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 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: March 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) Biography peer review Chemistry peer review Chess peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Military history peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Video games peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback: March 12 • Jhalkaribai • WildBird March 10 • Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year March 9 • Rumble Fish • Olivia Manning • Igbo people March 8 • Tablighi Jamaat • Vietnam Airlines March 7 • Rock Show (Parks and Recreation) • Benet Academy 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

List of Slipknot concert tours

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think there have been a lot of changes since it being a FLC, and I think it is FL now.

Thanks, CrowzRSA ^{23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)}

(Peer review added on Monday 15 March 2010, 23:45 UTC)

---

Rod Serling

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

I've listed this article for peer review. I have spent over a month rewriting much of it as I added a ton of references. It had a notification about poor references before I began. Also, it's on the bounty board, so I figured...why not.

This is my first attempt at a Featured article, and I would appreciate any feedback to help me get better at writing high-quality articles.

Thanks, Sabiona (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off good for you to take a stab at FAC. It is a commendable endeavor and a very good learning experience. Make sure you have a thick skin though as the process can be difficult. That said I'll make some comments to help give some direction to the article. Make sure you put the article up against the FA Criteria before you nominate it for FA consideration.

• Look at Wikipedia:LEAD, this provides the requirements for a good lead. Part of the key to a good lead is that it summarizes every point brought up in the article. For an article of this length a 3 to 4 paragraph lead is customary. This will need to be addressed before it goes to FAC.
• After this review I would suggest nominating the article at Wikipedia:GAC. Having the article go through the GA process will definitely help you. An outside reviewer will hold the article up to the MOS and make sure it complies, at least to a minimum standard. The only catch with GAC right now is that there is about a 6 week waiting list. But I'm a firm believer in the process so I try to advocate for it. I'm sorry if this is all old news to you, I'm not sure how much experience you have with the various review options available to you.

"Throughout his life Serling was the life of the party, often using imitations to entertain those around him."

This sentence is an example of some prose problems, first off it's best to not duplicate words within a sentence if it can be avoided. So life and life in this sentence. Also "life of the party" is, in my opinion, a bit unencyclopedic. At FAC the reviewers will look closely at the words you use. If life of the party is part of quote then that's fine but on its own it isn't really a professional term. Again it's my opinion though so take it for what it's worth.

One or two sentence paragraphs are to be avoided. Consider merging or expanding these paragraphs.

"Serling applied to, and was accepted to college during his senior year of high school; however, the U.S. was deeply involved in World War II at that time and Serling decided to enlist rather than start college[14] immediately after he graduated from Binghamton Central High School in 1943.[5]"

Watch for words or phrases that aren't necessary in the context of the article. For example: "Applied to..." is unnecessary since you say he was accepted into college. It's assumed he applied and really isn't detail the reader needs. What college though? That is a good piece of information to add. Also a word like "deeply" isn't necessary, saying the US was in the midst of WWII is enough. You don't usually want to put in-line citations in the middle of a sentence. See Wikipedia:CITE for thoughts on this. Usually the cite goes at the end of a sentence or at least after a comma but really at the end of a sentence or paragraph. I would end the sentence after "...rather than start college." I would then incorporate the fact that he graduated in 1943 into the sentence. For example, "...accepted to college in 1943, which was his senior year of high school. New sentence with, "However the U.S. was..." Does that make sense?

"War is a temporal thing," Gus Youngstrom told an eager Serling, "It ends. An education doesn't. Without your degree, where will you be after the war"

The quote is a great quote but it is about getting a degree. The context is about Serling graduating from high school. There's a disconnect here because you don't get a degree for graduating from high school. It sounds like Youngstrom is trying to get Serling to go to college rather than enlist. Please clarify.

• Side note here, the article is very long. Watch for unnecessary detail that, while good information, may bog the article down. Keep summary style in mind when writing. There is a lot of extraneous detail in the Military service section. You should consider really tightening up this section to one or two paragraphs, perhaps 10 to 15 sentences. His life is remembered for his entertainment career not his military career. You can always move the information into an article on the military career of Rod Serling if you feel strongly that people should know about it.
• Another thought about the Military career section, the image in this section is enormous! There has to be another image about the Leyte beachhead that isn't so big. Also you will get dinged on captions of images at FAC, punctuation should only be used for complete sentences. For the image in the Military career section there would be no punctuation because it isn't a complete sentence. It's ticky tack I know but it will be brought up at FAC.

More review to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is mention of his wife in the Postwar section before mention of his marriage this is confusing and doesn't fit the chronology of the article.

"After being discharged from the Army in 1946, Serling worked at a rehabilitation hospital while recovering from his wounds. His knee would continue to give him trouble though, and his wife became used to the sound of Serling falling down the stairs after his knee refused to take his weight.[14] Serling suffered two severe heart attacks in 1975. He and his physicians decided that he should enter the Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York for coronary bypass surgery. May 3, 1975 Serling suffered a minor heart attack and was hospitalized. He spent two weeks at Tompkins County Community Hospital before being released.[53] A second heart attack two weeks later forced doctors to agree that open heart surgery, though considered risky at the time, was in order.[54][55] On June 28, 1975 Serling had a third, and fatal, heart attack during the ten hour operation.[46] He was 50 years old at the time of his death.[46]"

A couple issues here, first and foremost, are you talking about Rod Serling? If it's about Rod Serling then why is it here? His death should be described at the end of the article not here. I'm seeing a bigger issue as I continue to read the article and that is regarding chronology. You want to keep the events of his life in some sort of chronological order. It seems like you are putting them into subject order or no order at all. That is confusing for the reader. Also look at Wikipedia:NBSP, when discussing numbers followed by units of time, like 50 years, you need to put a non-breaking space so that the 50 and the years stay on the same line. It's an issue that will be brought up at FAC. You are putting in-line citations like [46] into the paragraph here rather than using the normal ref format. Why? You then switch back later on, it's not good. You don't want to mention his kids until he actually had them. Saying he had two daughters in his college section makes the readers assume he had them while in college, if that is true then put the years they were born in here. If not then put those details into the section that fits the chronology of his life.

• The image in the postwar section doesn't really connect well with the article. It is the founder of the college he went to but that really is not an important aspect especially since the man died almost a hundred years before Serling went to the college. I would try and find an image of the campus instead.

"Antioch that could be heard on WJEM, Springfield"

Where is that? Springfield where?

• At the risk of over doing it I'll say again that even in the Career section there is unnecessary detail. Focus on what moves his career along rather than on each job or each script submission. That's all I'll say but consider this to apply to the entire article.
• I see the use of several quotes. This is fine, just keep Wikipedia:QUOTE in mind. Use a uniform format for quotes. The Serling quote about selling ideas for $50 a week is great, just make sure conforms to the MOS standards. A quote of that length usually requires blockquote formatting. Just take a look at the above link and adjust as you see fit.

"He continued on at WKRC after graduation and despite the mostly dreary day-to-day work he also managed to create scripts for a series of live TV programs called The Storm as well as scripts for other anthology dramas which were in demand by New York based networks."

This is a run-on sentence, consider breaking up into smaller sections. More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The next issue to look at is the use of images. Public domain and free-use images are fine, use them. Copyrighted images and Fair-use images should only be used when a free-use image is unavailable. Reviewers will question the use of any Fair-use image. See Wikipedia:IMAGE for more details on this. The Patterns image is a Fair use image but given the importance of the show to Serling's career you could make a case for its inclusion. Same can be said for the Twilight Zone image, though you need to put a Fair use rationale in this image's description page. See Wikipedia:FU for more details on this.

"'Playhouse 90' and Mr. Serling had to fight executive interference...before getting their play on the air last night. The the theatre people of Hollywood have reason to be proud of their stand in the viewers behalf."[42]

The quote doesn't explain what Serling had to struggle against. It says "executive interference" but that isn't specific enough. If it is to support the subject of corporate censorship and this is an example then it should state what censorship Serling was fighting against. Otherwise I'm not sure what the quote really does.

"and he threw himself into sometimes alligator-pit of a weekly TV program"

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, keep encyclopedic and professional writing in mind.

• In the Twilight Zone section it says the show won TV and drama awards. What is a drama award? What TV awards did it win? Emmies? If so how many and when? Also there are two stub paragraphs that should be expanded or combined with another paragraph. This section is surprisingly short considering it's what he's most well known for. The writing in this section is very succinct. Did Rod Serling do the on-camera narration for the beginning of each Twilight Zone episode? If so this should be added to the Twilight Zone section, that is such an iconic monologue. Finally there is only one citation in the entire section, that has to be remedied.
• Night gallery section has no citations.
• The death section is a repeat of previous section early on in the article. The earlier section needs to be removed entirely.
• The writing in the death section is confusing. How many heart attacks did he have? At first it's two major ones in 1975, then he has a minor one in May 1975 followed by a second one two weeks later. He has a third one during the open heart surgery. I think it's three heart attacks but when you differentiate between major and minor it gets confusing. Try to clarify better.

"Throughout his career Serling helped to mold the future of television."

How? The proceeding two paragraphs discuss TV's history and its development. No mention of the impact Serling had. In a section about his legacy this should be the focus.

"Known as 'the angry young man' by those who witnessed his battles with network executives over censorship[29], Serling revolutionized the way writers and sponsors interacted."

Again, how? Also put in-line citations after the comma not before. Or better yet put it at the end of the sentence.

"Serling was one of the first to exploit crossover between media by turning his early television successes, Patterns and The Rack into full length movie productions."

I don't recall this being discussed in the article beyond the fact that the rights to Patterns was possibly being sold. Did I miss something? This should be outlined in the article better if it isn't already.

"After the made-for-television movie The Doomsday Flight was released in December 1966 a rash of copy-cats phoned in ransom demands to most of the largest airlines."

Move this sentence to after the plot is explained. Otherwise it loses the impact.

"Even youth of today can hum the theme song..."

That's a statement that is hard to prove, consider removing.

• I'm surprised there's no mention of the Tower of Terror ride at Disneyland, which is modeled after the Twilight Zone. Also I believe they use a digitized version of Serling in the intro to the ride. This should be investigated. I'm not 100% sure on that but it's worth looking into.
• There should be some sort of licensing on the stamp image, even if it's copyrighted.
• Lists: check out Wikipedia:LIST for information on list inclusion in articles. You probably have too many lists, consider removing some, like incorporating his honors and memberships into the prose section.
• Notes and References: For references you need to use the Template:Tl:cite web or other such template format. Check out other Featured articles for examples and then model your formatting after one of those examples. For book references you need a uniform standard for pages, either p., pp., pg., pgs., you seem to switch between a few and that needs to be corrected. Also the "p" is not capitalized. Magazine and newspaper titles are italicized. For an FA you'll want more books. There should be plenty written on him in google books. It will be important to add more credible book sources to support the article. Can some or all of the Further reading books be incorporated into the article? You rely heavily on one book by Sander, this could be seen as a weakness in the article. You want to spread out the sources wherever possible. Sometimes it just isn't possible as one book is considered the end all biography. If that's the case then so be it. No need to put page numbers in the references section, page numbers go in the notes section. You have too many external links, consider removing superfluous ones like his dream town and his conference. Five or six links are fine. More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You will also need alt text for each of your images. This text is to help people who can load the images to know what the images represent. It's part of the FA Criteria.

I think that does it for my review. There's a lot to work on before the article will be ready for FA consideration. I would recommend working on these issues, passing it through GA candidacy and then reposting here for another peer review prior to sending it to FA candidacy. If you have specific questions or concerns please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page as I may not be watching this review page. If you found this review helpful please consider reviewing someone else's article to help reduce the backlog of articles in Peer Review. Thanks and good luck with your article. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 March 2010, 18:16 UTC)

---

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler

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

I don't often do lists, but this is an exception. 2010 is Mahler's 150th anniversary year; I am developing the main biographical article with a view to its being TFA on 7 July, Mahler's birthday, but in honour of the occasion I am trying to get other Mahler articles up to scratch, too. This list strikes me as being useful and important. The aim is to make every line in the table as complete and self-contained as possible, without having to cross-reference; each line gives the name of a work, the year it was written, what kind of work it is, when and where it was first performed, and other relevant information of significance. I have used the system of grouping each line's references into a single column rather than dotting them around the table, which can be messy and disruptive. So please tell me how you think it looks, as a table. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The table in my opinion has not been implemented well and is hard to use. There's no option to change the column the rows are sorted by and if you look at any other list of compositions page, you will notice the predominate way of sorting works is by genre first then chronology. This I believe is correct since even I struggle to put dates to Mahler's works and thus makes it hard to search for a particular work. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Take a look now: this is a version organised by genre. What you say about Wikipedia composition lists is true, but they generally relate to composers who wrote across a wide range of genres and had a much larger output than Mahler's. Mahler's relatively small output was basically in two genres - song and symphony - and even those he tended to mingle. Another point is that chronological presentation allows us to observe the distinct phases in Mahler's compositional life; the music he wrote in the 1880s and 1890s is significantly different from what he wrote in the 1900s. Finally, whatever Wikipedia's custom may be, I find that most printed composer biographies list their subjects' works chronologically.

This link takes you to the chronological version. Reviewers can consider which form of organisation is most useful. That does not of course preclude comments on other aspects of the table which I would be pleased to hear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Just to say there is no reason you cannot have two lists, one sorted by chronology and one by genre, where one is more detailed than the other. I mean take a look at List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven - his works are sorted by genre and then sorted again by opus number. Since we have no standard catalogue number for Mahler, chronology seems to work well in this role. I personally think your list sorted by genre can be the concise one of the two seeing as there is no need to repeat over and over again that his songs are songs with piano or orchestal accompaniment. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now prefaced the main list with a summary of compositions in chronological sequence. That I think should serve to meet all objections, but I would like to hear more opinions. I would also like to emphasise that the priority here is to make the list as useful as possible to readers of the Gustav Mahler biography article which is currently under development. I don't have immediate plans to submit this as a featured list candidate, though I'd like it to be of featured quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 March 2010, 19:09 UTC)

---

Rumble Fish

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…this article has already undergone one Peer review and I have made the changes suggested and would like to see if this article is now ready for a GA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 March 2010, 16:58 UTC)

---

Stark Raving Dad

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article has Featured Article potential. The article is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other FA television episodes (South Park episodes for example) I think that "Stark Raving Dad" meets the FA criteria. Before I even come close to nominating this article for FA I'd like to do a peer review so other editors could give suggestions on how to help the article, etc. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The third passage in the lead doesn't really properly summarize the incident it's relating. It sort of leaves the reader hanging. What's more, if that little factoid warrants inclusion in the episode summary, why not the info about the tribute airing following Jackson's passing? (personally, I don't think the lead would suffer from it's removal, but it might work in a more robust state)

Y Done I added mention of the episode re-airing in the third paragraph in the articles lead. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with adding mention of the re-airing of the episode in 2009. The alternate opening has received a tonne of coverage over the years, and is a lot more notable than the 2009 tribute. Sure, the tribute also received coverage, but not as much and not over as long of a timeframe. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Production section - in particular, the second passage of the Production section - reads like a list that has been lumped together. In other words, it's just several short sentences, one after the other, that really takes the reader out of the experience. Definitely needs some transitions and polish.
• I think the article is close. It certainly contains a lot of valuable and interesting content and seems to be well-sourced and properly structured. Overall, I'd say the contributors have done a fantastic job in assembling the critical elements. Now it just needs polish. Polish polish polish. Having seen the episode so long ago, examining the article was unexpectedly reminiscent. Keep up the good work!
  --K10wnsta (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 8 March 2010, 11:29 UTC)

---

The Angrez

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it for sometime and made it reader friendly and it still has a start satus on it. I have quoted several authentic references from the internet and other sources. The article is not too big nor too short, just the way it should be for the readers. I will try and improvise it as soon as I get hold of more sources from the internet and newspaper, journals and other books. At the moment I only need a peer review against B status.

Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, there were two peer reviews opened for this article within 7 minutes, so I have deleted the second and added the one comment it had that was not already here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nefirious (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.

This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:Special:Upload.

As done in Wikipedia:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2] .,,,

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Comments by H1nkles There are several writing issues that I've found in my initial run through the article. I'll bring them up here:

"However in the movie, it is a term used by the comical gang of residents from the Charminar locality in Hyderabad to refer to the NRIs they encounter at an Irani hotel."

