the same use of tactical language and techniques between the two. [59]" --->"However, Croal argues that GLaDOS is not as much defined or revealed as she is depicted. Additionally, he commented that the boss battle with GLaDOS is similar to the "Room 19" encounter with Andrew Ryan, citing the same use of tactical language and techniques between the two.[59]" Space between ref and sentence.
• Link narcissistic personality disorder in "Video game developer Nathan Frost described Portal as an "exploration of a relationship with someone with narcissistic personality disorder."
• "In the book Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, Infinity Ward developer Michael Boon in discussing believable non-playable characters, he mentioned GLaDOS as well as BioShock character Andrew Ryan." ---> "In the book Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, Infinity Ward developer Michael Boon mentioned GLaDOS and BioShock character Andrew Ryan while discussing believable non-playable characters."
• "Author of the book, Tom Bissell , stated that in addition to these similarities, both of the characters were well-written, describing them as "funny, strange, cruel, and alive.""
• Link unreliable narrator in "Video game developer Andrew Doull described the "unreliable narrator" as a narrative staple..."
• "It was released as a part of The Orange Box Official Soundtrack, as well as appearing in other video games, including the Rock Band series and Left 4 Dead 2." --->"It was released as a part of The Orange Box Official Soundtrack and appeared in other video games, including the Rock Band series and Left 4 Dead 2."
• Link web comic in "GLaDOS has been featured in web comics over the years."

References

• Ref 28's wikilink for published is missing: [[PC World (magazine)|]] ---> [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]].

Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 August 2010, 08:22 UTC)

---

George Macaulay

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

Macaulay was a particularly interesting cricketer from the 1920s and 1930s who played for Yorkshire. His career was quite impressive, but he was a very fiery character. I'm hoping to take this to FAC at some point. I'm conscious that the later part of the article is stats heavy, so I'd appreciate any comments about how this reads and the prose in general. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for another cricket lesson. This seems nicely done to me, a relative cricket ignoramus. The writing is crisp and clear, the organization just fine. No dabs, no dead links. I note the absence of images, but I don't know what to suggest. Here are a few small suggestions about minor prose issues, mysterious words, and possible expansions.

Photos which are PD are a real difficulty to find, although they probably exist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note 1: "When discussing the Yorkshire bowling averages, only bowlers who took ten wickets or more in that season are included in the placings." - Since the bowlers weren't discussing, maybe "The placings for Yorkshire bowling averages include only bowlers who took ten wickets or more in that season."

Test debut

• "He hit the winning run, batting at number eleven, sealing a one wicket win for England." - Hyphen in "one-wicket win"?
• "There were no international matches that season, but Macaulay was selected for The Rest in a Test trial against England." - What does "The Rest" refer to?

Mid-1920s career

• "On seven occasions he took seven wickets in an innings, his best figures being seven for 13 in 24 overs against Derbyshire." - I might have missed an earlier instance, but I think this is the first mention of "overs". Could the term be linked or explained?

Post-Yorkshire career

• "Ramsbottom were bowled out for 47 to give Macaulay's team a 26 run win." - Hyphen in "26-run win"?

Style and personality

• "When the pitch was suitable for spinning the ball, he bowled medium paced off breaks." - Hyphen in "medium-paced"?
• "(a wicket which has been affected by rain to make it very difficult to bat on)." - Isn't it the pitch rather than the wicket that is altered by rain?

Just to make the sport even more confusing, "wicket" can sometimes mean the pitch. I've changed it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-Yorkshire career

• "He was buried in Lerwick Cemetery." - Where is Lerwick Cemetery?

References and Bibliography

• It can be useful to add OCLC numbers for books without ISBNs. WorldCat usually has them.

Possibilities for expansion

• Sports biographies sometimes include information about later family life, social life, and other outside interests (hobbies, charities, organizations). Did Macaulay marry? Did he have children?

Good question. Probably not to both, but nothing in the sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if size or appearance matters in cricket, but I wonder if Macauley was big or little, thin or roundish, tall or short. Did he wear glasses? Did he perhaps have a great shock of flaming red hair that distracted batters? Was he a fast or slow runner?

Short of describing him from a photo, only one thing in sources, saying he had a lined face. Doubt it's worth adding. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything done except the last two. Much appreciated, again! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 13 August 2010, 23:49 UTC)

---

Princeton Tigers men's lacrosse

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble figuring out how to format the text in the NCAA section. Each year is very short, but the overall text should probably be broken up. I don't see logical breakpoints. Other text review would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reformated the prose as a table in the NCAA section but would still appreciate other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: The article's title looks incomplete. Why not add "team"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just going with the convention. See {{Ivy League men's lacrosse}}. Also, it is common for season articles to have the word team but for general article to be without it. I do a lot of work on Michigan Wolverines football and Michigan Wolverines men's basketball. Season articles for those are 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2009-10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. Here are a few suggestions.

• To reduce the number of short sections and subsections in the lower parts of the article, I would try using plain prose paragraphs and just one head, "Statistical accomplishments". No matter how you arrange this material, it's basically just a list of statistics, and it would look better, I think, as prose. Here's an example of what I mean:

Ryan Boyle holds Ivy League records for single-season assists (32 in 2003), career assists (86 in 2001–04), and career points (120 in 2001–04). The team holds league records for single-game goals allowed (1, vs. Penn in 1970) and single-season goals allowed (12 in 1957).

• • Converted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Using a combination of prose and tables or maybe just all prose might also work for the "Honors" section. You'd have to play around to see what looks best.
• Quibbles and nudges:

"They have since won ten consecutive Ivy League titles... " - I think you are correct to use "it" rather than "they" in the first sentence of the lead and that "they" should be "it" in this sentence as well. Ditto for anyplace else in the article where the singular "Princeton" or "team" is referred to as "they".

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"The school has 7 Ivy League Players of the Year and 9 Ivy League Rookies of the Year." - Since 7 and 9 are smaller than 10, I'd use "seven" and "nine" in this sentence per Manual of Style guidelines.

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of hyphens in the date ranges in the lower sections hadn't been changed to en dashes. I boldly ran a script to fix them.

Should the "Notes" column of the NCAA Tournament History be unsortable? The sort doesn't seem to have a use.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"by the NCAA who reprimanded him" - "Which" rather than "who" in this note?

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"first threepeat since 1988–90" - Link or explain "threepeat"?

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not redlink Scott Bacigalupo twice. I'm not sure if any others are double-linked.

Is it likely that someone will write separate articles on all of the red-linked players? If not, I'd suggest reducing the number of red links by deleting the links.