Usually you need to spell out an abbreviation when it is first used. Linking it isn't enough.

"The real funny bunch of Muslim guys from the Old City Area, the ones who just live in their own pride of silly things."

This sentence is not very encyclopedic. You want to convey the information in a professional tone. Also "really funny bunch of Muslim guys" is an opinion. Please try to keep editorial opinions out of the article.

"Based in the old city, the Ismail bhai gang meets up in char minar and starts their daily routine with gossips, babble and talks of bravery. Ismail bhai is apparently the gang leader and his gang comprises Salim, a habitual liar, Jahangir, a self claimed hardcore gangster and Gafoor and Chaus who follow Ismail bhai throughout the film. While visiting the old city, Pranai and Rochak meet the Ismail bhai gang in hotel in the old city. The Ismail bhai gang and Pranai and Rochak enter into a spat. In a bid to get his camera from Ismail bhai Rochak accidently tears off Ismail bhai's shirt."

This section of prose is one example of a larger problem with grammar. I would rewrite a portion of it thus: "...the gang meet up in the char minar (is this a proper noun? If so it should be capitalized: Char Minar) and start their daily routine of gossip, and boasting". Watch comma usage, there are several spots like, "In a bid to get his camera from Ismail bhai, Rochak accidently tears off Ismail bhai's shirt." Where a comma is needed. A thorough copy edit is needed on the article.

"He met numerous people and also learnt of the life in call centres and the NRI's."

Another example of grammatical problems. Learnt should be Learned. Also "...and the NRI's" doesn't make sense in the sentence the way it is written. I know what you're trying to communicate but it is not written properly. "He met numerous people, investigated the culture of NRI's living in Hyderabad, and learned about the working conditions in call centres." This is an off-the-top-of-my-head rewrite of the sentence.

• What is "bonalu to baraat"? A reader unfamiliar with the subject would not understand what it is you're trying to communicate about Hyderabadi culture. Also no need to link to Hyderabadi culture if no article exists.

"The producers had to do a lot of running about since there were only a few takers."

Another example of unencyclopedic language. I'm not sure what is trying to be conveyed here.

Now for general comments:

• Ref 16 is a dead link, which should be repaired.
• Hyderabad, Old City, Script, and Spoof are Disambiguous links, see Wikipedia:DAB for more info on this, basically it's links that could apply to more than one article. You'll need to specify which article you want it to apply to.
• You need to add alt text to the film poster. This will help people who can't view the image to know what the image is portraying.
• Reference formatting for websites should have the article title, publisher and accessdate as a bare minimum amount of information. Adding date of the article, author, and work will help fill out the reference. Just referencing to a website like Refs 2-5 and 16 is not sufficient. Also any magazine, newspaper, or other periodical should be italicized. Is The Hindu a magazine? It should be italicized if it is.

For future reference you don't need a peer review to move an article up the line of quality ranking. The first time an article undergoes external review is for GA consideration. This is done by nominating the article at Wikipedia:GAC. You can then move the article to Wikipedia:FAC for FA review, though this should only be done after considerable improvement after it passes GA. Articles don't have to go through the GA review process but it is a very helpful procedure. I would say that the article is a strong C class right now, given a good copy edit and improvement in the language to be more encyclopedic I would then put it at B class. I hope this has helped, please contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions or concerns. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Points you've raised are valid and a lot of material is not encyclopedic but an opinion. I will rewrite the plot or make major changes and i've checked the 16th reference, it works. Whatever content has been written has to be written in a way that the readers understand every word of it. Especially those who are alien to Hyderabadi culture. I will do the needful and thanks for the comments, they were indeed very helpful.

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 18:42 UTC)

---

Rock Show (Parks and Recreation)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually nominate it for featured topic. I'm positive that the article is comprehensive and includes all the available sources that are out there, but it is in need of a thorough copy edit from an uninvolved editor. Please feel free to be thorough and nit-picky, and make any suggestions you might have that will help this survive the FAC process. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: I don't see any particular problem with the prose. I found only one proofing error (an em dash that should have been an en dash), and I fixed it. The tools at the top of this review page find no errors, which is good. I find that I have only one suggestion. Since I've never seen any episodes of Parks and Recreation, I bring a kind of innocence to my reading. (I did review at least one other episode here at PR, so I'm not a total blank slate.) Would it be helpful to readers who have never seen any of the episodes to provide more general (series) context? The Plot section gives details of the episode but not of the series. For example, there's nothing in the Plot that explains who the Andy and Ann of the first sentence might be or what they have to do with the parks and recreation department. Perhaps you could turn the Plot section into two subsections, "Back story" and "Plot", or something like that. "Back story" could fill the reader in on what happened before the episode in question. Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 06:52 UTC)

---

The Rookie (1990 film)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…I am looking to get the article to FA Status. Its been in the FA queue twice in the past, but failed both times. I added much more thorough content to the article and before taking it in for a 3rd shot, I'd like help with a copy-edit for any prose issues.

Thanks, Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Mike Tompsonn 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Plot section does not have any citations. Neither is the article free from gramamtical errors. we need more editors to work on the grammar and to quote appropriate citations needed in the plot section. If adequate citations are added on the plot section, then you can nominate this article for Good Article category. The article has to first filter through B, because it is still a C class article. Nefirious (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well the plot section along with the lead does not necessarily require citations. Almost every film that met FA requirements do not have cited sources for the plot. Two recent articles that just met FA Status are not cited with sources for the plot either. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and American Beauty). How exactly is one supposed to reference that section anyhow aside from citing to watch the DVD. I think almost every FA film does not have s cited plot. And the lead section sometimes contains elements from the plot along with cited information from other parts of the article. Oh, and by the way, I retrieved this particular line from Wikipedia:MOSFILM which says the following: Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. As far as the grammar is concerned, I do need help with it. I'm open and waiting for the suggestions. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There has to be atleast one citation in the Plot. Any editor can manipulate the story of the film if citations aren't quoted. Even Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has one citation. In addition to this Wikipedia:MOSFILM mentions a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, which makes it mandatory for you to quote atleast one source. Moreover, the article nominated still has a C class status, it has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class. Request for deployment of copyeditors from the Film task force and get rid of the grammatical errors. I am sure if you do the above, the article will definitely get a GA status, if not an FA status. Nefirious (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Expand the lead section using citations. According to Wikipedia:Lead, the lead section has to be appropriately cited so that no one can challenge and remove the material. Nefirious (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Brianboulton: Nefirious is wrong on a number of issues:-

• On the question of citing the plot summary, Mike Tompsonn is correct, per Wikipedia:MOSFILM
• Citations are not required in the lead, provided that the material is appropriately cited in the body of the article.
• There is no rule that says that the article "has to be checked for B status first, only then it can be nominated for Feature Article class." This is a misconception; any article can be nominated for FAC, whatever its class, provided that the nominator believes that it meets the featured article criteria. Peer review is a voluntary stage in which editors help nominators to bring their articles up to FA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Boulton Thank You. Anyhow, here was my response for Mr. Nefirious: Well, to expand the lead section is easier said than done. The popularity and influence of this particular film does not really warrant an Avatar-sized introduction. I have limited resources at my disposal. I think for what the movie is, its sufficient. As far as including citations for the lead; alot of the information thats in there, is featured in other areas of the article. And in those other areas, they are cited with sources. Both Star Trek III and American Beauty plus dozens of other FA film articles do not even have a single cited reference in the Lead Section. Now as far as that citation in the plot for Star Trek III, thats a joke. Its one minor detail. What about the other 700 words in the paragraphs? .... There's nothing. And American Beauty lacks a single citation in its Plot section too. Look, by the way, I referenced numerous important details that occur in the plot in the Production Section using the DVD. I think thats sufficient for now. Can you volunteer for a copy-edit????? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 1:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I am pretty right as per Wikipedia:MOSFILM not only on one issue but all the other issues and I have clarified my stand. As far as improvement of the article is concenred why dont you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. It should help you. As far as your article is concenred, it still has to be checked for B status, which I will do shortly. Right now this is all I can do. Nefirious (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go by what I see. If every other film article is the opposite of what your saying, then your still wrong. If you want to check for B status, fine. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article still does not qualify for a B class status, because of the grammatical errors it has in certain sections. Did you nominate it on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive ? Please do not get discouraged. I am helping the article to get a GA status which it deserves. Nefirious (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. One of the issues that came up during FAC was the article's comprehensiveness; with that in mind, I've dumped a list of potential sources on the talk page. Some might only mention the film in passing, but there should at least be something usable in there. In addition, I'll repeat a previous offer: I have until April 4 until I let my HighBeam access lapse, so if there's anything you want me to get you from this list, please let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. On content, it's looking a lot better; the plot section is a little long, so it might be worth seeing where trims could be made. Also take a look at your reference formatting; where one source is used twice or more, it can be given a reference name to allow neater formatting. See Wikipedia:REFNAME for more information. Steve ^T • C 11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Response Hi, Steve. I looked through the table of contents from your Highbeam page on the talk section of The Rookie (including the Italian-Language ones, even though though I don't speak a foreign language); but I just feel it might be what you would call repetitious content. The bases were pretty much covered from what I got so far. But I will continue looking at the list to see if I can integrate more details. Now as far as the Plot Section is concerned; I believe it clocks in at around 740-750 words. On the Wiki Film page, it states the plot should be between 400-700 words. I realize it went slightly over that amount, but I did my best in trimming unnecessary details. The way it is now, is the only way to fully understand the details of the plot. When it was trimmed earlier, some people questioned certain aspects. I had to re-insert then, some more details for people to understand it. Now as far as the formatting is concerned; I saw that!! And I realize the page looks a little goofy on that end. I didn't know how to properly reference the citations in that format. But now with that link, I will make an effort to fix that. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary:: Hello again Mike. When you make changes or additions to the article, also make sure that you describe us what changes you have made so that we know how and in what way the article is being improvised and what aspects have been covered. According to Help:Edit summary, a good editor who is editing an article viewed by tons of people has to summarise the changes he/she makes. Nefirious (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 05:09 UTC)

---

Synetic Theater (Arlington, Virginia)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor and plan on working in the Washington DC Theater area. I have been working on this article for several months and would like some feedback as to its quality

Thanks, Ecragg (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, here are some of my quick observations, seeing that i have written a few pages about theaters before. I will come back later when i have more time and say more specifics.

• "Other Items Of Note" - this is a trivia section and Wikipedia does not like trivia sections. Try to integrate this stuff elsewhere in the article like the History section.
• "Awards" - I hate awards sections on the theater's page. This list belongs wrapped into a much larger one on the Helen Hayes Awards page or perhaps even a new page like Helen Hayes Award Recipients or something like that.
• "Current Season" and "Recent Productions" - Again these realy do not belong on the Wiki page. Wiki is not advertising. These can all be accessed by a link to the theaters page in the "External Links" section.
• "Significant Past Productions" - All of this is good for the article, but should be in prose, not as lists. If they are significant then there should be enough references to flush out a good section, written in prose, about them.
• "References" - Your first reference is right, but every other reference that is not from a news article is missing it's second part; the name of the company that the website is from.

This is just a start.. i will come back later to give you more when i am not eating lunch.

Comments by --Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 March 2010, 22:51 UTC)

---

List of number-one albums of 2009 (México)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want opinions about this list in order to take it to featured list status. I have been working the past years in American record charts (Top Latin Albums and Top Latin Songs charts) and this is the first time that I am trying to make a list for another country charts. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't find much wrong with this. Here are a few minor points:-

• The single image lacks alt text
• Prose (I have made a few minor edits)
  • "composed by" is wrong phrasing. "made up of" is correct
  • You have "physical and digital", both terms linked. "Physical" links to "compact disc", "digital to "Music download". Why not use these terms so that the sentence reads: "This association tracks sales of compact discs and music downloads..."
  • "EMI" should be wikilinked. "Sony Music Latin" could be pipe-linked to "Sony Music Entertainment"
• Chart: no problems.

There isn't a lot more I can say. Hope these brief comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 February 2010, 03:28 UTC)

---

Ansel Adams

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd really love to bring this article up to good article, if not FA, status. I've been working right now on the citations, and getting them all in the same style (I'm converting everything to shortened footnotes. There's a ton of content on this page, so I figured peer review would be better than a request for feedback—please advise if this article would belong there instead. I'd like to hear any of your comments, but especially in the following areas...

• ...over-citation (which ones can be removed?)
• ...content focus (which sections have too much/too little emphasis?)
• ...and images (are the ones present appropriate? Should they be moved or removed?)

Thanks very much in advance. —Mono·nomic 02:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question/comment The article mentions up front Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico but it is not in the article or in the commons gallery. And there are various other Ansel Adams pics of Yosemite and elsewhere that many readers would look for. Are these pics not available for display here or in commons? I wonder if providing a hatnote at top: "for photographs by Ansel Adams, see (link)", or otherwise providing upfront direction to readers would improve reader experience. Perhaps some heavy-handed explanation that such photos are copyrighted and cannot be made available in wikipedia, if accurate, should be given early on. I do appreciate the portraits of Ansel Adams himself, but i was distracted, looking for the Yosemite pics. Hope this helps in a small way. --doncram (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to look into it. Thanks for your response and sorry I'm so slow (life is hard!) —Mono·nomic 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and detailed account of a famous and talented guy. I've tried to answer your direct questions, and I have other suggestions for improvement.

• You asked about over-citing. That was not something that bothered me. On the other hand, I'd suggest setting off quotes of four lines or longer in blockquotes and adding a source for any direct quote of any length. Sometimes it's not worthwhile to use a direct quote for a two- or three-word phrase that then requires a citation. It's a judgment call. Do you really need a direct quote, or would a paraphrase be just as effective?
• I agree with User:Doncram that readers may expect to see more of Adams's work. However, copyright law makes that tough for Wikipedia. I think a note explaining the copyright difficulty might be worth trying. I've grown fond of a footnoting system that allows me to write notes that appear in a separate subsection of a "Notes and references" section instead of mixing them with the Harvard citations. This system gives me a freer hand in note-writing and allows me to cite sources for the notes. See Frank Dekum for example. Just a suggestion.
• You may have a tough time justifying two fair-use images of Adams. The lead image is much better than the one of Adams at Big Sur. Since the second one, as far as I can tell, is not necessary for a reader's understanding of the material (assuming that the reader has looked at the first image), it should probably be removed.
• The third photo of Adams, standing with camera, is free but not as interesting (to me) as his work. I'd be inclined to move The Tetons and the Snake up to where Adams at Big Sur is and to move the last two images out of the Works section and up higher in the main text. I'd try making them bigger than thumb size; just fool around until you hit a combination that looks really good to you.
• If any section is too detailed, it is the Career section. Perhaps, though, the problem is not that there's too much detail but that this long section doesn't have any resting places. Readers like an occasional break; the cure might be to split this long section into perhaps three logical subsections.

Lead

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the entire article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing leads does not mention his youth, family, interest in music, his publications, or much about his awards and legacy. When you finish revising the main text sections, it would be good to rewrite the lead to make it more of a true summary. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you'll get an idea of what it should say.

Youth

• "Adams used a variety of lenses to get different effects, but eventually rejected pictorialism for a more realist approach which relied more heavily on sharp focus, heightened contrast, precise exposure, and darkroom craftsmanship." - Should that be "realistic" rather than "realist"?

Career

• This section is awfully long. Would it be helpful to split it into subsections arranged chronologically? Maybe "1920s and 1930s", "1940s and 1950s", "1960s and later"? Or something like that.
• "President Carter commissioned Adams to make...". - Wikilink President Jimmy Carter? It is linked further down but links should occur on first use rather than subsequent use.
• Set off the long Adams quote in blockquotes?

Contributions and influence

• "But it was Adams's black-and-white photographs of the West which became the foremost record of what many of the National Parks were like before tourism, and his persistent advocacy helped expand the National Park system. He skillfully used his works to promote many of the goals of the Sierra Club and of the nascent environmental movement, but always insisted that, as far as his photographs were concerned, “beauty comes first”. His stirring images are still very popular in calendars, posters, and books." - In some places in the article, unsourced claims appear that are apt to be challenged. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every direct quote (like the unsourced one in this paragraph), every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every paragraph. The third and fourth paragraphs of this section are completely unsourced yet are not common knowledge.