I made 12 new articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Matt Bailer Face-off % – 1 of 9 players to have won all of his face-offs" - The symbol, %, should be spelled out as "percent" here.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"where he participated in 10 or more (12, 4/15/00, vs. Harvard)" - The meaning of (12, 4/15/00, vs. Harvard) is unclear.

fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seven of the citation links are dead.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GrapedApe's review

• There doesn't appear to be an article for the Class of 1952 Stadium, which seems like a good candidate for an article.
  • That is somewhere down the list on articles to create. Thanks for pointing it out though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• The lead should be a summary of the main body of the article. Therefore, there shoudln't really be any references in the lead, since any facts there have sources in the main body. Make sure there's nothing in the lead that's not in the body. See Wikipedia:Lead.
  • The lead should address the history prior to 1990. All sections in the article should be dealt with in the lead.
  • The lead is confusing, since it starts with the 1990s and then moves to pre-1990s before going back to recent times.
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• The history section should be expanded, if possible.
  • From the online source that I am using I have maxed it out. It is quite thin on pre-1990 history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "voted national champion six times" needs a cite. Actually, there are a lot of facts in this history that need references
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Under :"Honors," make it clear whether these are Princeton or national awards.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Any pictures possible?
  • I have no pictures of any Princeton player playing as Tigers. The only two images I am aware of are of players playing as pros or of pro athletes out of uniform. Will look further.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Also, I think it's considered bad form to have a GAN and peer review running at the same time. Especially since there's along wait at GA reviews.
  • It is FAC and PR simultaneously that is forbidden.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/Wikipedia:CHICAGO/Wikipedia:FOUR) 04:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • -_-GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Monday 9 August 2010, 01:55 UTC)

---

WrestleMania (1985)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know what I need to do to get this page ready to be a Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, ----Nascar king 22:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I can review this only as an outsider who thinks of pro wrestling as a kind of staged spectacle rather than an athletic contest. Just a few thoughts about how to improve the article:

• The article needs copyediting and proofing to catch and fix small errors. For example, here's a list of quibbles related to the lead:

The first sentence repeats the word "wrestle" five times.

The triple date in the second sentence needs a trailing comma, and it's not necessary to repeat New York since the city name alone is sufficient in this case.

Closed-circuit television should have a small "c" on "closed". The sentence would be better if re-written to avoid repeating "closed-circuit television".

"Nine professional wrestling matches were featured." - When it's easy to flip a sentence from passive to active voice, it's usually a good idea. "The show featured nine professional wrestling matches" would be snappier.

The word "event" is repeated eight times in the lead. Since professional wrestling is a form of theater, it would be more interesting to use "show", "performance", "spectacle", or similar words instead of the bland "event" in every case.

• Readers unfamiliar with this form of sports theater will not understand the jargon or technical terms unless they are explained. You've explained or linked quite a few, and that's helpful, but here are examples of others that might flummox uninformed readers:

"Hogan won the match after interference from 'Cowboy' Bob Orton." - What is the meaning of "interference" in this context?

"McMahon countered Jim Crockett's successful Starrcade pay-per-view" - Will everyone know what "pay-per-view" means? The phrase leads me to wonder whether professional wrestling existed before television was invented? Would a bit of background be helpful here?

"Vince McMahon began cross promoting with MTV" - What is "cross promoting"? For that matter, what is MTV? Would it be useful to briefly describe MTV, maybe as "an American television network specializing in music and other entertainment"?

"Prior to the event, Greg Valentine had feuded with Tito Santana over the belt." - What does "the belt" refer to?

What is a "ring apron"? What is a "count-out"?

• It's doubtful that you can justify four fair-use images in this article since they all show more-or-less the same thing: two big men wrestling or promising to wrestle in colorful clothing. I think you can justify using one, and I would pick the one in the infobox as most representative.
• The table in the "Events" section displaces an edit button on my computer screen. I would move the table up a bit to avoid this.
• The date formatting in the citations should all be the same.
• Some of the citations are incomplete. Citation 20, for example, lacks an author and page number and gives no clue about where this valley might be; on the other hand, the citation should not include "Monday" since the full date is sufficient. Citation 21 is a bit strange; how could a reader check a source like this?
• Newspaper names should appear in italics in the citations as well as the main text.
• The book data in the "References" section should include place of publication.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at Wikipedia: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) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now can I get suggestions from someone whose from the Wikiproject Wrestling?----Nascar king 22:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 5 August 2010, 22:18 UTC)

---

Philosophy and religion

Logos

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this page is overly thorough toward a Christian-centered perspective, especially since there is also a page at Logos (Christianity), and weak in all other areas which are highly relevant to the topic, particularly philosophy and rhetoric. My efforts to balance the page have been shut-down at every attempt, so perhaps I am going about it in the wrong way?

Thanks, Edunoramus (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there is also an outstanding RfC on the same topic posted to the Religion and philosophy list on 22 August 2010 -- see Talk:Logos#Proposed_Re-Write. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments, focused mainly on the article content and the issues under discussion at the moment:

• With respect to the RfC, I do not think the article needs to be rewritten to disambiguate the various uses, but it does require a lot of expansion. So much so that it may be tantamount to a rewrite in any case.
• As to the question of how to handle the discussion of logos in Christianity: Because a main article exists on that topic, the discussion here should be condensed to a single brief section that summarizes that article. For Wikipedia:SS, what is here now is much too long. That’s what the main article is for.
• In general, the article is kind of a Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM at present. The blockquotes should be replaced with more extended discussion, augmented with pertinent quotes if need be. Direct quotes from primary sources should be used with caution. To the extent that they require even minimal interpretation by the editor or the reader, they should probably be avoided.
• They etymology discussion could be expanded a smidge. Why assume, for example, that we know the word is Ancient Greek? You should mention that it emerged around 700BC as the common term for discourse. Also, the primary distinction, which is important for the article, is between logos as discourse on the one hand and logos as reason on the other. All of the treatments of term that follow play on one or both of these themes from the Ancient Greek.
• You do not need to italicize the word logos. It appears in English dictionaries.
• The phrasing “Use of … “ in the headings is awkward. I might just say “In Ancient Greek philosophy,” etc.
• I would avoid using the Greek alphabet here. It will not help most English speakers.
• The Sophists of the 5th century also talked about logos, which is where the rhetorical sense of the term in Aristotle comes from. That should be mentioned.
• Plato uses the phrase in quite a number of different senses, including the expression of thought (nous) and an argument as a component of knowledge (which equals true judgment with an logos). There is a lot of ambiguity and thus a lot of debate, but it should definitely be discussed here.
• There are also many uses of logos in Aristotle, and I would not think the rhetorical sense is the most important (is it not original to him). In On Interpretation it means a statement or assertion, in Ethics it means reason (as in “right reason” = orthos logos), in Politics it means speech ( humans are animals with logos), in Metaphysics it is the form or essence of things. On the one hand, he uses it so freely that it is hard to say which distinctions are useful, but his logos as assertion will be important for Heidegger and all of the other uses are worth mentioning at least briefly.
• The discussion of the Stoics could be expanded. For example, that the human expression of divine logos is ordered discourse. As the overall rational principle of the universe, they thought humans should strive to live consistently with logos.
• You might consider moving the section on Philo to the Logos in Christianity section, since he is really the precursor of that line of thought.
• You might also add some discussion of the concept of The Word in Judaism to that article and rename it Logos in Religion. It would be more comprehensive that way.
• Logos also appears a lot in Hermetica. Might deserve a mention.
• The Neoplatonism section obviously needs expanding. The main point is probably that they saw it as a creative force emanating from the higher to the lower planes of being. In Augustine, that becomes the means by which God is incarnated in Christ (word became flesh). The part about Augustine should really be in the Logos in Religion article, though.
• Maybe stick Plotinus in with the other Greeks and call the section In Greek Philosophy? It is odd to have him after Christianity.
• Would you say that logos was a broadly Sufi notion or an Idn Arabi notion? I would lean towards the latter.
• I agree with the discussion on the talk page that a Modern section is warranted. It will be difficult, since the term appears often but seldom prominently, except perhaps in Heidegger and maybe a few others. You might combine all of the German Idealists into one subsection (they will all be similar). Maybe the 20th century folks together if there are enough common themes. Have to think about that.
• I don’t know much about Islamic philosophy, but if the term (or an analogue) is relevant, it should certainly be mentioned here.
• Obviously, expand on Jung.
• With respect to who influenced whom, unless is it so obvious from the primary sources that no one would ever disagree, you will have to find secondary sources for the interpretation and discuss and major disagreements per Wikipedia:NPOV. It will be hard to tell a coherent story about the history of the concept. I am not sure there really is one. Other than the general definitions of discourse and/or reason, it is more or less applied at will in philosophy. That is my own view, of course, which is really just a caution not to presume any view for which there is not strong academic consensus.
• Whoever said not to use Heidegger as a source on Aristotle is right. There are a wealth of authoritative sources for that.
• Minor points:

• The See also source should be worked into the text. That should be easy enough.
• Once you have expanded it, the lead will have to be reworked. It needs to summarize the article fully. There will be a lot to do there.
• I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling. It is tough to illustrate these articles, I know. But some interesting images of the people would be an improvement.

I hope my comments are helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can be helpful in the future. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response 1

Thank you for this very thorough review. I agree with you in pretty much every regard. Here are my responses.

• I agree that Aristotle rhetorical use of the term is not the most imporant. I would like to add that confining it to rhetoric is probably the first big blunder of the article since subsequent philosophical traditions were probably influenced more so by Aristotle's logic.
• The islamic philosopher I am thinking of (Al-Farabi, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna) were all devoted to merging Aristotle's logic, neo-Platonism and Koranic scripture. There influences on medieval philosopher likes Maimonides is undisputed. They should definitely be included.
• While the word logos appears sporadically in modern philosophy prior to Heidegger, I don't think it would be controversial to state that Aristotle logos influenced Kant's Reason and thus we can bracket German Idealist and their use of reason.
• I think Bracketing philosophers becomes much more problematic starting with Heidegger. Most contemporary philosophers gain their understand from him but then diverge pretty radically. I think philosophers that need to be included are Lacan (he translated Heidegger logos). Maybe instead of a section on Jung and lacan, probably a section on logos in psychoanalysis. There is Derrida and his critique of logocentrism (a word he did not term) as well as phallogocentrism (which he did term). Finally, (to my knowledge) there is Deleuze who popularized the idea of anti-logos in Proust and Signs. I guess what a common theme of contemporary would be they all wish to distance philosophy from logos(?)

Those are my two cents لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response 2

Thank you for the detailed feedback.

• I agree that the article requires a lot of expansion.
• I don't believe the Christian section will be seen as too long once the article is complete. It is after all this article which will discuss influences between the different uses of "Logos," including the Christian one.

It has nothing to do with length, really. It has to do with summary style. When a separate article exists, the content should not be duplicated, but rather summarized and linked. Either this section needs to be summarized heavily or the Logos (Christianity) article needs be combined with this one and then deleted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but this article is really about historical development of versions of the Logos concept, and that requires more than a paragraph on the Christian use. For example, proper expansion of the Sufism section will require referring to specific aspects of the Christian use; those aspects will need to be in this article.

To put it another way, this article should summarise information one would find in books on philosophy discussing "Logos," Logos (Christianity) should summarise information one would find in books on Christian theology; some overlap is inevitable, but once both articles are expanded in appropriate ways, that overlap will be relatively small. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I really am going to stop now, since I am not sure my comments are going to make much impact here, but I actually don't think you do see my point. If you read Wikipedia:SS, good form dictates that the detail be in one article only and only the summary everywhere else. You can link between them as needed. There are other ways to do it, but that's the way Wikipedia does things. The idea that we have a philosophy "slant" and a Christianity "slant" on essentially the same material is the antithesis of NPOV. Both points of view should be represented, no matter in which article the material appears. When I have seen these disputes in the past (it happens a lot), I have found this essay to be helpful. Maybe it will be helpful here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. What I meant was simply that much of this article is out-of-scope for Logos (Christianity), and many topics either in or potentially in Logos (Christianity) would be out-of-scope here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the Greek alphabet should be retained, as some readers will want it. There's no need to "dumb down" the article.

Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign terms. Foreign terms should be used sparingly. "Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that applies, since the article is specifically about a Greek word; I would expect a philosophy text written in English to use the Greek word; I think we should too. And if I understand the policy you quoted, it applies to other articles not spelling Logos in Greek, but linking to this article instead. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this essay will help. If a term could be a separate article (like most philosophical terms), it does not need a native spelling. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But surely this is the "separate article" on a philosophical term? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and native spelling in the first line is appropriate. But lexis? Pathos? Ethos? Could be (or are) their own separate articles. So why the native spelling here? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that Plato and Aristotle both used "logos" in philosophy. Aristotle's rhetorical use may not be the most important, but it needs distinguishing from his philosophical use.
• Philo must not be moved to the Christian section, since he was Jewish. His influence on medieval thought in various religious groups should be distinguished from that of others, and medieval Jewish thought should be distinguished from Christian and Islamic thought.

I was not suggesting he be moved the the Christian section, but rather that all religious discussions be combined in a single, separate, and more comprehensive article. They are, after all, closely related. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But they are also closely related to the ancient Greek and Neoplatonist uses; the inter-relationships between uses should be here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you really think so, propose to combine the two articles into this one. That would be fine. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose your suggested split. Too many things in this article straddle the religion/philosophy boundary. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neoplatonism should not, IMO, be combined with older Greek philosophy, since it followed Philo and early Christianity. However, Neoplatonism had considerable influence on medieval thought in various religious groups.

If the article is going to flow chronologically, it should do so consistently, in which case the later Christian writers should come later (as it stands right now, they would come last). If the Christianity section is summarized they way it should be, it will be an non-issue. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should indeed generally flow chronologically. That does suggest splitting the Christianity section, but I don't think splitting the Christianity section aids the reader. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So which is it? Surely it should not be a mere matter of taste. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be up to the editors writing the article to decide what flows best. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The editors do not Wikipedia:OWN the article, of course. There should be a good reason for the flow, whatever it is. And there should be consensus. If the Christianity content really just belongs together, chronology notwithstanding, it gives still more reason to think it belongs in a different article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree we will need reliable secondary sources on interpretation and on to who influenced whom.
• I strongly agree that the lead should summarize the article.
• Your point on images is well taken. I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling either. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Process issues

By the way, editors should note the review comments by Nasty Housecat above were in response to specific canvassing in response to an existing RfC discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is considered canvassing if the intent is to influence "the outcome in a particular way". As Nasty Housecat, is a volunteer peer reviewer, listed on the peer review volunteers page for Philosophy and Religion, my actions here are in accordance with the guidelines for the peer review process. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس is also a contributor who was invited here to review by the same peer review volunteer process. Edunoramus (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, the peer review process is for editors of articles to seek help in getting to FA status, not for resolving disputes. Second, I note that you canvassed only selected volunteers from the list. I suggest we wait for the RfC to run to completion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to peer review the article and I did. My comments are well beyond the scope of the RfC on which I chose not to comment because I think it is pointless. The article clearly needs extensive revision, whatever you want to call that. I am not interested in wading into this edit war, but it seems to me the real dispute you cannot resolve is about what to do with the Christianity content. I shared my view on that question in the review, and will reply to further comments above. I resent any implication that my comments were anything other than requested and delivered in good faith. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly not implying any breach of good faith on your part, and I'm sorry for any offence caused -- no offence was intended. However, I note that you have waded into an edit war, whether you wanted to or not, simply by responding to the canvassing that took place.