Death

• It's generally best to avoid orphan paragraphs consisting of only a single sentence. I'd suggest merging some of the "Death" paragraphs.

Awards

• The Manual of Style suggests turning lists into straight prose when feasible. Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details. It wouldn't be hard to turn this list into prose. On the other hand, "Works" would be difficult to render as prose and is probably fine as a set of lists.

Notes

• The em dashes in some of the page ranges should be converted to en dashes.

Other

• When you finish adding or removing images, they will all need alt text, which is now an FA requirement. Wikipedia:ALT has details, and you can see ongoing discussions of alt text at Wikipedia:FAC.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.
• A caption consisting solely of a sentence fragment doesn't take a terminal period.

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. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Finetooth, thanks a bunch. You're living up to your name all right! I'll get to those comments and post revisions here. I'm still open to any other comments you (or anyone else) may have, so let 'er rip. —Mono·nomic 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this – “One of his most famous photographs was Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, California.” – belongs in the first paragraph. It's not so overwhelmingly famous that it outshines all the rest of his work. –jacobolus (t) 06:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: fair use images. Does Wikipedia have any clear policy about articles covering recent artists? It seems like such articles can't be complete without including many more examples than are at this article currently. Maybe we could argue for including a bunch at 200 pixel size, as “fair use”? Maybe someone could even write to the Adams estate, asking about specific permissions to use low-res thumbnails on this wiki article. –jacobolus (t) 06:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 February 2010, 02:52 UTC)

---

Madonna (entertainer)

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate the article for Featured article candidate and would like my felow editors to point out if htere is any issue that can stop it from being an FA. I have developed it to be a comprehensive biography of one of the most important faces of contemporary music.

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems overall well done, but I think the language could use a bit of polish before FAC and there are a few minor issues too. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Sorry you've had to wait so long on this PR.

• External link checker finds one dead link (toolbox in upper right corner)
• I would imagine the Barbie doll is copyrighted by Mattel or whoever made it so I am not sure it is a free image.
• Some of the alt text seems a bit odd - a few examples (not an exhaustive list)
  • The doll is holding the veil in its right hand and is kept on black, polished floor. What does "and is kept on black, polished floor" mean here - is it "and is standing on a black, polished surface"?
  • Or one image is a photo identified as a bust image, but I think a Bust (sculpture) is not an accurate description of a photo
  • Or this redundancy A female blond woman standing on a stage. can use female or woman, but does not need both
• Awkward - probably needs to be split into two sentences They established her as a pop icon, [known?] for pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and [for the? or is she pushing boundaries here too?] imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV.
• More awkward language in the lead Her recognition was augmented by the film Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) which widely became seen as a Madonna vehicle, despite her not playing the lead. how about Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) which was widely seen as a Madonna vehicle,...?
• More work needed here: Expanding on the use of religious imagery with Like a Prayer (1989), Madonna received positive critical reception for her diverse musical productions, while at the same time [she?] was criticised by religious conservatives and the Vatican. if possible avoid passive voice and try to swtich it to active voice, so the end here could be something like ...while at the same time religious conservatives and the Vatican criticised her.
• Even things that are grammatically OK could be tightened in places, like In 1992, Madonna founded the Maverick corporation, a joint venture between herself and Time Warner. could be In 1992, Madonna founded the Maverick corporation as a joint venture with Time Warner.
• Or During the 2000s, Madonna released four studio albums – namely Music (2000), ... could drop the word "namely" I think
• I would also mention her two marriages and the adoption case in the lead - they seem at least as important as the Vatican criticizing her.
• These examples are all from the lead, but looking at three paragraphs in the lead at random I found these examples:
  • 1986-1991 last paragraph The video was deemed too sexually explicit for MTV, and was banned from the station.[60] MTV is a network or perhaps a channel, but not really a station
  • or same paragraph At the end of the year, Madonna decided to leave the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena.[62] this needs to provide context to the reader - IIRC she agreed to star in the film, then left it, so perhaps At the end of the year, Madonna decided to leave the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena, which she had previously agreed to star in.[62]
  • 1997-2002 second paragraph - First two sentences could be combined. This one is just awkward The latter's music video, depicted Madonna committing murders and accidents, with cars and was banned by MTV and VH1 from airing.[94] first off one does not commit accidents (that is why they are accidents), the commas after video and accidents seem unnecessary, as does "from airing" (if MTV bans it, what else does it mean?) so perhaps The latter's music video depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in accidents with cars, and was banned by MTV and VH1.[94]
• The Michael Jackson and Bob Dylan FAs both put dates last in headers and in parentheses.
• So overall this seems OK in terms of content and references, and just needs a copyedit. There are people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:PR/V (last section) who will help with copyedits

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Binksternet comments. I would like to see a small mention of Madonna's various microphone usages for studio recordings and especially for concert appearances. Producer Patrick Leonard says he employed an AKG C24 stereo microphone for many years, then changed to a Sputnick mic for the documentary I Am Because We Are. Privately, Leonard refers to the AKG C24 as his "Madonna mic", but the terms "Madonna mic", "Madonna mike" and "Madonna microphone" entered the public sphere in reference to her first concert headset microphone, the Crown CM311A connected to a wireless transmitter she wore on her body. Garth Brooks was known for this wireless microphone combination around the same time, and there are mentions of the "Madonna mic" or the "Garth mic" in popular literature:
  • Google Books search yields a couple of fiction works from 2005–2006, a music industry article from 2003 and a social science work from the same year.
  • Kai Harada, sound designer and sound handbook author, writes about "The Feeding and Care of RF Microphones". "Boom Mounting—also known as the "Madonna-mic"—it is the use of a headset boom fastened around the head or over the top of the head, with the microphone capsule on a boom arm that extends to the mouth."
  • Dan McLean, Jr., magician and audio industry veteran, writes about "The Parts Of An RF System". "Headset. Often called a "Madonna" mic."
  • BBC's Andrew Castle, commentator for Wimbledon, calls his headset mic a "Madonna mic".
  • Technical theater for nontechnical people, pages 155–156; Drew Campbell talks about the headset mic, "known around the business as the 'Madonna' mic, because she was one of the first major performers to use them".
  • Patent applicant Eduardo Schapiro describes a boom mic attached to a headset as a "'Madonna' microphone".
  • Preacher Mark Roberts describes how his congregation did not like his "Madonna-mic" at first, but got used to it later.
  • Retail store listing for Crown CM311... click on reviews for Garth and Madonna.
  • Bramshaw, an Australian electronics company, offers their TourGuide 'Madonna' model microphone.

By 2002, Madonna had changed to a hand-held Sennheiser SKM-3072UX wireless mic fitted with a 300E capsule. For the Re-Invention tour in 2004, she used the SKM-3072 hand-held but sometimes switched to a custom headset mic with Sennheiser ME105 capsule connected to an SK5012 body pack transmitter. Sennheiser clearly hoped to capitalize on Madonna's name—in August 2006, they wrote "Longtime Sennheiser endorser" Madonna was using her "much-favored SKM 3072 super-cardioid handheld transmitter", and in February 2010, they crowed about her "wielding her trademark chrome SKM 5200 with the ME 3005 capsule". Trademark? Wishful thinking. The headset mic became an iconic look for Madonna, but the hand-held mic not so much. Anyway, all the preceding material is far more than I would push into the Madonna biography article; all I want is to see some brief mention of her connection to this essential technology, her response to it, her preferences, her experiences. How the term "Madonna mic" came into use. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 February 2010, 09:25 UTC)

---

1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get another pair of eyes to look at it before nominating it as a Good Article. This article was pretty much a collaboration between me and another user, and the article was written relatively quickly, so not many other editors have contributed to it. I would like some outside perspective on the article, as it is tackling both a political and a musical subject at the same time, and I want to ensure the article is written for general audiences.

Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, highly readable, interesting. It's certainly broad in coverage, well-sourced, stable, and reasonably illustrated. I have suggestions about tightening the prose in a few places, but the article is generally well-written. It seems nearly ready for GAN to me, and you might think in terms of an eventual FA. The politics make this article more substantial, I think, than the average concert article. Here are my other thoughts:

• The last two sentences of the "War in Sarajevo" section should be examined carefully to make sure they are precisely accurate; otherwise they might not be neutral. "Frequently shot at" is vague, and so is "many mines". Perhaps other sources can confirm these claims in a more precise way and thus head off any concerns about exaggeration.
• The images need alt text, meant for readers who are sight-impaired. Wikipedia:ALT has details. You can also see ongoing discussions of alt text at Wikipedia:FAC.

Lead

• Instead of linking U2 in the bolded first sentence, I'd link it on second use.
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "U2's 1997 concert in Sarajevo was a concert held in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, at Koševo Stadium on 23 September 1997 during the group's PopMart Tour." - Tighten by deleting repetitions? Suggestion: "U2's 1997 concert in Sarajevo was held at Koševo Stadium in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 23 September 1997."
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Approached by aid worker Bill Carter about bringing attention to the Bosnians negatively impacted by the Siege of Sarajevo... ". - "Negatively impacted" sounds like a politician's weasel phrase. How about "hurt by"?
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "With the aid of United Nations ambassadors and peace-keeping troops, the group scheduled and played a show in Sarajevo on their 1997 PopMart Tour." - Tighten by deleting "scheduled and"?
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

U2's involvement

• ""U2's effort to discuss any humanitarian issue have sometimes been accompanied by a false instinct that U2 is also obliged to resolve that issue." - I wonder if this has been quoted correctly because "effort" is singular and "have" is plural.
  • Quote is exactly as it appears in original publication (U2 at the End of the World). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to add an "s" in brackets; i.e., effort[s]. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "One such act was the organization of a beauty contest, with the woman organizing the event saying that the women of Sarajevo would fight the war with "our lipstick and heels". - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and the sentence is too wordy. Suggestion: "One such act was a beauty contest organized by women who planned to fight the war with "our lipstick and heels".
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Miss Sarajevo" was recorded with Luciano Pavarotti and released as the first single from the group's side-project with Eno entitled Original Soundtracks 1 under the pseudonym "Passengers". - I'm not sure what this means. Was "Passengers" a pseudonym for Eno or a pseudonym for Pavarotti?
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Scheduling and preparation

• "Music journalist Andrew Mueller described their experience in a single van as a "logistical and administrative nightmare". - Probably "U2" would be better than "their" to avoid confusion with China Drum.
  • Fixed (it was referring to China Drum). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "We've blagged a lot of equipment... " - Should that be "bagged" rather than "blagged"?
• "Bono offered for the group to perform a benefit concert or small show in Sarajevo, but it was requested that they perform the full PopMart show as they had performed elsewhere in the world." - A bit awkward, wordy, and passive. Suggestion: "Bono suggested that the group perform a benefit concert or small show in Sarajevo, but (somebody) asked that they perform the full PopMart show." If you adopt something like my suggestion, you'll need to fill in a word for "somebody".
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Up until that point, tickets had sold very slowly," - Tighten to "Until then, tickets had sold very slowly... "?
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Despite this, a day prior to the concert... " - "Before" rather than "prior to"?
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• "On the day of the concert, trains ran into Sarajevo for the first time since the start of the war." - Just "ran" instead of "ran into"?

Concert overview

• "The concert was broadcast live internationally on radio, with all proceeds from the radio sales being donated to the War Child project." - "With" is weak here. Suggestion: "The concert was broadcast live internationally on radio, and all proceeds from radio sales were donated to the War Child project."
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

• Mullen and The Edge both agreed that playing the Sarajevo concert had been the highlight of their careers, with Mullen saying, "[t]here's no doubt that that is an experience I will never forget for the rest of my life." - You can get away with an occasional "with" connector, but usually something else is better. Suggestion: "Mullen and The Edge both agreed that playing the Sarajevo concert had been the highlight of their careers. Mullen said, "[t]here's no doubt that that is an experience I will never forget for the rest of my life."
  • Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the help! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 February 2010, 16:39 UTC)

---

No Line on the Horizon

Previous peer review

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

Hello everyone; I've listed No Line on the Horizon for a Peer Review request for a couple of reasons. The big one is that the article has twice been at FAC and has twice not promoted; I'm confident that it meets all of the FA criteria with the possible exception of prose. If anybody could take the time to look over the article and offer suggestions for improvement, it would be most welcome, especially if it relates to the prose.

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into music, so I'm not qualified to judge the article's contents. I scrolled down the pages and the article seems well researched and complete. I DID edit the Introduction. Based on that, your article does need proofing.Bettymnz4 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick skim, but I actually reverted your edits. Per the manual of style, album, film, and book titles go in italics, and the only part of the article that should really be bolded is the name in the lead. To avoid having a mixture of numerical characters and words (except when as a proper name, in the charts table, runtimes, etc.) we've elected to just spell them out throughout the article (hence the selection of twelfth instead of 12th). Also, U2 articles on Wikipedia use British English instead of American English. In British English band names are treated as a plural noun, which is why we've used "U2 are" instead of "U2 is" on just about every U2-related page. The full discussion (including a seperate archive) on that can be found at Talk:U2; we carry it over to other U2 articles for consistency. You'll find it's not an uncommon practice; Oasis (band), Pink Floyd, The Corrs, etc. all use the plural are/were instead of the singular is/was. Cheers, and thanks again for the quick review; MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I've reviewed this one before, and I can add a few more thoughts. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I know next to nothing about U2 except what I'm reading here. I can't, therefore, give anything like expert advice on the content. On the other hand, I can give advice about prose. The prose in this article falls short of professional quality chiefly because it's too wordy. Fixing it will be time-consuming, but you can do it. Although I didn't do a complete line-by-line review, I've made quite a few specific suggestions below about tightening the prose. I'm sure you can find other places in the text where a small number of words can replace a bigger number without changing the meaning.

Lead

• "The material was originally intended to be released as two EPs, titled Daylight and Darkness, but it was decided to combine them into one album." - Rather than the passive "was originally intended to be" and "it was decided that", could you make this active? Suggestion: "U2 originally intended to release the material as two EPs but decided to combine them"? Note that my suggestion uses 15 words, whereas the original uses 25.
• "A companion film, Linear, was developed and released in conjunction with No Line on the Horizon." - Passive voice is necessary sometimes, but it's generally better (more punchy and efficient) to flip passive to active if possible. To do this, you need to say who developed and released; i.e., X developed and released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ". Also, is it really necessary to say "developed and"? If not, the sentence can be tightened to "X released a companion film, Linear, in conjunction with... ".
• "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois from June 2007 to December 2008 for the album, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process." - This could be tightened to "The band collaborated with producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, allowing them to be involved in the songwriting process from June 2007 to December 2008." The original is 28 words long, while my version is 25. The words "for the album" are not strictly necessary because the context makes this thought clear without saying it. If I were rewriting the article, I would try to reduce every sentence to the minimum number of words needed for clarity.
• "No Line on the Horizon was planned for release in November 2008 when the band had written approximately 50–60 songs, but it was delayed as they wished to continue writing." - Would this be better as "after" rather than "when"? Otherwise it might mean that the band wrote 50 to 60 songs in November. Also, "50 to 60" would be better here than 50–60. Also, this sentence is passive. Maybe, "The band had planned to release "No Line on the Horizon" in November 2008, after they had written about 50 to 60 songs, but they re-scheduled because they wanted to keep writing."

Recording and production

• "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of U2.com, confirming that the band had begun work on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb with producer Rick Rubin in the south of France and in Abbey Road Studios." - Everything is here that the sentence needs, but the arrangement has an unintended and slightly comical effect (how to dismantle an atomic bomb with producer Rick Rubin). Suggestion: "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of U2.com confirming that the band were collaborating with Rick Rubin on the follow-up to 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. They were working in southern France and in Abbey Road Studios."