Any revision of the article will have to be based on consensus on the article talk page; this peer review does not over-ride that requirement. I would suggest that we close this review until the RfC is resolved; I don't see any point in turning this page into an alternative article talk page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is your insistence on calling it canvassing (when it clearly was not) just wading deeper into the edit war? This dispute seems way more personal than it should be. I hope the RfC resolves something. In the meantime, I hope the many other comments left here by myself and YWGonzalez are helpful. Seems to me this is the right place to discuss them, but maybe not. I have offered one way to resolve the conflict, based on clear Wikipeida policy, namely, to adhere to Wikipedia:SS. It would improve the article and eliminate your conflict altogether. Let the consensus fall where it may. I hope you work something out. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So do I; I'm not sure this peer review is really helping the RfC get anywhere, especially in light of some of the points I made above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit war is pretty silly an easily resolvable. Obviously the medium for this is was not peer-review (or RfC) but probably adding it to Requests for feedback page. However I think this was done by accident. I don't think it was canvassing. I think it was done in good faith as this page obviously needs revision. I have more to say but I agree we should close this page and merge the contents with the logos talk page.لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement that we should close the peer review page and merge it with the talk page. We have some highly relevant material here that will be helpful as we tackle the expansion and revision of the page. Thank you both for your input! As to comment on my own actions here, they were executed in good faith, perhaps I jumped the gun in moving so quickly from RfC to peer review but I was eager to get this project moving and that we accomplished. As an editor, I am learning as I go. In terms of additional comments on what has been stated above in terms of content suggestions, I too, have some things that I would like to add but I will wait until we are established back on the talk page to do so. --Edunoramus (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I also stated on the talk page for Logos, I will leave this page open for discussion for two more days and after that time, unless there is further comment to be made here, I will turn this page into an archive and move the content to the talk page. RfC will remain open for thirty days and it is presumed that the bot will remove it when the time has elapsed. I have also added a sub-heading for Wikipedia:SS discussion on the talk page. --Edunoramus (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be transcluded, not moved. I'll do that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded is better. I had no idea that was possible. Thanks. --Edunoramus (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 24 August 2010, 01:12 UTC)

---

Upanishads

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

1. I would like to find out what I need to do before nominating it for a GA review

Do what I've pointed out here and you should be fine.

2. How hard it is for a person not knowledgeable with the subject to understand the topic

Not too bad for me. The second paragraph of New Upanishads is pushing it, though.

3. Whether I should italicize Indian/Hindu terms all the time or only at first instance

Only the first time.

4. Whether using IAST helps the lay-reader or whether it's impacting readability negatively

No problems.

5. Any other critique

Below.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I happen to have covered this in Global last semester. ResMar 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General notes

• Upanishads, Upanishads, Upanishads! The word is extremely repetitious throughout the article, and the biggest issue I see. Are there no alternate names?
• Do not use complex charecters and templates in titles per Wikipedia:TITLE.
• It's considered bad practice to mention your references by name, unless he is a major scholar on the subject, in which case he should have some mention in the article beyond the reference.
• You say you are worried about readability. I've added quite a few links to the articles to improve it (not everyone knows who Brahmin, Socrate's dialouges, etc. are!)

Lead

• One new Upanishad, the Muktika Upanishad which predates 1656 contains a list of 108 canonical Upanishads and lists itself as the final one. Is it a new one or the newest? Its list makes it appear as the newest one, so if it's not it needs clarification.

Epytmology

• setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit... Not grammatically correct, is the quote supposed to be like that? If so please add [sic].
• End of the section needs a ref.

Classification

• Table needs a note on what the yellow highlights are. Fixed by explaining
• 1926 marked the discovery of four new Upanishads by Dr. Schrader. Why is this important? Also, first name of the doctor, please.
• Most authors discuss only the mukhya Upanishads in their works. Reference.
• Several of the notable and widely used Shakta Upaniṣads, including the Kaula Upaniṣad, the Śrīvidyā Upaniṣad and the Śrichakra Upaniṣad are not listed in the Mutika Upanishad. Citation needed tag; someone's beaten me to it!

Philosophy

• The discovery by the Upanashidic thinkers that Atman and Brahman are one and the same is the greatest contribution made to the thought of the world. First of all, citations. Secondly, I'm curious as to why it's the greatest contribution. As it's worded, it sounds as if it's the greatest philosophical contribution of all time, or something similar.
• Between the two, the Brihadaranyaka is the more original one. Citation.
• Important quotations from some of the Upanishads include: Cite.
• Two forms of the non-dual Brahmin-Atman are presented in the... Non-dual?
• A lot of refs missing in the end of the section.

Development of thought

• Whole section missing citations! Fixed by providing citations

Worldwide transition

• Emperor Akbar's reign (1556–1586) saw the first translations of the Upanishads. Into what language? Fixed by providing information
• Refs refs refs refs refs! Fixed by providing citations

Global schollarship and praise

• Again, citations! Fixed by providing citations, one citation needed tag remains. Will wait for a week and remove claim if citations cannot be found.

Criticism of the Upanishads

• The inline quotes need to be converted into standing ones with {{quote}}. Fixed by converting to quotes

It's not considered good form to strike reviewer's comments. Not to be authourative or anything, but we decide when the issue is really resolved. Cheers, ResMar 01:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that others were following this practice [3]and thought I would do the same since there's a note at the top that asks me to avoid using done/check mark images, level 1-3 headings, etc. I'm just fine fixing per your recommendations and leaving a note on your talk page at the end of it. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment by Noloop

I would trim the lead. Something like:

The Upanishads (Devanagari: उपनिषद्, IAST: Upaniṣad, also spelled "Upaniṣad") are philosophical texts of the Hindu religion. More than 200 are known, of which the first dozen or so, the oldest and most important, are variously referred to as the principal, main (mukhya) or old Upanishads.

The oldest of these, the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, were written during the pre-Buddhist era of India.[1][2] while the Taittiriya, Aitareya and Kausitaki, which show Buddhist influence, must have been composed after the fifth century BC:[2] the remainder of the mukhya Upanishads are dated to the first two centuries of the common era.[2] The new Upanishads were composed in the medieval and early modern period: discoveries of newer Upanishads were being reported as late as 1926.[3]

All Upanishads have been passed down in oral tradition. The mukhya Upanishads hold the stature of revealed texts (shruti). With the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutra[10] the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy (vedanta), among them two influential monistic schools of Hinduism.[11][12][13]

Move the text I took out to the body. The lead shouldn't have a lot detail. Good luck! It's a worthy topic. Noloop (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tisk, looks like I have to disagree with you. Again :P The lead is perfect in length for such an important topic, although there is a stay sentance I've meged into the paras. ResMar 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixes per peer review

The following changes have been made in response to the peer review:

General notes

• Upanishads, Upanishads, Upanishads! The word is extremely repetitious throughout the article, and the biggest issue I see. Are there no alternate names? -- Coulnd't fix this one because I am unaware of another name to refer to the Upanishads.
• Do not use complex charecters and templates in titles per Wikipedia:TITLE. -- Already fixed
• It's considered bad practice to mention your references by name, unless he is a major scholar on the subject, in which case he should have some mention in the article beyond the reference. -- Most of the scholars get mention in the article in the chronology section
• You say you are worried about readability. I've added quite a few links to the articles to improve it (not everyone knows who Brahmin, Socrate's dialouges, etc. are!) -- Thanks!

Lead

• Provided information that clarifies that Upanishads were still found after 1656.

Epytmology

• That's the way it appears originally. Sounds grammatically correct if read as "The word Upanishad means setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit..." Not grammatically correct, is the quote supposed to be like that? If so please add [sic].
• Provided a citation for the end of the section

Classification

• Highlighting identifies the mukhya Upanishads
• Dr. Shrader is names; provided more information that explains why the new findings are important
• Removed the inaccurate statement - Most authors discuss only the mukhya Upanishads in their works. Reference.
• Cannot find citation for Several of the notable and widely used Shakta Upaniṣads, including the Kaula Upaniṣad, the Śrīvidyā Upaniṣad and the Śrichakra Upaniṣad are not listed in the Mutika Upanishad. Will wait for a week, then remove if a source still can't be found

Philosophy

• Provided citations for the authors who claim the finding of Brahman=Atman as the greatest contribution to human thought.
• Provided citation for the claim that BU is older than CU.
• Provided citations for the important quotations from some of the Upanishads include:
• Rephrased the two types of non-dual Brahman-Atman
• Provided citations towards the end of the sections

Development of thought

• Provided citations

Worldwide transition

• Persian - added that information to the article
• Provided citations

Global schollarship and praise

• Provided citations, one citation needed tag remains. Will wait for a week and remove claim if citations cannot be found.

Criticism of the Upanishads

• Converted inline quotes to template based quotes

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats it. Good job. ResMar 21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spending time on this Resident Mario. It was really helpful and will help us list this article as a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Good luck. ResMar 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 14 August 2010, 05:09 UTC)

---

Social sciences and society

United States Naval Academy

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm sure this has potential to be a featured article in Wikipedia. Since USMA is a featured article, so can this one. Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Overall a good article with some issues, a trimming would do a world of good. Sandman888 (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

References

• Several deadlinks, check

WW2 to present

• list like prose in much of it.
• "In 1991, Midshipman Juliane Gallina, class of 1992, became the first woman brigade commander. On 29 January 1994, the first genderless service assignment was held. All billets were opened equally to men and women with the exception of special warfare and submarine duty.

The initial 150th anniversary celebration was held in Alumni Hall on 13 January 1995. "An Evening Under the Stars." It featured a Naval Academy Band/Glee Club concert, the premiere showing of a documentary film, U. S. Naval Academy; 150 Years in Annapolis, and introduction of astronauts who were academy graduates." References?

• "Ex Scientia Tridens," translate first time
• "Naval Academy traditions" consider deleting sections, it adds little to the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Sandman's comments above, here are some suggestions for improvement. There are two major issues that would prevent this from becoming a Wikipedia:GA in its current state, let along a Wikipedia:FA

• The biggest issue I see is a lack of references and other issues related to sources - large sections of the article are completely unreferenced. This would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See Wikipedia:CITE and Wikipedia:V
• I also note that many of the sources are to the Navy or its websites. As much as possible, reliable sources which are independent of the USNA should be used. As this is a national institution with a long history, finding books and other independent third-party sources should not be too difficult.
• The other major issuer is the prose. FAs are supposed to have a professional level of English. This does not meet that.
• It has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which impede the flow of the article and should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• As noted it also has many bullet point lists, which should in almost all cases be converted to regular prose
• The USMA article is a great model for ideas and examples to follow - it is fully referenced and the text flows much better. I also note it has a fair number of traditions in it - if there are relaible sources for them, they can probably be briefly included.

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 _><>°^° 13:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 23 August 2010, 19:22 UTC)

---

John Key

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… it passed as a GA, however the review was done by a pretty inexperienced editor, and although he passed it straight away (without a hold), I doubt that it is actually up to GA standard. What needs to be done to ensure it stays a good article, and what needs to be done to eventually raise it up to FA standard? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• The article is rather short when the subject is a current prime minister. This means that the infobox is disproportionately large. The photograph seems rather oppressively oversized, as does the scrawl of signature. Also, it isn't necessary to include everything about the subject in the infobox. Why have the information about his various offices both here and at the end of the article? The infobox could be much shorter.
• The lead is too short and does not summarise the entire article.
• Image placement: it is inappropriate to have the image of Key celebrating his 2008 victory right at the start of the article. It should be more appropriately placed, in the section in which this event occurs.
• Personal life: The prose seems rather magaziney; it is not necessary to name the children again (they are named in the infobox), nor to mention his wife's role as a full-time mother. The section is also a little short on details about Key. I know accountants are deemed to be irretrievably boring, but is he an entirely one-dimensional figure? Something - anything - to give him some depth would make the article more interesting.
• Before politics: Section should not begin with a pronoun. Overlinking: Foreign exchange (everyday term)
• Member of Parliament: The table is, to me, incomprehensible without some explanatory text. What do the headings "Term" and "List" mean? The relevant results are given in the text, so does the table serve any purpose?
• Finance spokesman: Apart from the mention of Key's appointment, this short section is about something else entirely. Is there no information to be given as to how Key performed this role? Also, information is completely lacking to explain his rapid rise to party leader. Were there other candidates for the post? Was there an election, and what was its outcome? This is essential information for a biographical article on a politician. You don't even give the date on which he became leader.
• The narrative concerning Key's time as opposition leader seems to consist of anecdotes. OK, these may be interesting or even important, but we need to know something about the political climate of the times, and have a sense as to how Key operated in this climate. What government policies did he focus his attacks upon? What policy alternatives was he offering? What was the climate of opinion at the time - what did the opinion polls show, etc etc? The section is incomplete and inadequate as it stands.
• Prime minister
  • Nothing about the election campaign?
  • The results indicate that Key needed a coalition partner to form a majority government. Who was this partner?
  • What does "overhang" mean?
  • As with the previous section, this is mainly anecdotal trivia and doesn't give any kind of a picture of a statesman in office. And why is his appearance on Letterman in a section supposedly concerned with a UN Security Council seat bid? Surely there should be some discussion of this bid - why was it made, and what was the outcome?
• Political views: I won't say much, except that you say he has changed his views on the Iraq war since becoming leader of the opposition. You don't say when this change occurred, or what his current views are. That information would be interesting.
• Religious views: I don't think this section has any justifiable place in the article, since Key's religion, or lack of it, has never been a political issue. Or, if it has, this should have been discussed earlier in the article.

As you will have gathered from my review, I believe that this article needs considerable expansion if it is to come near to meeting the "comprehensive" criterion as required by FAC. It might be an idea to look at other prime minister articles that have made it to FA; the most recent I can think of is John Diefenbaker. I hope that you found this eview helpful; please note that I haave not checked out sources or image licences. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 22 August 2010, 06:53 UTC)

---

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review to get ideas for improvement, with an eye toward Good Article status.