Sessions with Brian Eno

• "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented out the courtyard of a hotel Riad, turning it into a makeshift recording studio." - Tighten by removing "out"? Also, Riad seems to mean a building with an inner courtyard. Would this be more clear as "The six of them traveled to Fez and rented the inner courtyard of a hotel, turning it into a makeshift recording studio"?
• "Recording in Fez at the same time as the World Sacred Music Festival allowed the band to listen... ". Tighten by changing "at the same time as" to "during"? Anyplace you can tighten like this will make the prose more professional.
• "The initial intent behind the album was to create a series of "future hymns", songs that would last and continue to be sung forever." - Tighten to "They intended to create 'future hymns', that would be sung forever"?
• "The open-air Riad allowed the band to hear the overhead birdsong during their sessions, as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller", but the birds also defecated on Mullen, Jr.'s drum kit." - Suggestion: "In the roofless courtyard, the band could hear birdsong during their sessions—as captured in the introduction to "Unknown Caller"—but the birds defecated on Mullen's drum kit." If the defecation was a one-off, maybe "but on one occasion the birds defecated..." would be better.

Composition

• "No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Larry Mullen Jr. experimenting with several different drum beats... ". - Suggestion: ""No Line on the Horizon" stemmed from Mullen's experiments with several different drum beats... ".
• "Magnificent" is an uptempo song that begins with synthesizer line by Eno before the song's guitar riff begins." - Missing "a" before "synthesizer line"? Also, should "riff" be linked on first use? Also, delete the second "begins"?
• "created out of a series of chord changes during a jam, was worked continuously by Bono" - Should "jam" be linked on first use? Tighten by replacing "out of" with "from"?
• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find no dead links and good alt text. The dabfinder tool spots one link to a disambiguation page. It's kind of an odd one, "Time Out", because the redirect page goes to the dab page.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all of that feedback! That'll definitely give me a good start, and I think I know what to look for now. Thanks very much for the review! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 February 2010, 17:23 UTC)

---

Bad (album)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the GA nominee log has a long waiting period, so I think that it would be better if the article has a peer review to correct its current problems so the GA review could go faster, when its reviewed. I'd be very grateful if any users could list problems with the page so that I could correct them. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find a copy-editor. The article's prose is quite poor and needs a lot of sprucing up. Also, make sure you have the information well-organised too. For example, the lead mentions in two different places that 5 of the 10 singles hit number one in the US.—indopug (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the redundancy you mentioned about the albums lead. I do not know of any copy editors on wikipedia, could you list one of them. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I copy edited 'Background and production'. Can you use this sample to copy edit the rest of your article? I didn't read the entire article (I'm not a fan of Jackson); it looks well researched.Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, which is broad in coverage, verifiable, neutral, and stable. However, it needs careful proofreading and copyediting to have a chance at GA. At least one of the images (the gold-plated jacket) has a licensing problem that may be insurmountable. I also have doubts that a fair-use rationale for a second album cover will stand up; the two cover images are nearly identical.

Background and production

• "Following Jackson's career as a solo artist, while still a member of the band, he received more creative freedom on his studio albums Off the Wall (1979) and Thriller (1982); both albums were commercial successes." - This doesn't seem logical. It seems to say that Jackson's solo career and his career with the band were simultaneous and that after they were over, he had more creative freedom. But his solo career wasn't over.

Y Done I reworded the sentence to "When Jackson began work on solo music projects, while still a member of the band, he received more creative freedom on his studio albums Off the Wall (1979) and Thriller (1982); both albums were commercial successes. Bad echoed the same option of Jackson being given creative freedom on the albums music.[1]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Bad echoed the same option." - I'm not sure what "option" refers to.

I re-worded the sentence to "Bad echoed the same option of Jackson being given creative freedom on the albums music.[1]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Jackson began recording demos for the anticipated follow-up to Thriller few months after the 1984 Victory Tour with The Jacksons." - Missing word?

Y Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Composition

• ""Dirty Diana" was viewed by critics as a "misogynistic", and its lyrics pertaining to a sexual predator, do not aim for the "darkness" of "Billie Jean"; but instead, sounds equally intrigued by an apprehensive of a sexual challenge, while having the opportunity to accept or resist it." - This makes little sense as written. A reader who does not know what "Billie Jean" is about will not be able to compare the two. Furthermore, "apprehensive" means "fearful", and is not a noun although it is being used like a noun.

Release and marketing

• "The album stayed at the top position for eleven consecutive weeks, before be succeeded by Stevie Wonders album Characters on the issue date December 19, 1987... ". - "Before be"? Wonder's, not Wonders.

Y Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

• I've just noted a few of the small errors in grammar, logic, and syntax in the article. I agree with User:Indopug that it would be helpful to find a copyeditor. That's sometimes a tall order, because there's almost always a shortage of copyeditors and reviewers. You might try asking people on the copyediting list at Wikipedia:PRV, or someone from Wikipedia:ALBUMS might take an interest, or you might ask a writer or editor friend on or off Wikipedia to go over the whole article looking for small errors. If you want to ask someone who is off-line, you can print a copy for proofing.

Images

• The gold-plated jacket is a nice image, but its license won't pass close inspection. Its source is a Flickr image that is marked "all rights reserved". Thus the uploader had no right to re-license it as CC-by-SA 2.0. This is not your fault, but the image should not have been posted to the Commons.

Nitpicks

• In the lead, numbers like twenty million are written as words, while in '"Background and production" they are written as digits. Generally, numbers bigger than nine are written as digits, although there are some exceptions listed in the Manual of Style. In any case, you should be consistent throughout the article. This "words or digits" question is a sort of nit-picky thing to point out, but I see other nit-picky things in the article that begin to add up after a while. Wikipedia:ORDINAL has details about numbers.
• Another nitpick is that the date formatting in the "Reference" section needs to be consistent. Since you are pretty much stuck with m-d-y format in the Billboard.com citations, probably switching to m-d-y throughout is the only sensible way to achieve consistency.
• The "Reference" section is overlinked. A large fraction of it is blue and linked, which makes the links not special. I would not, for example, link billboard.com or Nielsen Business Media more than once. You can probably justify linking them and similar things on first use, but no purpose is served by linking the same things over and over.
• In the "Reference" section, the author's last name should come first. For example, citation 60 should start with "Silverman, Stephen M.

This is not a complete line-by-line review, but I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Language and literature

Desert of Desolation

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to build it up to GA quality at least. I think it's only a few steps away from a GA - a bit more in the lead, a bit less of reception for sure - but anything you can think of to push it along, let me know.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 15 March 2010, 22:33 UTC)

---

Africa (Petrarch)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the quality up to that of a Good Article.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Honestly, I think the article needs a lot of work before GA, but I'm so excited that you are taking it on! A Petrarch poem! How wonderful!

• The "Inspiration" section does not have a coherent structure. The first paragraph discusses when and where the poem was composed (in a disorganized fashion). The second paragraph is an unattributed quotation (that is, it is unattributed in the text - the reader does not who is speaking) - this quote needs to be integrated into a paragraph somehow. The third paragraph attempts to explain why Petrarch wrote about Scipio in particular, but it does not make this purpose explicit - it introduces other figures in a confusing fashion. Take the reader through all of this information slowly and connect each thought to the next by showing the logical connections. For example:

• Current version: The first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse after Petrarch's first visit to Rome in 1337. The design of his epic poem and also the De Viris Illustribus were inspired after he visited Rome on his grand tour.
• Revision: Africa and De Viris Illustribus were partially inspired by Petrarch's visit to Rome in 1337. After returning from his grand tour, the first sections of Africa were written in the valley of Vaucluse."

• I suggest reworking the the "Inspiration", "History", and "Coronation" sections into a "Background and composition" section (with some subheadings). The current division of the sections does not make all that much sense. For example, the last paragraph of "History" seems like it belongs with the Scipio material, as it address what is in the poem, rather than the circumstances of the writing of the poem.
• The "Editions" section ends in 1874 - surely there were editions published in the 20th century?
• I would place sections describing the poem, such as "Allegory", before the "Reviews" - this is the typical structure of literature articles on Wikipedia. It is difficult to comprehend reviews of something one does not know the subject of yet.
• The "Reviews" section is a long list of quotations - this needs to expanded into a "Reception" section that explains how the book was read over the past 500 years. A summary of the history of that reception would be a better idea than a list of quotes. Sometimes scholars provide this kind of summary in their articles and books.
• The "Allegory" section needs to explain in much more detail and much more clearly what the different allegorical readings of "Africa" are.
• I would suggest renaming the "Books" section "Synopsis". It also needs to be dramatically cut down - it should briefly summarize the work. I would suggest not summarizing each book individually but rather the work as a whole.
• Information from the "Commentaries" section should be threaded throughout the article where it is most useful, not listed in bullet-point form.
• The article needs the following sections:

• A section describing the themes of the poem
• A section describing the structure of the poem - the lead mentions it is an epic, for example, but nowhere in the article is this explained in any detail
• A section describing the language and meter of the poem - the lead mentions hexameters, for example, but nowhere in the article is this dissected and explained to the reader
• A section describing the influence this poem had on later literature

I have not commented on the prose, images, or MOS issues, as I feel that these larger issues should be addressed first. I am always willing to rereview articles, by the way! I look forward to seeing this one improved - this is definitely one that we should polish. You might look at some literature FAs, particularly those on poetry, to help you out. See, for example, Ulysses (poem), The Raven, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 11 March 2010, 15:42 UTC)

---

Olivia Manning

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

I'd be grateful for feedback on this article which I have been slowly working on for the last year. It is currently a good article, and received a very helpful review from User:Yllosubmarine, whose recommendations I have been seeking to address. [1] It would be nice to have other opinions; my ultimate plan is to submit this as a featured article candidate.--Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 March 2010, 03:01 UTC)

---

Khachatur Abovian

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

I would like tips on how to improve the article towards the eventual goal of turning it into an FA, it's been a GA for a couple of years now but I find that the prose can be tweaked and improved further.

Thanks, Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that I was glad to read. It falls well short of FA at this point, in my opinion, but it has potential. I think you need to add more context for the non-Armenian reader and to make more clear how Arbovian's social and political views affected his literary output. It seems odd to an outsider that his work was unpublished for so long. Did he try to publish? Was the work suppressed? Here are my other thoughts and suggestions:

Lead

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article and should include nothing important that is not mentioned in the main text sections. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead mentions his Abovian's influence on Armenian literature (which is not mentioned in the main text) but does not mention his early life, the mountain climbing, his Dorpat years, or his portrait, and it does not say much about his other writing. If you imagine a reader who can read only the lead and nothing else, you get a sense of what the lead should be.

Early life and career

• "At the age of ten his father took him to Echmiadzin to study for priesthood." - Suggestion: "When he was ten, his father took him... ". Otherwise at first glance the sentence appears to say that his father was ten.

Dorpat years

• "Abovian entered the university directly without additional preparation and studied in the Philosophy faculty of the Philological-Historical department... ". - Suggestion: "Abovian entered the university directly without additional preparation and studied philosophy... ".

Death

• "Given his love for his children and their young age it is generally disregarded that Abovian committed suicide." - "Disregarded" isn't the right word. Suggestion: "Because he loved his young children, it is generally doubted that Abovian committed suicide."
• "A bust of Abovian in front of the Yerevan State Pedagogical University named after him" - If the school is called Yerevan State Pedagogical University, how is it named after Abovian?

Other works

• "Pedagogical compositions of Abovian include the book for reading Introduction to education (1838), a textbook of Russian grammar and an Armenian language novel History of Tigran, or a moral manual for the Armenian children (printed in 1941)." - By "the book for reading" do you mean "the reader" or "the reading book"? Is 1941 the correct date?

Legacy

• "Yerevan's State Pedagogic Institute was named after him." - In what sense? His name does not seem to be part of the institute's name.
• "On February 28, 1964, a medal was also named in his honor (Աբովյանի Անվան Մեդալ) and which was awarded to school teachers who showed exceptional abilities in teaching and education." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "On February 28, 1964, a medal was also named in his honor (Աբովյանի Անվան Մեդալ). It is awarded to school teachers who show exceptional abilities in teaching and education." (I assume this is an annual award rather than a single award given only in 1964.)

Portrait

• "Abovian's portrait is one of the most unique samples of the Museum of Literature and Arts after Charents." - A thing can be unique, but it can't be "most unique" because unique means "sole". Also, "samples" does not seem to be the right word, and "after Charents" is puzzling. Suggestion: "Abovian's portrait is unique among the works in the Charents Museum of Literature and Arts.

Notes

• I'd suggest moving the Armenian Wikisource link to the External links section.

Further reading

• You can usually find missing bibliographic information via WorldCat. For example, here is a link to the Harper and Bros. edition of the Parrot book.

Other

• The dabfinder in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
• The alt text viewer shows that all of the images need alt text. Wikipedia:ALT has details. You can also see ongoing reviews of alt text at Wikipedia:FAC. Suitable alt text is one of the FA requirements.
• Would it be helpful to readers to include a brief description of where Armenia is in the world and how it is or has been related to Russia, Turkey (the Ottoman Empire), and the Persian Empire?
• Why did it take so long for Abovian's work to be published? What eventually caused it to be published? Why was the establishment of the Armenian SSR important to his reputation?
• This suggests to me that the image of the statue should not have been uploaded to the Commons because Armenia has a non-commercial (NC) restriction in its "freedom of panorama" law. It would be wise to delete this image and look for another.

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. Finetooth (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 February 2010, 16:02 UTC)

---

Chaucer's special manuscript words

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I ultimately wish to have it as a Featured list candidate.

Thanks, Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What a cool idea for a list! With Wikipedia:WIAFL in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem as I see it with this making FL is references - it is not clear to me from reading the article what the sources are for the words listed. It is OK in lists to have general references, but the source of the words has to be provided. If each tale or work has a different ref, this should be noted in each section. See Wikipedia:V (since there is a very long list of References at the end, I am guessing this will not be a problem).

• To make clearer I have put in the wording: Below is a complete list of the 1977 Chaucer's special manuscript words that are first found in the existing manuscripts below as listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as being the first cited author.

• Some of the references are incomplete and need more information. For example, the OED needs publisher, date, edition. See Wikipedia:CITE

• Not sure which particular references you are speaking of?

The OED inline citation has below and has as second reference instructions for OED Online to get first cited author:

Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C., The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford UP, 1989, Reprinted 1991. ISBN 0198611862.

Wikipedia:CITE uses example:

Ritter, Ron. The Oxford Style Manual, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1.

• 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 3 is just "Chaucer's words"

• URLs use the recommended {{cite web}} template

• The image should be identified as the manuscript for Balade to Rosemounde. I also wonder if any of the images of Chaucer from his article would work here? I know most of them are much later.

• I prefer to stick with just this one image to keep it simple. It has a Chaucer original manuscript with words - what this article is about.

• The image also needs alt text for the visually impaired - see Wikipedia:ALT

• Don't know anything further I can do here. I asked the Help Desk and they had no further suggestions.
• Did give reference on each image for the wording.

• Per Wikipedia:HEAD the headers should not also contain wikilinks

• fixed.

• There are many places where the article could provide context to the reader - see Wikipedia:PCR. For example, there could be a few sentences on Chaucer, or a sentence or two on each of the work (each of the Tales), or even listing the minor works
• I also wonder how the words were identified / chosen. Is it a complete list or is it a selection of the words? Again this needs to be explained, and is also a matter of refs (which sources were used?)
• I noticed that "Dives" is linked to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dives which is about Diving (aquatics), but I think Lazarus and Dives is meant
• I also wondered if the list of words might be made into a table, perhaps give the original spelling (maybe even quote the line), the modern spelling, maybe etymology, not sure what else.

• Made table of 5 dozen examples of Usages showing Middle English and Modern English usages, with the name of Chaucer's poem and estimated year it came out.

• Language needs some polish / work in places - needs a copyedit / tightened in places - here are a few examples
  • The first sentence seems to be missing some words: English words first attested in Chaucer are a set of about two thousand English words that Geoffrey Chaucer is credited as being the first [to?] use[, which are?] found today in existing manuscripts.[1][2][3]
  • Europe? Were early English words really in everday speech in Europe too? The words were already in everyday speech in fourteenth century England (especially London) and other parts of Europe.[6][7]
  • Awkward? These manuscript words first found written in Chaucer's work, from the The Canterbury Tales and other of his publications were published in the fourteenth century.[10][11]

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 _><>°^° 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 February 2010, 20:06 UTC)

---

The Woman's Bible

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GAN and I wish to take the article to FAC. My close connection to the article may be preventing me from seeing a problem that would affect its ability to move forward.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Article looks pretty good; interesting on a subject I knew nothing about. However, I do feel that there's a great deal more about the response to the book in the article than material that tells us what was actually in the book. I realise it's hard to summarise an entire book, but I'm keen to know more of its contents. That's my criticism of the article as it stands. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial brief comment: My first impression of the article was that it was rather dominated by its images which were over-large for the text. As an experiment I have reduced all the image sizes, and think this improves the overall appearance. I have also absorbed the shorter blockquotes into the text, to reduce the amount of unsightly white space that otherwise disrupts the article. You are of course free to revert these changes, but I'd ask you to consider them before you do. More detailed comments on the text will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Detailed comments: A most interesting subject, and a generally absorbing article.