Thanks, Noloop (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

This is a fascinating subject and I'll happily review it. It is a rather long article so I will need to review it in chunks. Since your aim currently is to get the article to GA status I will review it in light of the GA Criteria.

Lead

• Per Wikipedia:LEAD the lead should be a summary of all the points in the article, it is a skeletal version of the article. The body of the article then fills in the details. Given the length of this article a three to four paragraph lead is warranted. Please expand the lead and incorporate all the subjects in the article.
• Assuming all the information in the lead is found in the body of the article, it is not necessary to source in the lead. Sourcing is not discouraged per se but it's something to think about.

Background

• See Wikipedia:QUOTE. One of the GA Criteria is to adhere to Manual of Style guidelines. Be sure the two quotes at the top of this section are consistent with the MOS. One concern is that grammatical and spelling mistakes within the quote be identified usually by a (sic). I would check with Wikipedia:QUOTE to be sure on that. Also check formatting, use of quotation marks, and attribution.
• No need for bold text at the beginning of the first sentence in the body of the article.
• I like the use of parentheses after the first use of each Islamic term, please be sure to do this with each new term (ex. fatwa - Religious edict I think).
• “It’s the culture, not the religion,” is a Saudi saying. This is an unattributed quote. It is also apparently a common saying in Saudi culture and probably doesn't have a specific source. To me it's no big deal but to some, including possibly the GA reviewer, it may come across as original research. I'm a firm believer in judicious sourcing, not every concept and idea needs a source but some do not share my pragmatism.
• Keeping the above point in mind this statement will be hard to quantify: "Few Saudis see Islam as the main impediment to women’s rights." How do you know this? Is there a study or a poll confirming this fact? Personal opinions on cultural perspectives should be left out of encyclopedia articles.
• Watch over linking. See Wikipedia:LINK. Once a term is linked once in the body of the article it isn't usually necessary to link it again. Sometimes if the link occurs early in a long article it's ok to link it a second time later on but not one right after the other as in the references is Aisha. I edited out a couple of the links but this should be checked throughout. Also country names do not need to be linked.
• Be sure to put all references outside of the punctuation. I saw one instance of the reference being on the inside of the punctuation towards the end of this section.
• More undefined terms: non-mahram, abaya, niqab. I see that these terms are defined in detail later in the article but a word or two in their first reference is probably useful.
• A Gallup poll is referenced in the final paragraph in this section. Is that poll found in the Time or the Washington Post articles that are used as sources in that paragraph?
• Use of British English vs. American English spelling needs to be consistent. For the most part thus far the article is in American English, but in the Namus section there is an instance when honor is spelled "honour", even though it is also spelled "honor" in the same section. Check throughout the article for consistency.

Purdah

• I'm not sure of the MOS edicts on templates like the "Islamic female dress" banner under the Dress code sub-section. This may need to be moved down to the bottom of the article where these templates usually reside.
• One issue that I've seen in subtle forms in the article is weasel wording. This is using statements like, "Experts claim..." or "Many people believe..." or "A majority of women say...", to validate facts that have tenuous or no source support. Watch out for this tendency.
• There is no caption in the picture of the McDonald's restaurant. There should be a caption per Wikipedia:IMAGE.
• Is "breastfeed" one word or two? I think two but you may want to check that. Breast milk sons is a very interesting section that was new to me. That's what I love about this encyclopedia. Always something new and informative.

Economic rights

• See Wikipedia:LIST. Embedded lists are discouraged. Consider breaking the list in this section down into prose.

Education

• Avoid one sentence (stub) paragraphs.

Mobility

• Another embedded list that could be converted to prose in this section.
• The word "generally" is used quite a bit in the article. I assume it is to quantify a generalized statement but because of its overuse it loses its meaning. This is more of an issue that would come up at Wikipedia:FAC should you wish to push the article further than GA standing.
• I have a question regarding all of these regulations for women, do they apply to women accompanied by a guardian? Example, women have limited access to bus and train service. Is this only for women unaccompanied by a guardian or all women regardless of whom she is with?
• The end of this section specifies "American citizen women and boys". Could this be internationalized to "foreign citizen" or "non-Saudi citizen"? Does it have to be specifically American citizen? If so this should be explained in the article.

Legal issues

• Why is mahram italicized in this section only?
• A one-sentence section is looked down upon. Can this be expanded or combined with another section? Referring to Women's testimony section.
• The first two quotes from the Q'uran are oddly placed within this section. The first relates to inheritance though it is in the section about Political life. The second relates to testimony though it is in the section about marriage. Can the quotes be moved to section more applicable to their subject matter?
• In the Parental authority section, does ref 82 apply to the entire section? If so could you combine the two "paragraphs" into one?
• The Sexual violence and trafficking section is very one-sided. Overall the article has been very neutral in its language, but this section feels very critical of the Saudi legal system regarding its stance on sexual violence against women. Is there another side to this argument? Do conservatives have a voice here? I'm not in any way advocating that women should be punished for being raped, but I just want to be sure both sides are given full voice.

Change

• This quote is an example of weasel wording:

"Wajeha al-Huwaider is often described as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia"

Who describes her as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia?

• The quote that follows the statement that Huwaider is a show-off does not support the claim that she is a show-off. Consider a different quote or a different adjective to describe Huwaider.
• "Many believe slow change is the only kind possible." Who and how do you know?
• "Most Saudis oppose mixed workplaces and women driving in cities. Most women want to wear the veil and don’t think women should hold political office. Many Saudis view their country as “the closest thing to an ideal and pure Islamic nation,” and therefore most in need of resistance to Western values."

• More examples of weasel wording, "Most Saudis oppose...", "Most women want...", "Many Saudis view...". Do the refs at the end of this paragraph support these statements? If so then they should go directly after the sentence (in my opinion).

• It would be good to identify who Thomas Friedman is, columnist for the NY Times. Yeah he's linked but it would still serve to support his inclusion in the article by identifying him and linking him.

Foreign views

• "Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that ‘Blacks’ and ‘Coloreds’ were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club."

Who said this quote? It's insightful and I know there's a reference but if there's a way to attribute it within the article that would be good.

• The above comment about Thomas Friedman would also apply to Mary Kaldor and Daniel Pipes in this section.

References

• The format for the website references needs to follow a template like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. You need to have at least the url, publisher, and accessdate. See Wikipedia:CITE for more thoughts on this.
• There are a large number of different, valid referencing formats, the key though is consistency. Pick one and use it throughout.
• It appears as though most of the references are credible. Watch the use of discussion forums or blogs. Reviewers take a dim view to the credibility of these sources.

• I would think there must be some books on this subject. Check google books. This is an excellent source for online study material. Books are seen as highly credible and should you wish to take this to FA standing you'll need to beef up the sourcing with books and/or academic journals.
• I do see a couple of books within the sourcing. Consider using a reference format that separates books from other on-line material. This will be important if you are referencing one book several times. In the references section you could use the author's last name, date of the book and page number. Then in a separate bibliography or notes section you would have the full parenthetical reference of the book. Just a thought.
• For example, ref 66 says, "Nakshabandi,1993". I don't see any other reference to this anywhere. Is this a book? Who is Nakshabandi? These sorts of vague references will need to be fixed.