• Lead
  • The opening sentence has three "ands", and needs to be split. Thus: "The Woman's Bible is a two-part book, written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a committee of 26 women. It was published in 1895 and 1898 to challenge the traditional position of religious orthodoxy that woman should be subservient to man."
  • "By producing the book, Stanton wished to promote a radical liberating theology..." Slightly cumbersome wording; could be simplified to: "Stanton's objective was to promote..." etc
  • Overlinking: Bible
  • I recommend reorganising and slightly shortening the first two sentences in the second paragraph as follows: "Many women's rights activists who worked with Stanton within the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) were opposed to the publication of The Woman's Bible; they felt it would harm the drive for women's suffrage. Although it was never accepted by Bible scholars as a major work, it became a popular best-seller, much to the dismay of Stanton's fellow suffragists."
  • "Because of the widespread negative reaction, including suffragists who had been close to her,..." Not quite grammatical as it stands. Needs to say "including that of suffragists".
• Background
  • "Independently from Mott, Lucy Stone determined for herself..." As you have said "Independently from Mott", you don't need "for herself"
  • I'm not sure that "disarming", in the context you use it, is the best word. It carries a connotation of winning over by charm. Perhaps "combatting", or simply "answering"?
• Revising committee
  • Date confusion: can you clarify what the first sentence means? Does it mean that the Revised version was produced in instalments in the years that you mention, or that it was produced as a draft in 1881, revised in 1885 and further revised in 1894? There is further confusion by the mention of "the revised edition of 1888" in Stanton's subsequent quote.
  • You might mention earlier that the committee was international in character, and indicate in the list of names the non-American countries.
  • "Clark questioned whether Stanton's liberal views had shocked some in attendance" Odd wording, which doesn't really make sense. Should it be "Clark wondered whether..."? That would be consistent with what follows.
  • "Gage determined that the Church had acted against women's interests in important ways: from Roman Catholic canon law, to Scripture, to its advocacy of celibacy and more." I can't discern a clear "from...to" range here. Needs revision/clarification.
  • "Especially troubling to Gage was the story of Adam and Eve." This is rather left dangling. Why was this myth particularly troubling? (presumably because it specifically associates woman with original sin, but you should say so.)
  • "It included a Preface written by Stanton..." Does "it" refer to Part 1 or Part 2?
• Missing section: as with all book articles, we need a section that summarises the contents of the book. This need not be particularly long, but it is necessary to the coherence of the whole article. It's on Gutenberg so this should not be a problem.
• Reaction
  • "At its introduction" is awkward-sounding. "On its publication" would be better.
  • "Some were put off just by its prejudicial, sacrilegious title, especially those who did not take the time to read the book."[15] There are problems with this statement. First, it isn't clear whether "Some" refers to the clergy, from the previous sentence, or to readers generally. Secondly, who is describing the title as prejudicial and sacriligious? Most important, however, is the fact that the statement is not backed up by the citation. This NYT letter, by the "female reader" mentioned later, is an attack on the book written "on behalf of those who have not the time nor the inclination to read the book", which is quite different from what the statement implies. For there reasons I would omit the statement altogether.
  • "Others countered the book's more extreme conclusions one by one in public fora such as letters to the editor." Again, problematic; whose judgement is "the book's more extreme conclusions"? The sentence tells us very little beyond that people wrote letters to newspapers, which we can deduce anyway from the next few sentences, so I suggest this is omitted, too.
  • "One female reader..." Since her name is known, why is she left anonymous?
  • "Stanton's best and most faithful collaborator..." POV?
  • First two sentences of this paragraph look in need of citation.
  • I may be wrong, but phrasing such as "Anthony was unhappy at the futility of the effort, a harmful digression from the focused path which led to woman suffrage" sounds like either quoted material or a very close paraphrase, and perhaps should be attributed.
  • "Led the battle" is a little too forceful for a neutral article. Bland phrasing: "led the efforts" or "led the moves"?
  • "Avery's opening report of January 23 was adopted with the part about The Woman's Bible expunged.[26]" I'm curious to know why, given that her resolution was passed, the meat of her opening comments should then be expunged. Any explanation?
• Legacy: awkward repetition of "place of honor" in final short paragraph. Suggest rephrase.
• References and sources
  • Why use this to quote from the book when you can refer to the text itself?
  • Sandra M Gilbert's book is not listed in the bibliography
  • Kern's book is in the bibliography but does not apear to have been used as a reference.

If you have any questions relating to this review, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent observations. I will use your critique in improving the article, when I get the chance. This article is in fifth place on my "To Do" list, so my work on it will not begin immediately. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 February 2010, 05:26 UTC)

---

Everyday life

Eduard Streltsov

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just started working on it again after a few months of letting it be, and am looking for thoughts to help me take it to FAC. I'd appreciate comments on the prose, especially, as I understand that this is a weakness of mine.

Thanks, – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 March 2010, 20:59 UTC)

---

Climax Series

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like it could have a chance for FAC sometime soon, but I really need a few more eyes to look at it before I send it on Now I'm basically looking for any general copy edit suggestions, format suggestions or possible content additions that would help it pass a FAC.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 March 2010, 21:17 UTC)

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. managers

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to FL standard. I've put in alot of extra work in the last day to bring it up to the standard of articles like List of Bristol Rovers F.C. managers and List of York City F.C. managers. I'd like to know if its lacking anything. I've included a history section so there is a possibility I might have overlinked or used the same words too often. Any feedback will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Dave Smith (footballer) manager.jpg is missing a Fair Use Rationale for this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a shame, Dave is well thought of here. I've replaced him with Shilts. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have left the image in, you just needed to add a FUR for this specific article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, its done now. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not 100% savvy when it comes to image use on Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from Cliftonian (talk<dot-separator> contribs)...
  • "Plymouth Argyle Football Club are" → is. Use "are" when referring to the team (as in the players, for example: "Plymouth Argyle are an inferior side compared to Luton Town"), but "is" when referring to the club ("Plymouth Argyle is a better run club than Luton Town"). Only use "are" after a proper noun, in the form I have given above, referring to the team of players. In all other forms, use "is". Your lead is conflicting on this point and this makes it sound awkward. Just be consistent, whatever you do here; but I find that what I've suggested reads best.
  • Why is the committee's nationality given as "United Kingdom"? I'd leave it blank, personally.
  • Promotion isn't an honour, it's an achievement.
  • You may get some trouble over Greens on Screen at FLC; I'd let it pass, but I know many wouldn't without a lot of backing up – just a warning.
  • I've just cast my eyes over the "history" prose; it's entertaining, but a little bit POV for some peoples' liking, I fear – It reads like a fansite in places. Try to tone down phrases such as "However, the team and all the work that had gone into it was undoubtedly the work of Sturrock", "he proved to be an immediate hit" and "Highly-respected administrator". A trick I used a lot in my Luton Town articles and lists was to use the books at my disposal to find phrases such as these and quote them from the text: for example, if one of your books describes Frank Brettell as a "highly-respected administrator", you can quote it and use it here with no problems. I remember having a great deal of hardship trying to describe one of our old owners, John Gurney, without sounding POV – in the end I had to quote the word "controversial" from the BBC!
• Well, Hope these help. God bless. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get to work on it during the next couple of days. Regarding a couple of issues; you're right about Greens on Screen. I hastily listed the Player of the Year article a while ago and its major sticking points was that website. I couldn't ignore it because its a fantastic resource but I can understand why it would be questioned as a reliable source. I have a few references about it that have been listed on When Saturday Comes, but I'm not sure whether I'll keep it or just reference it all to a couple of books that I now have.

I tried to keep the "History" section as neutral as I could, but it doesn't surprise me that a few journalistic phrases crept in occasionally. I'll have a gander at my books, see what I can find and replace certain parts. One more thing, the first example you gave is a blatent lie! ;) And the second isn't all that true (we posted a loss of £2.8m last year because of terrible signings - speaking of which, would Luton be interested in Steven MacLean and Simon Walton? They're very under-rated *whistle smiley*).

Cheers. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know as well as I do that those examples were not so much tongue-in-cheek as in-the-next-country! ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 06:59 UTC)

---

FC Barcelona

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it's changed considerably since last assessment, and I'll like a critique of it's current status - in particular what needs to be done to consider this a featured article.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do a full review later, but the most obvious issue is that the history section is almost completely unreferenced.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

it's sourced, but mainly with 'one' source Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a tag to highlight that one section of the history (the Nunez presidency) is unreferenced. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced it mainly with the FCB webpage history pages Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The book references at the foot need ISBN numbers. I will add the one for Jimmy Burns because I have a copy lying around somewhere. Actually, this gives me an excuse to re-read it and compare it to this article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, the history section suffers from a bit of recentism, there is too much minutiae from the last two seasons - in particular, the details of a preseason tour should not be in a general summary history of a football club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cleared it out, but it's hard to say whether the sextuple section is a sort of recentism or if it's because the recently made history. Sandman888 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: Just glancing at the article, I agree with ChrisTheDude and Jmorrison that at least some and perhaps many of the significant claims in the article are not verifiable because they lack in-line citations to reliable sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.

In cases where a whole paragraph has one citation at the end, the cited source should cover the whole paragraph, not just the last sentence. However, the claim that "History says that Gamper was inspired to choose the club colours, blaugrana, by FC Basel's crest", which appears in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Birth of Barcelona section, is not supported by the source cited at the end of the paragraph. It's quite difficult and time-consuming to check unsourced claims entered by other editors who may have disappeared since making their entries. Even so, it's necessary to make sure everything meets Wikipedia:V for an article to be promoted. Claims that assert things that are common knowledge don't need a source, but the claim that Gamper was inspired by the FC Basel crest is not common knowledge and must have come from a source (not "History" and not the only cited source for the paragraph). I found this one problem by randomly checking; if I checked further, the odds are high that I would find more. Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 March 2010, 11:12 UTC)

---

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

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

Do you like association football (soccer)? Want to learn about how Seattle Sounders FC, a successful Major League Soccer expansion team, managed to win the U.S. Open Cup in its inaugural season? Then click the link and start reviewing!

Thanks, SkotyWA^T_C 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do review: Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll be happy to follow up on any feedback. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 08:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have made a start but I'll have to come back and finish. Some nice graphics, by the way.

• General point. I haven't done a full copyedit though I have made a few fixes. The prose needs some attention, particularly in the need to remove redundancies and repetitions. This should preferably done by another editor, if you can find someone.

I saw your edits. Thanks for making the improvments you did. If you can recommend any good copyeditors, I'll be happy to follow up with requests for help. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Is it possible to rephrase the opening sentence without the repeat of the rather long name of the tournament, and also avoiding the apparent tautology (the Cup Final is by definition the final match of the tournament)?

I've shortened the second instance to "the 2009 tournament" rather than the full name (with the same wikilink). This repetition was introduced as part of the article rename that took place in the GA review. I didn't notice it when I moved the article. Thanks for point it out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Better, but the tautology is still there: "The ... Cup Final was the final match..." etc. Instead of "final Match", could you say "climax"?

How about "culmination" instead? I changed it to that. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • A problem in many sports articles is the assumption that readers will know the basic terms associated with the sport and its structure. This assumption may be wrong, and explanations are often required. In this case, I soon found myself wondering what an expansion team is. The use of the initial "MLS" without previously tying them to "Major League Soccer" also caused me temporary confusion.

The "MLS" hook was in the prose, but was missing from the lead. I've added it there. Also excellent point on the term "expansion team". I've add the following sentence to the beginning of that paragraph which should help: In 2009, MLS expanded into the Seattle market adding a new team to the league, Seattle Sounders FC. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "expansion team" confusion arises in the lead, where the term is unexplained. I would recommend putting the term into quotes in the lead, and adding a footnote explaining what it means.

Wikilinked to Expansion team. Don't know why I didn't think of that before. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Is "ejected" a standard US soccer expression. In the UK we might say "shown the red card", "sent off the field" (or just "sent off"), or even "dismissed", but never "ejected". It might be wise to extend the expression.

"Ejected" is a term often used in the states. It appeared in several of the match reports referenced. We use it interchangably with "sent off". I've replaced the two instances with the text you suggested "sent off the field" and "dissmissing". These will make sense to both English and American readers and I don't think should cause a problem with Wikipedia:ENGVAR. Thanks for pointing these out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "stomping" is informal, not encyclopedic

I've consulted a thesaurus and I can't come up with a good alternative. Wicks did not "step" on Montero, he lifted his foot an forcefully drove it downwards onto Montero. I think the appropriate term for that is "stomp". All of the articles and match reports used the term. Is the problem with the word or that I've made it into a progressive tense verb? --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stomping" is an informal term for "heavy stamping". I agree it's graphic and clear, it's whether it is encyclopedic that bothers me, especially when it is in the lead. It's up to you, but my recommendation is to change both mentions to "stamping".

This is a tough one. I think we're running into geographic variations of the english language with this. I appreciate you calling this out, but at this point, I'm going to leave it "stomping" for now. If it comes up again as part of this review or in FA review, I'll keep the points you've brought up in mind. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The lead is supposed to summarise all the main points of the article, thereby providing a summary of the whole. The last sentence is a minor piece of incidental detail which is not worth including.

I've removed it. That was the only thing included from the "Reaction" section, so I've added a sentence on the cash rewards. Hopefully that is better. Based on what I've seen in FA reviews, you need to have at least one item in the lead from every section in the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Road to the final
  • By "U. S. Soccer", do you mean the US Soccer Federation? If so, say so, and link it.

Excellent point. Expanded and linked. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Unclear: "is allowed eight entries in the tournament of its U.S. based teams." Do you mean "is allowed to enter eight of its U.S-based teams in the tournament"?

Yes, that's what I meant. Your wording is much better. I've changed it to that. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • This sentence is out of sequence; should appear after you have dealt with qualification matters: "The MLS teams begin play in the third round of the tournament."

Agreed. I've moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph and changed the wording slightly to this: The final eight MLS entries begin play in the third round of the tournament. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounders FC
  • What are "assists"?

I assume you're just looking for a wikilink here. I've linked Assist (football) which should help. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Three weeks" not "3 weeks", and "five minutes" not "5", per MOS

Fixed. Can't believe we missed those in the GA review (we fixed others). --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• DC United
  • The first couple of sentences are an example of what I referred to earlier as redundant and repetitive prose: "MLS clubs were first included in the U.S. Open Cup tournament in 1996. D.C. United won the cup that year, and in 2008, they repeated their success by winning their second U.S. Open Cup." This could be simplified to "MLS clubs were first included in the U.S. Open Cup tournament in 1996. D.C. United won the tournament that year, and in 2008 they repeated their success."

Updated as you suggested. Agreed this is much better. For some reason, these things are not as obvious to me, so I really appreciate you pointing them out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "prevailed" is sports journal language, not encyclopedic

Fair enough. Changed it to "won". --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • What is a penalty kick?

I had linked to penalty kick earlier in the article, but I'm happy to add one here as well. Overall, I've tried to only wikilink to things once in the prose (not including the lead) so as to avoid overlinking. As a result, I think I tend to underlink now, so it's good to have another set of eyes on this. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; I missed the earlier link. You don't need to link the term twice.

Removed the second link. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Actual rather than nicknames should be used.

I assume you're referring to "Boyzzz Khumalo". I saw that in one of the match reports and didn't think much of it. I agree in this case, but in the case of "Fred" I think it should remain as that's his professional name rather than a nickname (or so I thought). What do you think? --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got that far, but looking down, "decided to replace Fred" looks very odd, particularly as you have just mentioned players called "Fredy" and "Freddie". You should say: "Carreiro da Silva, the Brazilian commonly known as Fred..." The reference to Ljungberg should be to Fredrik. Basically, sports reports use nicknames, encyclopedia articles don't. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So I did some research on this and found a similar match final article that is already FA quality: 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. In it I see that professional names (names used in match reports) are used in the article. Note the links to Kaká and Xabi Alonso, José Manuel Reina as examples. I've put back "Boyzzz Khumalo" since that how all the match reports refer to him and I will verify that the rest of the names used are their professional names (sometimes referred to as nicknames) as used by the club and in match reports. I think as long as they are wikilinked appropriately, this is the correct thing to do. All of the players who participated have their own article on Wikipedia, so this should be fine. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Back later Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the rest

• Venue selection
  • It would be useful to be reminded in the text that the RFK stadium is D.C. United's home venue. Looking back, it doen't seem that you have previously made it clear that D.C. United are a Washington DC-based team. This should be clarified in the lead.
  • "pointed" reply - sounds like an editorial opinion. If so, the word should be deleted.
  • "...which included a web site showcasing the club's history of titles as an original MLS franchise, WeWinTrophies.com." This reads like promotional stuff - why do readers need this web address? You've said they mounted a campaign to sell match tickets, which is enough; everything from "which included" onwards should be deleted.
• Match summary
  • Unnecessary link on RFK Stadium - already linked in lead and in an earlier section
  • 200 fans out of 17,000 seems very few Seattle fans. Presumably the distance was what limited the number, something worth saying. I'm also curious to know what proportion of the RFK capacity the 17,000 represented. Also, elsewhere in the article, it would be worth mentioning the capacity of the Seattle ground, which they had claimed they could sell out.
• First half
  • "rookie" is slangy but just about permissable. Links are required for the following soccer terms unless you have made them earlier: goalkeeper, free kick, midfielder
  • "...whose shot on goal was barely kick saved by Wicks." What does this mean? If "kick saved" is a US soccer term, could it have a hyphen, when it would (just about) make sense to UK soccer readers
  • the adjectives "threatening" and "amazing" read like editorial opinion. If they are used in the cited sources they should be in quote marks. Otherwise, they should go.
• Second half (note earlier comments about usage of nicknames or familiar names)
  • "Seven minutes later, another failed D.C. United opportunity resulted in a Sounders FC counter attack, where Freddie Ljungberg's shot was saved by Wicks, and the rebound rolled in front of Fredy Montero, who slid in and tipped the ball into the goal, giving Sounders FC a 1–0 lead." Too much information for a single sentence. Suggest break after "saved by Wicks" then "The rebound..." etc. The latter part slips into soccerspeak with "slid in" and "tipped the ball". Suggest rephrase in everyday language.
  • "the fourth official" - again more explanation necessary (or call him something like the off-field official). Otherwise people will wonder about the unmentioned second and third officials.
  • Second para: Suggest flip the first sentence thus: "Despite being down a man, D.C. United continued to control possession as the match progressed towards full time." You also need to explain "control possession". At the very least, add "of the ball". (Afterthought: I would reword this to "...United had most possession of the ball...")
  • "dribbled in towards goal..." Clarify/link
  • Sometimes you refer to "D.C.", sometimes to "United". It would be clearer if there was consistency here.
  • "regain a goal" is surely wrong terminology. To regain something is to gain something previously had and subsequently lost. Not the case here.
  • Why were there five minutes of extra time?
  • "hang on" is too slangy.
• Reaction: Five, not 5 matches
• References
  • Consistency required: sometimes you have "The Seattle Times", sometimes "Seattle Times" Sometimes italics are used, other times not.
  • Refs [6] and [28] lack publisher information
  • Why are the press releases considered as reliable sources? Press releases are usually part of the news management process.
  • Someone might wonder why the vast majority of sources are Seattle-based, as against (I think) three from the Washington Post, and might wonder if this reflects on the neutrality of the article.

That's about it. Please ping the talkpage when you want me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 February 2010, 23:12 UTC)

---

Halo 3: ODST

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting it to FA status in the near future. I think it's quite comprehensive, but knowing myself the biggest areas that it probably needs help with are prose and accessibility for the non-video game reviewer; specific points to that are what I'm looking for, but any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Adding to the difficulty are skulls that give enemies new abilities; the "Catch" skull, for example, causes enemies to throw greater numbers of grenades." <-- complete unexplained. What is a skull in ordinary terms and why/how would one use it?
• "...the aftermath of the shockwave..." What aftermath? A shockwave is a shockwave; you get a ringing sound, deal with it, and move on. Perhaps you need more destructive wording.
• 'Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, known as ODSTs or Helljumper' <-- no mention of the similarity to Paratroopers?
• 'After looking at the proposal and the budget, studio head Harold Ryan gave the go-ahead.' <-- well obviously they looked at the proposal and budget; studio heads aren't in the habit of waving through new games.
• 'The genre also influenced the character names and archetypes. The player character, for example, fits the concept of a lone, hardboiled detective.' <-- since when do noir detectives gun down a couple of aliens every other building? What's detective about ODSTs?
• 'Members of Bungie were fans of the defunct television series Firefly, ' <-- every TV series gets canceled eventually; there are no immortal series.
• '"instead," Molina wrote, "roughly two-thirds of ODST's combat feels very much like a traditional Halo game" instead of exploring promising new stealth-based mechanics.' <-- in general, the article fails to give a good idea of those new mechanics; having played some ODST, I know what he means, but others wouldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:17 6 March 2010 (GMT)
  • I've reworded the skull bit and fleshed it out a bit more, and removed "defunct". A shockwave is a shockwave, but any such wave can carry a great deal of energy; it's plenty destructive, and I'm not sure what else you would call it. Noir is what they called it; while I think the ODSTs are a bit more bloody than your average 40's thriller, that's what the source says. Surprisingly, no one really discussed the paratrooper aspects. I'll take a look at adding in info about the stealth gameplay. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Friday 26 February 2010, 18:35 UTC)

---

Robert Cade

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting corner of sporting history. Specific points:-

• Sodium citrate links to a disambiguation page
• The lead needs to be extended, per Wikipedia:LEAD, to form a summary of the whole article, rather than a brief couple of introductory sentences.
• Early life:
  • "While in high school, Cade ran the mile in 4:20." This bald fact needs some context. At present I've no idea why this is included. If the point is to establish Cade's early interest in athletics you should say so, and perhaps follow up with further information, if available. In any event, "4.20" needs to be explained; not everyone will be aware that this means 4 minutes 20 seconds.
  • "While in college, he joined Delta Upsilon fraternity." Is this relevant information?
  • Alma mater requires a link (it's not a quality article but it's better than nothing)
• Invention of Gatorade
  • At the start of the section it is not necessary to repeat that Cade was a faculty member of the University of Florida College of Medicine - we've just been told that - but a year would be useful. Thus: "In 19xx Cade was approached by Dewayne Douglas..." etc
  • "During 1965 and 1966, Cade, together with his team of research doctors Dana Shires, James Free, and Alejandro M. de Quesada, conducted a series of trial-and-error experiments with his glucose-and-electrolytes rehydration drink..." Hang on, we don't know about "his glucose-and-electrolytes rehydration drink" yet. You need to say before this that Cade and his research team had developed the drink.
  • Anyway, this sentence gets impossibly long and convoluted. It needs to be split - and the mention of "Roy Gravs" seems superfluous.
  • Did the player who "spat it out" actually use the term "bodily waste"? Just curious (the correct term is probably "body waste")
• Legacy
  • It is not WP policy to name offspring of subjects unless the offspring are themselves notable, which is not the case here.
  • Mention of his "eccentric" collection of violins (why eccentric?) and his Studebaker collection might be thought to be trivia.
• References: On-line sources need an access date in each case.
• "Bibliography" means a list of books. This list looks like a partial list of sources, with no rationale as to why these, and not the other sources, are included. The one book in the list does not appear to be cited in the article.

I am not watching my reviews at the moment (too many), so if you want to raise anything with me, please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Hibernian F.C.

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to move it towards FA status. It already passed GA and I have finally got around to making some of the changes suggested in the summer of 2008 by User:Dweller.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• One thing that jumps out is that the history section seems unduly weighted towards recent events. One example: "Hibs got off to an excellent start in the following season, which prompted speculation that they could challenge for the championship. Injuries and the sale of Garry O'Connor to Lokomotiv Moscow exposed a lack of depth in the squad, which meant that the club finished a distant fourth in the SPL and were beaten by Hearts in the Scottish Cup.". So essentially, you're saying that in that season nothing of note happened. Would you give a similar level of coverage to a season in which nothing of note happened in the 1920s? You need to ensure an even coverage of all eras of the club's history and not give excessive coverage to recent seasons just because they were recent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment, the auto checker thingy is suggesting that there were too many sub sections. Perhaps if I merge the recent history into one section and get rid of some of the less significant content... Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The main thing that struck me was that the wikilinking needs looking at: see Wikipedia:LINK. Things like: don't link ordinary English words (like "green" and "white" in the Colours section); in the prose, only link the first occurrence of an item, unless there's a good reason to link it again; make sure the reader knows what to expect when they click on a link (see Wikipedia:LINK#Piped links). Some FA reviewers are quite keen on cutting down the amount of blue in an article: see Tony's comments towards the bottom of Arsenal F.C.'s FAR.
• In the references, single book pages should have a single p, so p98 not pp98; page ranges should have an endash not a hyphen (Wikipedia:DASH); titles in all capital letters should be rewritten with capitals just at the start of words (Wikipedia:ALLCAPS).
• When you reference e.g. the SPL or Edinburgh City Council websites, the site owners are publishers rather than works, so shouldn't be in italics.
• Make sure you can justify your sources as reliable; personal websites and fansites tend not to be.
• First-team squad and Honours sections are unreferenced, and a few of the Records don't have sources.
• And once you think it's nearly ready to submit, get someone to give the prose a copyedit. It's impossible to check your own :-) hope some of this helps, Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2, I have tried to address all of those points apart from a third party copyedit. Hibs handily removed their honours page when they moved the whole site from hibs.co.uk to hibernianfc.co.uk a few months ago (rolls eyes). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for finding the web archive link to the previous honours page. I haven't included the Tennents' Sixes and BP Youth Cup mentioned in that link because the first of those competitions was for an indoor six-a-side tournament, (similar to Masters Football, but with the current players!) and the second is for 18 year old players (similar to the FA Youth Cup). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 February 2010, 17:07 UTC)

---

Philosophy and religion

Tablighi Jamaat

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i wanted an independent opinion. I need feedback specifically on

• NPOV
• Any more possible pictures
• Language, good or not.
• Any suggested restructuring
• Any sections that need expansion
• Any new sections needed?

Thanks, —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 March 2010, 11:08 UTC)

---

Christ myth theory

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has made serious progress in the last few months, it has recently obtained GA status, and is within striking distance of FA status (I posted it for FA review only to have it shot down for somewhat dubious reasons; Ruhrfisch has given a special dispensation to allow the article a PR prior to the normal 2 week wait time). Needless to say, this is an article that attracts a lot of fringe attention and knee-jerk criticism. But if Intelligent Design and Xenu can make it to FA status then, theoretically, so can this article. To ensure that the Peer Review is actually helpful (and not just a rerun of old, baseless arguments) I'd really appreciate comments from people who are at least tangentially familiar with the general topic; editors with earned degrees in history, religion, theology, literature, and so forth would be especially helpful, as would comments from professional post-secondary academics of any sort. Please read the entire article (including footnotes when necessary, as well as the FAQ if need be) before commenting.

Thanks, Eugene (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter, but History of advocacy sounds like an odd heading - mainly "advocacy" comes across oddly. Maybe I'd just call it history.

'' Reply: The article once referred to that section simply as "history", but when the "historical responses" section was added and fleshed out, "history" began to seem a little inspecific. Would, perhaps, "historical advocates" be better than "history of advocacy"? Eugene (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Done

Comments from Brianboulton

I note that the page has a temporary full protection against recent edit-warring. I'll try and get as much of my review done before the protection expires on 10 March. I'll post my review comments as I go along; as a taster, here are some on the lead. I am dividing my comments between "substantive" and "prose issues":-

• Lead
  • Substantive
    • "The proponents of the theory trace the evolution of Christianity through a conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature and thus give primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians." I'm not sure what "thus" is doing in this sentence. It implies that the latter clause follows from the former, which does not seem to be the case. Fixed.
    • The final paragraph of the lead needs qualifying in two important respects. First, "biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship." You seem to be saying that every biblical scholar and every historian holds this view, which I doubt can be known to be true. I believe the phrase should be preceded by "most" or "many". Secondly, I think that for neutrality's sake the lead has to stop at "pseudo-scholarship". The remaining information suggests to the reader that believers in the Christ myth are both wicked and stupid. Maybe they are, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia article to push that agenda. These views should be presented in the article proper, but not in the lead. Judgements such as "even gone as far as" are unsuitable in an encyclopedia.

'' Reply: A number of reliable sources indicate that no serious historians or biblical scholars support the theory. One, Perrin, is quite forceful about it. Does that change anything? As for the denialist comparisons, what if we replace the last sentence of the lead with Powell's quote? As the Society of Biblical Literature's Historical Jesus Division chairman, such a practice would mirror the Intelligent design article, which has achieved FA status. Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

'' Reply: You said that "The remaining information [i.e., the comparison to Holocaust denial] suggests to the reader that believers in the Christ myth are both wicked and stupid". Of course, that is possible, but I sincerely doubt it; however, there is another option: a person may simply not be sufficiently aware of the evidence, the historical methodology, and/or the implications on the science of history that such a position entails. I mean, we are NOT contending that Jesus is God, the Son of God, the Messiah, or any other Christian theological point. Rather, the article is about "...the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person..." (bold added). Thus, a person can doubt the historicity of Jesus (and, I submit, that an insufficient knowledge of historical methodology is indeed what is most often the reason for doing so) without being "wicked and stupid". Full disclose: I'm a party to the mediation of this article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most people would consider holocaust denial wicked and moon-landing scepticism stupid. By opening with the suggestion that proponents of the mythical Christ theory might be equated with holocaust deniers and moon-landing sceptics is to suggest that they may be likewise tainted. The final lead sentence merely adds emphasis to what has been clearly stated in the previous sentence; it has no other function. However, its presence damages the neutral tone required from the article, and for that reason should be eliminated. Note: I am not going to answer further points until I have completed my review, which I want to do in the next couple of days while the protection holds. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • "Attention is often drawn..." Passive voice Fixed.
    • "The origins of the theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s and the first academic advocate was the 19th century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer." The second "and" makes a really awkward single sentence. Suggest a semicolon after "1790s" instead of the "and".

The GA reviewer objected to the semicolons sprinkled throughout the page. Who trumps who here? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "And authors such as George Albert Wells..." Sentences should not begin with conjunctions. Fixed.

More tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

• Early proponents
  • Substantive
    • I don't understand "organically/accidentally" in the context of this sentence. Is the meaning "randomly"?

I've cut the phrase down to merely "organically". The idea is that belief in Jesus developed the way greek mythology developed, bit by bit through tellings and retellings and other socio-religious pressures. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "an obscure historical figure": "obscure", or "unknown" (or "unidentifiable")?

Obscure in the sense that he wasn't important in his time and is now completely lost to history. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Now that the entire gospel tradition could be traced to a single author..." Too definitive. We are dealing with Bauer's theories. Thus: "If the entire gospel tradition could be traced to a single author..." Fixed.
  • Prose
    • The "though" in the first line of the first subsection is superfluous and should be omitted

"Though" is being used to set the Frenchmen apart from the English deists that preceded them. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "solar myths" should not be hyphenated Fixed.
• Early 20th century
  • Substantive
    • Editorial opinion? "ranging from the fairly scholarly to the highly fanciful." Who is defining the subjective terms "fairly scholarly" and "highly fanciful"?

Reply: I thought that denying most pre-16th century history was self-evidently fanciful; I used the phrase "fairly scholarly" merely for contrast. What would you recommend in place of these phrases? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the "highly fanciful", which you have exemplified, but "fairly scholarly" should, for neutrality's sake, read merely "scholarly". Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• • • Quote: "proved to be a tempting target for the deniers of Jesus' historicity" needs attribution in the text Fixed.
    • "Once references to "the twelve" and to Jesus' institution of the Eucharist were rejected as interpolations, Robertson argued..." Was Robertson merely hypothesising the rejection of these references, or basing his argument on evidence? If so, what evidence?