Overall

• Given the subject matter the article is very balanced and well supported.
• The writing is ok for GA standards.
• I think the get the artice to GA quality you will need to work on the following items:

1. Expand the lead.
2. Make sure your quotes are consistent with MOS.
3. Check images for captions and compliance with Wikipedia:FU.
4. Address the weasel wording issue.
5. Expand or combine stub paragraphs.
6. Heavy work needs to be done on the referencing to make a consistent format.
7. Review the rest of my comments don't take the above list as all that needs to be done, I just picked out the highlights.

• The article could certainly become a candidate for Featured status. To get there a thorough review of the prose and grammar will need to be undertaken. Also the references will need to be examined critically, and more academic journals and books will need to be added.

This concludes my review, I hope that I was able to help give you some input to move the article forward. I wish you nothing but the best and thank you for the insightful read. Please consider reviewing an article at Wikipedia:PR or Wikipedia:GAC to help reduce the backlog at these two sites. I do not routinely watch review pages so if you have specific questions or comments on my review please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 August 2010, 04:56 UTC)

---

Welfare's effect on poverty

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a worthwhile subject

Thanks, CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I see is a big fat banner saying the article has multiple issues. The guidelines for peer review say articles should not have major cleanup banners. Noloop (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with the above comment. Thanks for your work on this, but it is so short that it would not qualify for WPDYK (only 957 B, so much less than the 1500 B minimum prose size needed for DYK, not counting tables or refs or captions), so there is not a lot to say about it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• More info is needed in some of the refs - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See Wikipedia:CITE and Wikipedia:V
• This needs to be expanded a lot. Basic terms need to be explained briefly, as do the methods of the studies cited. How is poverty defined? WHen are the pre and post statistics from (as most countires have had welfare of some sort for a long time). How are the absolute and relative poverty rates defined and measured and what makes them different?
• I am sure that there are many more studies on this topic than the few cited here. One of them is presented only in the caption of a graph (child poverty and taxes).
• While the pro-welfare statistics are reflective of the developed world, the anti-welfare views are only from the USA. This could be seen as a Wikipedia:WEIGHT and Wikipedia:NPOV issue.
• What about the rest of the world?
• I am not sure the Wikipedia:Fair use grap image meets Wikipedia:NFCC
• The article is almost all short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - to improve the flow, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are quite a few Wikipedia:FAs at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics_and_government that may be good models. Anarcho-capitalism may be a good model, though it is older and not as completely cited as is current practice.

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 _><>°^° 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 18 August 2010, 15:23 UTC)

---

The World's Greatest Unsolved Crimes

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I created it and have taken it as far as I think I can.

Thanks, Oliver

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Just so you are aware, the Notability banner at top would normally disqualify the article from peer review (as articles at PR cannot have major cleanup banners). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• As noted, one of the major issues with the article is notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says in part that A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] I do not know if this book meets that criterion - there are others listed at that page, but they seem likely not to be applicable here.
• Assuming that there are reviews etc of this book and that it meets notability guidelines, then the article needs more secondary independent sources that meet Wikipedia:RS (i.e. are reliable) - please see Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:CITE
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many articles on books which are Wikipedia:FAs and would be good potential models. The World Without Us is a FA book article.
• Things present in most book articles and missing here include a section on how the book was written, the publishing history (I see this is a second printing), and a critical reception section. Note that the plot or synopsis is only a summary (and is barely mentioned in the model "The World Without Us").
• I worry here that the article goes into such detail on the contents that it is a potential copyright violation - see Wikipedia:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:NFCC
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The disambiguation tool in the upper right corner of this page finds two dab links that will need to be fixed.
• So basically you need to add additional sources that are independent of this book to establish notability and expand the article so it is more about the writing, publication, and reception of the book, and trim the current content so it is not a possible copyvio.

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 _><>°^° 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 August 2010, 14:17 UTC)

---

United States Constitution

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It is

• a former featured article,
• in rather good condition,
• is very well-developed and uses many in-line citations,
• is listed as C-class by all of the several WikiProjects, though this was probably done by one editor,
• appears to pass the Wikipedia:B-class criteria without much difficulty (even on references),
• and could potentially be a Wikipedia:Good article very soon.

So please evaluate first for Wikipedia:B-class criteria and then Wikipedia:Good article criteria and note what could be improved, especially if there is something that I have noted here that you might think I have overlooked. All feedback is welcome!

Thanks, Adavis444 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off the article is obviously set on a firm foundation and structure. There has been a great deal of research and work done as evidence by the large number of in-line citations. The organization of the article is evident so I would be confident in pushing it to B-class. Any editor can do so unilaterally and usually there isn't much debate. As such I will review the article against the GA criteria and offer suggestions to help move the article to this level.

Lead

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of every point raised in the article. See Wikipedia:LEAD for thoughts on this. In my opinion the lead in this article is sparse and should be expanded. The reader should come away from the lead with a sekeletal framework of the article. The body then fills in the rest of the details. A four paragraph lead is fine for an article of this length and each paragraph is a good start for the major sections of the article. Please expand these paragraphs to add more summary on the main points.

History

• Avoid one sentence paragraphs wherever possible.
• Perhaps a word or two more on why the Articles of Confederation needed to be changed or scraped.
• People may take issue with the statement that the House represents the people while the Senate represents the states. Senators would claim they represent the people just as much as the Representatives.
• You want to avoid embedded lists within articles. See Wikipedia:LIST for thoughts on this. There are two lists outlining the opposing proposals for the constitution. I would break those lists down into prose.
• Was there much opposition to the ratification? What were some of the objections raised?
• More could be said about the Great Compromise. How were judges selected, were they life terms, how were they ratified, checks and balances like veto power etc.
• The first mention of the Bill of Rights is in a section on the influences on the Bill of Rights. I think an introduction into the drafting and adoptiong of the BofR would be in order before discussing influences on it.
• In reading this, it seems like more content could be added to meet the comprehensive criterium.

Articles of the Constitution

• Where does this quote come from, "is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people,"? Unless it is from the quote above it should be referenced. "We the People" does not need to be referenced since it is pulled directly from the quoted sentence above.
• There are links to the House and Senate here but the first mention of them is in the History section. Per Wikipedia:LINK the first mention should be linked, there is no need to link after the first mention in the body of the article is linked.
• Why is Article I Section 8 linked but not Article I Section 1?
• Why is there a Section analysis in bold in this sub-section?
• There are very few in-line citations in the review of the articles. Granted it is just a summary of what the articles say so I wouldn't expect a lot of sources but you should be aware that GA reviewers may have an issue with that. It would be good to reference this discussion of succession and the issue with Harrison and Tyler since that is not part of the constitution that you're summarizing.
• This sentence is a little awkard:

• Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the federal government and amongst the states. I would reword thus, "Article Four describes the relationship of the states with each other and with the federal government."

• Watch overlinking. You don't need to link terms like regulate. Words in common English usage don't need to be linked. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Judicial review

• I added a ^{[citation needed]} template to the end of this section. There should be in-line citations in this section since it is not a strict summary of the Constitution. It shouldn't be hard to find citations for judicial review.

Amendments

• Same can be said for this section. Very in-line citations. The fact that 10,000 amendments have been proposed is amazing and something I didn't know. It should be sourced. I put a ^{[citation needed]} template at the end of the first section only as a means to communicate that the entire section should be better referenced.
• As such, none of these are likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party.