Robertson mostly just assumed that these details were later interpretations since such a view was neccesary fpr his overall thesis to stand. While he does try to provide a rationale for rejecting these details later in that book, it's convoluted, sprawling, and difficult to summarize in any meaningful way. Thankfully, at the point cited by the Wikipedia article, Robertson just declares, ipse dixit, that the passages in question "have every mark of interpolation" and moves on to deliver the quote that's integrated into the article. Eugene (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • What evidence was found in Acts to support the existence of the aforementioned cults? Fixed.
    • "Whatever modest fame Robertson and Smith had achieved, they were soon over-shadowed by Arthur Drews..." Sounds like more editorial opinion. (NB no hyphen in "overshadowed")

Dropped the hyphen. Drews is widely considered the second most important (after Bauer) CMT advcate; does this make room for the editorializing? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Soviet adoption: the implication that the Soviet Union "adopted" the mythical Christ theory, or indeed that the theory played any major part in the development of Soviet education, is highly questionable. The theory may have been propogated by a few politicians and educationists, was it mainstream? You would need to produce much more evidence to demonstrate that it was.

'' Reply: This contention is currently sourced with two footnotes (Haber's and Nikiforov's) that use phrases like "one of the cornerstones of the new state's anti-religious campaign" and "One of its most important components". How much more is needed? I could include a sourced reference to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia; would that suffice? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes that you cite evidence a campaign, rather than an "adoption" of the Christ myth theory as state policy. As you acknowledge, advocacy for theory was short-lived. The title of the section should be "Soviet advocacy" (or similar), rather than "Soviet adoption". Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've included an allusion to the official government approved Great Soviet Encyclopedia. With this addition I think "adoption" should be able to stand. (Wikipedia refers to various countries "adopting" the metric system.)[2] Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • "These authors also made use of..." Clarify who "these authors" are.
    • Religiongeschichte - foreign names/expressions should be italicised per MOS Fixed.
    • "Fourth Gospel" requires explanation Fixed.
    • "At around the same time..." is too vague a wording with which to begin a new section or subsection. Needs to be more specific.
    • "...as such a historical focus conflicted with his monistic predilections." This is not wording that will mean much to a general reader. Such phrasing needs to be modified to make it more generally comprehensible. Fixed.
    • "Gnostic" requires a link Fixed.
    • Descriptions such as "the celebrated..." should be avoided. And why begin the Russell sentence with "Even..."?

I've cut "celebrated". Russell is preceeded by "even" since he's, by far, the most widely known person who happened to associate himself with the theory in past generations. The structure is basically: virtual unknown, virtual unknown, total crackpot, marginal academic, virtual unknown... and even Bertrand Russell. Is that okay? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Recent proponents
  • Substantive
    • The brief summary of the views of Allegro is uninformative. It tells us nothing about his advocacy of the Christ myth theory. Fixed.
    • Robert M Price should be introduced with a description (Professor, etc), as you have Wells, Allegro etc (link is not enough).

'' Reply: Price is currently a "professor" at an unaccredited "seminary" that seems to lack even a physical plant. It looks like his most substantive current position is his role as co-host of "Point of Inquiry", an obscure humanist radio program. So, while his education is solidly impressive, his positions are not. What description would you recommend in this case? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Price's credentials seem somewhat dubious; is he honestly worth including, let alone in a subsection of his own? There are plenty enough examples without him. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Price is probably the most relevantly credentialed advocate of the theory since Bauer (two PhDs, one in theology, the other in New Testament). He's basically the only such person still pushing the theory these days and his name comes up from time to time in the secondary literature. I'd rather keep him. Also, I'm sure that if I try to drop him, all the lay CMT pushers who haunt the article and its talk page would throw an absolute fit. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • There is a hint of editorial voice in such statements as: "John M. Allegro is likely the earliest well-known modern advocate of the Christ myth theory", and that Wells "quickly superseded Allegro as the premier advocate of the Christ myth theory." These subjective opinions are best avoided.

I hope to conclude tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Final segment

• Arguments
  • Substantive
    • None
  • Prose
    • "Many proponents of the Christ myth theory..." invites the question "Who are they?" I believe, however, you are summarising a general position held by Christ myth advocates, and it may be wise to omit the "many". Fixed.
    • Clumsy, overlong sentence: "Christ myth theorists often reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, who seem to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus (such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch), by either deeming their writings spurious forgeries or by bracketing off the most pertinent passages in their works as later interpolations." Suggest: "Christ myth theorists often reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, which seems to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus. Their writings are either dismissed as forgeries, or the most pertinent passages in their works are classified as later interpolations." (Note that "spurious forgeries" is tautologous) Fixed.
    • "Perhaps the most common argument presented..." → "An argument commonly presented..." Fixed.
    • "and so on" is not encyclopedic Fixed.
    • "entirely explicable with reference to..." → "entirely explicable by reference to..." better. Fixed.
• Historical responses
  • Substantive
    • Can the essence of Conybeare's arguments be summarised (as is done with others)?
  • Prose
    • argued "vigorously" - POVish Fixed.
• Affirmation of historical Jesus
  • Substantive
    • "a number of commonly accepted critical criteria establish the historicity of Jesus" Not "establish", but "support". The wording which follows: "...and thus oppose the Christ myth theory" is redundant. Fixed.
    • Multiple attestation: on what evidence do "modern scholars" base their belief in multiple sources? Also, "modern scholars" appears to subsume all modern scholarship.

'' Reply: It's been objected that this article can appear to be a content fork of Historicity of Jesus. I don't think that's really true, but I've tried to avoid reproducing too much of that article in this section to avoid the critique. What do you suggest here? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "...mainstream scholarship believes the writings of Josephus contain multiple authentic references to Jesus." Does it? What are the references in Josephus to Jesus Christ, beyond those of the Testimonium Flavianum and the passage relating to James? There are many references in Josephus to other persons called Jesus, but none of these refer to Christ.

'' Reply: Two doesn't count as multiple? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedantically it does, but the word "multiple" as used here is Wikipedia:WEASEL, since you know the number is two. Saying "multiple" instead of "two" is intended to imply more than two.Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• • Prose
    • Bullet point format in prose is generally disapproved by Wikipedia:MOS. Suggest you make these level-4 headings Fixed.
    • "an historical" rather than "a historical"

'' Reply: My ancestors didn't throw a bunch of tea into Boston harbor so that I'd have to say "an historical"! :-) Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "...is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to also preserve a comment regarding Jesus original to the text."is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to also preserve a comment regarding Jesus original to the text." Tortured prose, try: "...is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to preserve an original comment regarding Jesus." Fixed.
• Rejection of alleged mythological parallels
  • Substantive: The problem with this section is that it is full of assertions ("mainstream critical scholarship rejects...", "Scholars believe...", "...widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod." These assertions are supposedly supported by citations, which are in fact footnotes which often merely repeat the assertions. Ref [126] includes an argument between John Dickson and Chris Forbes; why should we accept the authority of Forbes over Dickson? In the context of a neutral encyclopedia article, this section is problematic and needs to be considered in its entirety.

'' Reply: Dickson is interviewing Forbes in the footnote; he's merely setting him up, repeating the claims found in the film Zeitgeist, so Forbes can offer his scholarly opinion. As for the other issues, shouldn't WP:RS citations that directly support an in-text statement ("merely repeat the assertions") be enough? What more is necessary? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question I am asking is, when a citation is to a discussion as with Dickson and Forbes, how is the general reader to know which of these two should be treated as authoritative? Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• Methodological concerns
  • Substantive
    • The description "experts" should not be preempted for those of your own viewpoint Fixed.
    • Who is Bart Ehrman, and why is his viewpoint useful? Fixed.
    • "Scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints have further suggested..." Who are these scholars, and what is the evidence that they represent "a range of ideological viewpoints"? We should also be told who the scholars are that have made the flat-earth etc comparisons, rather than making do with an unidentified "number of scholars"

'' Reply: WP:FRINGE discourages the use of particular attribution in articles like this. Also, the phrase "number of scholars" mirrors the lead of the FA Intelligent design, which states "...some have called it junk science". Also, there are about 10 different sources classing the CMT with various other examples of denialism--to include all their names in the in-line text would seem excessive. Do these points change anything? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point. I am not saying you need to name the people who espouse flat-earthism, holocaust denial, etc. I am saying you need to name those who have equated CMT with these fringe theories.Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I get you're point, but as I said, there are nine different authors writting in 10 different sources who have "equated CMT with these fringe theories". That seems like a lot of names to include in the in-line text and WP:FRINGE discourages such a practice anyway. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Modern scholarly consensus
  • • Wright's summary looks weak, lightweight, dismissive. It is one man's opinion, and doesn't deserve to be given under such an authoritative title. I also wonder why you thought it worthwhile using such a long verbatim quote to say so little.

'' Reply: Wright's quote was chosen because of his academic standing and because it addresses a number of issues pertinent to the CMT: (1) lots of evidence exists for a historical Jesus, (2) archeological evidence isn't forthcoming, but even that can exist for non-historical persons, like pagan Gods, so it shouldn't be given too much weight over documentary evidence, (3) the evidence locates Jesus in the AD 20s-30, (4) the evidence fits well with Judaism, not paganism, (5) virtually no historians take the CMT seriously, (6) passing reference is made to Wells and Allegro to demonstrate an awareness of their work, (7) the work of recent CMT advocates is said to have made no impression on scholars of any ideological persuasion. Even the dismissive tone is important (8) as it is itself representative of the scholarly consensus (See statement by Price.). Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:When not to use quotations. Specifically: "quotations should be avoided when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." The Wright quote serves to imply the non-neutrality of the article, which is called "Christ myth theory", not "Refutation of the Christ myth theory". While most of the article is in my view sufficiently dispassionate to meet WP's neutrality requirements (apart from minor phrasings that can easily be tweaked), the "refutation" agenda emerges towards the end. Wright's "summing-up" is a case in point, and its use should be reconsidered. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

I have some further observations to make on the sourcing and the use of footnotes, but they will be given later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 March 2010, 22:52 UTC)

---

Social sciences and society

Jhalkaribai

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

I've listed this article for peer review as I want to get it checked it once by fresh and unbiased eyes for MoS, references, appropriate sections, comprehensiveness of the article, and any other suggestions that would help to raise this article to GA level.

This article can also come within the scope of other topics such as biography, military history, etc., but I have added it to social sciences and society because the importance of her image in sociopolitical scenario in North India.

Thanks, Shivashree · talk 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 March 2010, 04:16 UTC)

---

Igbo people

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review to improve it quality by getting someone to put some significant input into the article.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 March 2010, 00:49 UTC)

---

Benet Academy

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.

Thanks, Benny the mascot (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 19:42 UTC)

---

Liberalism

Previous peer review

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

The article just went through a brief but extensive FAC nomination, where I withdrew it because of various concerns relating to length, prose, and content. The FAC resulted in major changes, however. The article was downsized from 113 kb to 88 kb, in keeping with summary style guidelines, and most of its images were taken down because their sources could not be verified. I look forward to more ideas and suggestions about how to improve it, after which I plan to try for another FAC in the next few weeks. Thank you very much for your help!UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Pivovarov. The new version (NV) is much better than the old version (OV) in design, readability and neutrality. Unfortunately, OV addressed a lot of topics that are missing or superficial in NV.

• All facts and discussions that were present in OV should also appear either in the NV parent article or in its child articles, such as History of liberalism (HOL) or Philosophy of liberalism (POL).
• This may cause the size of the article to explode, so you can move all DETAILs into new child articles and add them to the navigation side bar. However, most important topics (keywords and perhaps key names) should be clearly visible in the summary sections.

Examples

• NV lists liberal democracy as a fundamental idea of liberalism in the lead, which is incorrect. Liberal democracy is a "marriage", or compromise, of liberalism with democracy. Also, NV often assumes that the spread of democracy is a victory for liberalism, which is contestable, for example, Fareed Zakaria argues that you cannot have liberal democracy without liberalism.
• Written constitution is not a fundamental idea of liberalism. The constitution of UK is uncodified and USSR in the 1930's adopted a "constitution," so what? Constitution is just an instrument of the rule of law.
• Not all liberals strongly support international organizations like EU or UN. Some of them consider these organizations a threat to national sovereignty and ultimately to the liberties of the citizens.
• HOL should talk about Scottish Enlightenment and include David Hume along with Adam Smith.
• HOL should explain why communism was a threat to liberalism.
• A good deal of 20th century liberal thought was on the causes of dictatorship — this should probably go to POL.
• HOL should emphasize that all major parties in post-war UK embraced political liberalism and should clarify the reasons for divisions between the left and the right.
• The descriptions of modern movements should include the principal actual policies, such as privatization or environmentalism.
• POL should discuss, as separate topics, the rule of law, the role of the state, natural rights, human (civil) rights, free market, liberal society, democracy, economic vs social liberalism, international policy. All these keywords should be present in the summary section, too.
• HOL should mention a lot more names in the context of discussions. For example, in the discussion on the causes of the Great Depression the article talks about modern and classical liberalism, but it mentions only one name — Keynes.
• Political, economic and cultural liberalism have to be defined in the parent article. POL should give even more details.
• Social liberalism emerged long before Great Depression and lead to liberal reforms in UK. Also, immediately after WWII it dominated liberal thought. Please include the names, such as John Kenneth Galbraith.
• Libertarianism should be listed as one of modern movements in HOL. The parent article should mention about it, too. Again, there should be names, like Ludwig von Mises.
• HOL should mention about Rousseau's contributions to the concepts of the rights of man and of the social contract.
• Benjamin Franklin should be mentioned in the context of the Declaration of Independence and in the discussion of the role of the state.
• Karl Popper should be mentioned in the context of consequentialism and open society.
• HOL should carefully mention about the modern discussions on the religious fundamentalism and on the causes of the economic crisis.
• NV never talks about the criticism of liberalism as such (except, perhaps, in the context of fascism). Every concept of liberalism has opponents and the article only mentions about internal discussions.

pivovarov (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific suggestions. I'm in the process of addressing them and I'll get back to you shortly.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've done the following:

• As requested, significant and appropriate chunks of the old version have been moved to the History of Liberalism article.
• I've included a brief explanation about why the rise of communism represented a threat to liberalism.
• I've mentioned privatization in context of neoliberalism.
• Political and economic liberalism are no longer mentioned, and cultural liberalism was never mentioned, so I don't know how this came up.

Most of your other proposals center on adding individual names and ideas, but I think this strategy is flawed if those ideas and individuals essentially repeat the views or concepts of people that the article mentions right now. Again, I would sincerely hope that you appreciate the length restrictions under which I'm working. I really do not want to make this article even one iota longer, especially with unnecessary changes, after what I heard in FAC. For a few examples of what I'm talking about...

• Adam Smith is mentioned in HOL in the context of classical liberalism, as are Hayek and Nozick in POL. Why add Mises? Sure he's a notable classical liberal thinker, but we only need to mention a few for people to get the gist of libertarianism or classical liberalism. We don't need to start listing every major classical liberal theorist.
• Same thing for social liberalism. Why add Galbraith when we already mention Rawls and Keynes, who are both more important than the former and who all said similar things? It just doesn't feel like the article gains anything but monotonous detail.
• And same thing on older liberal ideas and thinkers. Why mention Rousseau and social contract when that idea is already explained through Locke and Hobbes? Rousseau is already mentioned for the themes he struck on with his famous paper to the Academy of Dijon. Why mention Franklin and his ideas on the state when similar concepts are expounded through analyzing other philosophers? Once again, it doesn't feel like the article gains anything new but one more name in one more place.

Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hayek were among some people that you suggested in FAC, and I gladly inserted them into the article, to reveal the diversity of liberal thinkers if nothing else. But I hesitate to stuff this article with even more names if those additions will not aid our readers in understanding the topic. On some of your other points...