• Probably want to keep speculation out of this article. Not really necessary and doesn't add to the content.

• Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists, although nothing prevents a future amendment from doing so.

• How can it be determined that most constitutional amendments change the body of the text and why is that ultimately important? By the way, the paragraph that is linked to "amendments to most constitutions" has a ^{[citation needed]} template that has been on there since April 2010. This weakens the argument further. Consider rewording.

• Why do you have full text access for amendments 11-27 but not for the bill of rights?
• Quote found in the Unratified amendments sub-section: Ratified by eleven states, the last being Kentucky in June 1792 during Kentucky's initial month of statehood....

• Duplicative statement. Consider removing.

References

• Ref 1 is to a subsidiary of Wikipedia. Usually try to avoid sourcing to agencies connected to WP as it reduces credibility.
• Ref 53 is a dead link
• Ref 54 needs a publisher and accessdate.

Overall thoughts

• I think the article is well on its way to GA status. I'll summarize my thoughts below.
• The History section needs to be expanded, I listed suggestions in my review.
• The referencing is lacking especially in the Judicial review and Amendments section. This will need to be addressed before it can be successful at GAC.
• Imbedded lists should be broken down into prose.
• Images look good, references are for the most part credible and formatted correctly.
• If FA is your ultimate goal then there is quite a bit to be done. But GA is within easy reach and I wish you the best as you work on the article.

This concludes my review. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch reviews. If you found the review helpful consider reviewing an article here or at Wikipedia:GAC to help reduce the backlog. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 August 2010, 02:55 UTC)

---

Parrot Corporation Limited

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I would appreciate comments on the structure of the article, is it to the point, concise and ultimately is it of interest. It is my intention to contribute more to Wikipedia, so I would like to gauge my own contribution and see if I'm qualified to critique others and be of use!

Thanks, Mulletsrokkify (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia and well done on your first article! I'm not sure if you're just looking for reassurance, or if you want a detailed critique of the article. As most people come to peer review looking to take articles to the standard ow Good Article or Featured Article, I'll try and give you a more detailed review. Don't be discouraged by everything I mention though, because you really have done a good job for your first article! I'll go through section by section. General

• It's always worth comparing your article to other similar ones that are already good or featured. You can find some in Category:FA-Class Companies articles and Category:GA-Class Companies articles.
• You might want to add an infobox that summarises the main facts about the company in the right corner of the article. It's not obligatory, and some editors don't like them. You can see them in use at BAE Systems and Blackstone Group.
• Check out the automated tips in the box at the top of this page for some suggestions
• It would be good if the article had some images, but I can understand they might be difficult to obtain. Options might be the company logo (which would be acceptable as a non-free image, with an appropriate fair use rationale), or perhaps a photo of the location of the company

Lead section

• per Wikipedia:LEAD, the lead section (the bit before the table of contents) should summarise the main points of the article. It's not just an introduction, but acts as almost a mini-version of the whole article. Apparently, many readers don't even get past the table of contents before moving on elsewhere, so it's important to get the main facts into the lead. Likewise, the lead should not introduce any material that is not mentioned later on in the article. The lead can be up to four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article.
• "Parrot Corporation Limited was a UK computer diskette manufacturer..." - I would probably call it "British" rather than "UK", since British is the adjective
• "Ultimately it would fail ..." - why conditional tense? I would simply put "Ultimately it failed..."

History

• "Set up in 1983 as the only British based, fully integrated manufacturer of floppy diskettes for personal computers. A start-up venture funded partly by the WDA." You have some incomplete sentences here. There's no space restriction on Wikipedia, so we use a prose style rather than short sentence fragments.
• WDA links to a disambiguation page, so make sure it points to Welsh Development Agency. I don't know if you know about piped links, but you can link to the right article by typing [[Welsh Development Agency|WDA]]
• Watch out for overlinking. For example, in this section, you have added wikilinks to the word "diskette" three times. In the next section, you've linked to WDA four times. This isn't necessary. You only need to add wikilinks to a certain word once in each section, and maybe less than once per section if the word is repeated quickly. Also be careful that you only link to words that are relevant and would help the reader to understand the topic more. You have done well with this, I can't see any words that shouldn't be linked.

Company Formation

• ECSC also links to a disambiguation page, so would be confusing for a reader. However, since you have already linked to European Coal and Steel Community in that section, there's no need to link ECSC at all at this point.
• Although you've done really well not to link words that shouldn't be (apart from the repeated links) I think you could actually add more links, to add context. For example, Northern Trust Bank
• Per the section headings guideline, heading titles should be in sentence case. So, Company formation instead of Company Formation etc.
• The history and company formation sections seem to be about the sam thing really, could you merge the two sections perhaps?

Financial Irregularities

• On the whole, the article is well-cited, but because you are using several different sources, it's not always clear where some of the information comes from, or if it is cited at all. Make sure you have citations for everything that could be challenged. one thing that stood out to me in this section was the statement "...it was discovered that £2 million of the ECSC loan was allegedly missing from the Parrot accounts." That needs to be verifiable. The next section, where you say that the man was fired and then arrested, definitely needs a citation. We have a policy on biographies of living people that in fact applies to all articles, not just biographies. Information on living people must be cited to reliable sources.
• "Peters was extradited by the United States to Great Britain in 1989" - shouldn't that be Britain, or the UK?

Political Controversy

• Ok, I can totally see why you have ten citations for this first sentence, because you are talking about "much discussion". However, that many blue numbers in a row is not easy on the eyes, and a little distracting. In the following sentences you summarise the discussions (I think) so it would be better to put the citations after the relevant statements.
• "The WDA were criticised for its involvement..." - "were" doesn't match "its"
• "poorly invested public funds in a "murky transaction"." - direct quotes need citations; I presume it's one of the 10 above
• "It was felt that the Welsh Secretary of State..." - try to avoid unsupported attributions like "it was felt". (see Wikipedia:WEASEL); who felt that?

Current events

• Per MOS:DATE, dates shouldn't be formatted as "On the 1st of August 2007", but "On 1 August 2007"
• Again, be mindful of Wikipedia:BLP, and make sure there are citations right next to statements about criminal charges

See also

• This section should only contain articles not already mentioned in the article (make sure you've linked them in the article!)

References

• For dates in the references section (and this is not required, but an opinion), dates formatted as yyyy-mm-dd can be ambiguous and confusing to readers outside the US, so I'd change them to day month year. (eg. 2010-08-11 → 11 August 2010)

Now, I know I've mentioned a lot of things, so please don't be discouraged at all. As I said before, you've done a great job and it's an interesting and informative article. One last thing I though of, is that it's mostly a historical overview of the company. Is there any more info available on the products? Anyway, please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with developing the article further!--BelovedFreak 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments from Belovedfreak

This is looking much improved, so well done. The main things that stood out for me this time were:

• Some words are linked that don't need to be because they are quite common words, eg. investor, loan, allegation, convicted, charges, sentencing
• The fair use rationale for the logo says that it is self-made. How did you make it exactly? What I mean is that if you scanned it or downloaded it from somewhere, you will need to say from where
• There is a lot of the conditional tense, especially in the lead, which seems strange. You can just use the simple past tense. We're looking at th