• Whether you agree that liberal democracy is a fundamental idea of liberalism or not, you missed the point of the lead, which is simply saying that most liberals currently support liberal democracy. That's just a sociological reality. I don't see what's controversial here. If you're suggesting that they do not, then you are certainly making news. Wouldn't Fareed Zakaria have to say that you can have liberal democracy without liberalism in order to support your point? If you can't have liberal democracy without liberalism, it means that the spread of liberal democracy was, in fact, a victory for liberalism, contradicting your assertion.
• On constitutions, same thing. All the lead is saying is that most liberals currently support written constitutions, and the HOL reinforces that point. You are completely wrong, just on factual grounds, when you claim that constitutions were not a liberal idea. They are very much a liberal idea, and liberals often went to war to establish or preserve them (see Spain for a prominent example). The fact that non-liberal regimes used them later on does not mean they cannot be associated with liberalism; it just means they had become so popular by that point that they had spread even among illiberal states. But again, regardless of whether you think they are or are not a liberal idea, most liberals do support them, and for that reason they count as an important part of liberal history and philosophy.
• Same thing on EU and UN. True, not all liberals support these institutions, but most do, and I don't think this point needs additional clarification.
• POL already discuses the vast majority of the principles you listed. Natural rights and rule of law are mentioned in the context of social contract theory. Opposition between economic and social liberalism is clearly mentioned extensively in context of positive and negative liberty. International policy (ie. liberal internationalism) is left for later on (see Impact and influence).
• As you mentioned, there was extensive criticism of liberalism from fascist perspective before I had to make major cuts to HOL. Article currently does contain criticism against liberalism from feminist and conservative perspectives (see Relation to other ideologies). It also contains strong and explicit criticism of liberal internationalism (see Impact and influence). In short, it's very unfair to suggest that the article "never" criticizes liberalism. It does so in several places. I would advise you to give the article another look.

Again, thank you very much for your help! I found many of your ideas very helpful.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Individual names are implied references. My concern is that when the article says, for example, "classical liberals posited that completely free markets were the optimal economic units," some readers will first ask {{who}} and then {{when}}. This is why I suggest adding more names at least to the child articles.
• The choice of stable political systems today is rather limited and of what is available, most liberals support liberal democracy; others prefer variations of liberal aristocracy, anarchy, etc. The article says that by the beginning of the 21st century liberal democracies had prevailed around the world, but the list of its fundamental characteristics does not include the rule of law and the protection of individual liberties—and without them the spread of democracy is hardly a victory for liberalism.
• Moreover, most liberals prefer secular society, while others condemn laicism (a lot of European countries have state religion, too). Human rights include social and third-generation rights, which are preferences of some liberals, but not fundamental for liberalism. Thus, the phrase in the lead mixes fundamental ideas of liberalism (free trade, civil rights) with political preferences (democracy, secularism). Also, it does not mention market economy (e.g., labor market is not a special case of free trade) and the transparency of the government.
• Constitution was a liberal idea, but not written constitutions. The struggle was not for adopting a document called "Constitution" which authorities could override or would consider as a declaration of intentions. Liberals wanted actual rule of law and they wanted the government to recognize existing social norms on liberty and equality.

pivovarov (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've addressed your concerns as follows:

• "Written" has been removed from the lead and it now just says "constitutions."
• "Individual liberties" are now included in introduction to HOL as part of liberal democracy.
• "The market economy" has been added to the lead as part of fundamental concepts that liberals support.
• Ludwig von Mises has been added to the sentence that you brought up.

Have another look and tell me what you think of my changes. Thank you very much.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nasty Housecat: Here are my initial comments on the article, focusing on the content and the philosophy in particular. The main problems I see with the article are a lack of context for a lot of the discussion and a treatment that leaves a lot of gaps in the intellectual history. I think several sections will need to be reorganized and the philosophy discussion expanded, even at the cost of adding more length. If the goal is to be comprehensive, the whole train of thought needs to be here. Particularly because none of the related articles do much justice to the philosophy, either. So if not here, where?

Here are some specific comments.

• Combining the political history and the philosophy is confusing and distorts the intellectual history. I would keep the intellectual history in the philosophy section and call the rest “Historical impact”, summarize it even more than you have, and keep the bulk of it in the History article.
• The History sections need to make the case that these events were directly influenced by Liberal ideas, which I know seems obvious, but it is not. There were many causes of the French Revolution, for example, and some would argue that liberal ideas were the mantle but not the motivation. The discussion should focus on how and where liberal ideas factored into these events, without claiming more cause-and-effect than you can possible prove.
• The other point is that these major events (American Revolution, French Revolution) contributed to Liberal thought (Jefferson, Madison, etc) which should be mentioned, but did not create their own schools of thought. The political and intellectual history run in parallel in many ways. The tendency to combine them here makes things very confusing.
• The etymology discussion is a bit rambling and does not add much. A fuller discussion when/how the term first appeared in various contexts would be much more helpful.
• The article tries to break the intellectual discussion of liberalism down into the big debates. The various viewpoints are discussed out of context and without an overall framework of what the arguments are about. The various critiques of Liberalism suffer in the same way – they appear as overly general arguments and not responses to anything in particular. The arguments and critiques should be kept together as much as possible. I agree it is difficult, but I would suggest the following:

• It needs a brief grounding in Enlightenment as context (with a link to the main article, which is sadly not very strong on the philosophy, but whatever). The current discussion is not helpful as it just glosses the historical events without making the main intellectual points. Discuss the collapse of traditional sources of authority and values (monarchy, church), and elevation of reason as the source of truth, and by extension the empowerment of the individual. This sets the context for Liberalism, which grappled with the political implications of a new world view devoid of traditional sources of authority and political values. Maybe discuss Erasmus and Spinoza. This is a good place to talk about Hobbes, too.
• The Enlightenment (and Humanism in particular) is the intellectual heritage of Liberalism. But Liberalism is an part of the Enlightenment, as well, which some say ended with (or even after) the French Revolution. That seems like an important point.
• Establish that the fundamental principle of liberalism is liberty, and all other issues stem from that. The core belief that man is naturally free and political liberty is the highest value is what binds all liberal theories together. The many debates and differences are about what liberty means and how to make liberty compatible with a political order. That ties together all of the discussions of varying theories and flavors of liberalism, which at the extremes, have nothing more in common that a fundamental commitment to their own concept of liberty.
• It is worth mentioning the Roman concepts of liberty (the opposite of slavery, Cicero), but only as a contrast to modern concepts of liberty. Liberty fell out of philosophical conversation after Rome and did not reappear until the Enlightenment (in Machiavelli), in which it meant something very different. Liberty is a whole new philosophical problem which Liberalism had to solve. This sets up the discussion of Positive and Negative Liberty.
• Discuss liberalism as a response to questions raised by Enlightenment thinking. If man is his own authority, what is the justification for government and what are its proper limits? Is there a political order that is compatible with human freedom and the primacy of reason? Which sets up John Locke and Classical Liberalism.
• Locke’s main contributions were his concept of natural rights and theory of property. These are important to frame the liberal debates that follow.
• Social contract theory is an attempt to justify limitations by political authority. This should include Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes, with a focus on how their views of the state of nature, the sovereign, and the social contract differed. Critiques: Hume
• The nature of liberty deserves its own discussion, in three forks:

• Positive liberty

1. True will (Rousseau)
2. Self-direction (Green)
3. Effective power to act (Socialism, Tawney)

• Negative liberty (absence of coercion)(Berlin)
• Private Property as a necessary condition of liberty (Hayeck, others?)

• Modern liberalism is a major break with Classical liberalism, grounded in the view that prevailing institutions had failed to preserve liberty. It is less an intellectual debate than a response to real world events. Themes include:

1. Suspicion of free markets (Keynes)
2. New faith in government intervention (successful economic policies, global democratization)
3. Distrust of private property (concentration of property = inequalities in power)

• Modern Liberalism redefines liberty in a radical way. First, positive notion of liberty that counts economic welfare (right to work, living wage) as a property right and associated individual rights more strongly with the common good (social justice).
• Classical Liberalism actually becomes a critique of Modern Liberalism and the intellectual property of more conservative political movements post-New Deal. Critique: Neoliberalism.
• Social Justice theory responds to a philosophical problem posed by modern liberalism. How can the good of the whole be compatible with individual freedom? Liberal theories of distributive justice. (Rawls, Dworkin)

• Communitarian critiques – Taylor, Sandel, Walzer
• Natural Law critique - Nozick

• There are also debates about the scope of liberalism. Is it a political idea, and ethics, a world view? Viewpoints worth mentioning:

1. “Purely” Political (Rawls again). Liberalism is a political construct that mediates between all kinds of different views and values.
2. Perfectionism and liberal virtue. Freedom a good because it alone allows man to become his best. (Mill, Green, Dewey)
3. Contractualism. Society presupposes no greater good, merely a contract among persons. (Kant, Hobbes)
4. Pluralism. Values are plural and none more justifiable than another. We must be free to choose our own ends. (Berlin)
5. Subjectivism. Values rest of individual experiences and desires. (Hobbes, Locke)

• The last big debate would be Individualism vs. Collectivism. On the one hand is the view that Liberalism is based on an inherently individualist view of society (Hobbes, Popper) and on the other that such views of the individual are implausibly abstract and that cultural attachments and social commitments are unavoidable aspects of human experience. (Sandel, others). This sets up the discussion of centrist liberalism vs. social liberalism, etc., which revolves around the relative importance of the community vs. the individual.

• There is a whole range of debate, as well, as to the proper scope of liberalism. Is it about one state or the whole world community? How should liberals respond to illiberal regimes? How should liberalism accommodate non-liberal constituencies (e.g., religious groups)? I don’t know if you want to get into that here, but it is an important discussion with wide-ranging implications on liberal policies.
• Economic liberalism deserves its own section, which I can comment on as well, but in another post. The development of economic liberalism is independent enough of liberal philosophy and has such wide ranging implications on its own that it really makes sense as its own discussion. It would make things a whole lot clearer.
• The “Relation to other ideologies” section doesn’t really work. It is far too brief and lacks sufficient context. To repeat, I would discuss the various critiques as part of the discussion of specific ideas, and make this section instead an overview of “Contemporary schools of thought.” Since this is a capstone article, it should touch on at least most of the related articles and then link to them. The obvious candidates are Anarcho-liberalism · Conservative liberalism · Democratic liberalism · Green liberalism · Libertarianism · Market liberalism · National liberalism · Social liberalism. Or perhaps separate the intellectual schools of thought from the political movements. Again, for clarity.
• For the same reason, some mention should be made (with brief discussion) of most of the Major Figures with links. These include. John Locke · Adam Smith · Thomas Jefferson · Thomas Paine · David Hume · Baron de Montesquieu · Immanuel Kant · Jeremy Bentham · Thomas Malthus · David Ricardo · John Stuart Mill · Thomas Hill Green · Alfred Marshall · John Maynard Keynes · Friedrich von Hayek · Milton Friedman · Isaiah Berlin · John Rawls · Robert Nozick. Some of these are here already. This is just my A-list.

I won’t comment on the Worldwide section right now. I am sure this is plenty for now. It know it is a lot. I hope it is helpful.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll get cracking on them soon, but because, as you said, this is a lot of material to fix, I also fully encourage you to make some of these changes yourself, especially some of the big decisions on categorization and philosophical analysis. I just think you would do a fundamentally better job there, so I'm open to your contributions. I understand most of your criticisms, but there are a few points on which I'm somewhat unclear, and I don't want to let my confusion get in the way of the article's clarity. I'll bring these up in the next few days as I make these changes. Thank you again.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 6 March 2010, 23:52 UTC)

---

Brian Fitzgerald (academic)

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I was on Wikipedia:Random page patrol this artical came up. It was Orphaned, wasn't sure what "Orphan Article" was, after reading about orphan's I decided to see what I could do. I feel I've Improved it enough to De-Orphan the article (hence the removal of the tag). I added the "see also" section, links to related subjects, looked up ISBN # for the book section and also noticed his sister was mentioned in most of the book searches, so I felt she deserved mention, she a Dr. of "something". I also tag the article "Please help improve this article by expanding it". Thanks, Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I appreciate that you are trying to develop this article, but that process seems at the moment hardly to have begun; the article has only 300 words and is little more than a list of facts about Brian Fitzgerald, with none of the structure or general information one associates with a biographical article. Peer review is intended as a process for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." (see Wikipedia:Peer Review introductory paragraphs. It is completely inappropriate for this article's present embryonic form. Should be withdrawn and brought back when and if more work has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the author of this article, I don't even know who Brian Fitzgerald is, I was using the "Random Article" link and this one poped up, believing the purpose of the of the random article patrol is to see if you can contribute, add appropriate referecnes, useful internal links, improve continuity, etc. just any constructive input to improve, enhance what ever article may pop up, by NO means was I even thinking of GA , FA all I was doing "contributing". All I can say is that, when I clicked "Random article" and this article poped up it was taged as an Orphan Article, I filled the requirements to remove the orphan tag, let me see, what did I do Here's the Diff's I think. Where do us below standard editors post a couple of sentences find out how bad we're doing ? I know not to ever post anything I work on at same place I did this one, that lesson I've learned. Sorry to clog up those important pages with my trivial request, sorry to bother you, and always thanks for your "bedside manners"Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you are looking for feedback on how you are doing or what else to improve, this is a good start and what is here is interesting, but the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FA as the ultimate goal (even if you do not want to take it there).

• 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 - but the books section is not mentioned in the lead now. Please see Wikipedia:LEAD
• The article needs many more references - there are only three inline citations in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The direct external links in the article need to be converted to inline citations and as Internet refs will also 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
• Per the Wikipedia:MOS, once he is named in the lead, the subject should just be called "Fitzgerald" not Brian Fitzgerald or Professor Fitzgerald
• One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion. When was he born? What about his family? Is he married or does he have children? When did he attend university?
• Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only three references in the article now.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class biography articles

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 _><>°^° 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please direct any further comments to the author of this article. I've had about as much as i care to read thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 March 2010, 16:18 UTC)

---

Stephen C. O'Connell

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• Alt text requested for both images. I have reduced these in size (350px tends to overwhelm the text).
• In August 2009 you posted a six-point list on the talkpage, requesting further details in various areas. It is not clear what, if any, extra information was forthcoming, and as a result the article still looks rather thin. Were you able to expand the article, and if so in what areas?
• Sources: all the cited sources are from University of Florida publications or websites. The two additional boooks listed in the bibliography, not cited in the article, are also University publications. From so narrow a base it is hard to be convinced that the article is an objective and neutral account. As a public figure, and one-time state Supreme Court judge, there is surely material in the form of press reports, articles in journals, legal publications etc, that can help give substance to the biographical picture.
• There are several statements of an opinionated nature which are uncited, e.g. "On balance, O'Connell's administration did much to further integrate African-Americans into the mainstream of the University of Florida's academic life." Where is the objective support for this statement? Likewise: "O'Connell began a reversal of policy and attitudes among many state legislators and academics who had previously opposed large-scale private fund-raising and endowment of the Florida's public universities."
• There is a large hiatus in the article – the lack of any explanation of O'Connell's retirement from the University at the relatively early age of 57, after a mere six years in office. Why did he go? Was he driven out? There must be a story here, and the article looks shorn without it.
• A very small point: is it common US practice to refer to university presidents in the style "President O'Connell"? Perhaps within their institutions, but surely not in the world outside?

In short, I am inclined to agree with your own apparent August assessment, that the article still needs considerable further input before it can be considered a viable GA candidate. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment (too many), but if you have any queries on this review please contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 February 2010, 18:28 UTC)

---

Northwest Airlines Flight 253

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

I started this article a few months ago, and haven't really touched it for several weeks now. I think that it certainly has the potential to become a GA or FA, but I want detailed information on what to improve, particularly minor details (that are important during an FAC, for example). I know it's a lot to go through, but even giving a solid review of just one section would help a lot! Thank you,  fetchcomms☛ 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'll be back with more comments later, but I thought I'd list three for starters.

• The alt text tool in the tool box at the top of this review page shows that most of the images need alt text. You probably won't need alt text for GAN, but you will for FAC. Wikipedia:ALT has explanations and examples, and you can see other examples under discussion at Wikipedia:FAC.
• The link checker tool finds 15 citations with dead urls.
• I'd suggest reviewing the citations carefully. I see several that lack access dates, a few that have newspaper names that need italics, and some like citations 42 and 58 that are broken. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, seems comprehensive, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and professionally written. It has surprisingly few low-level errors, which made it much easier to read and comment on than many articles that come my way. I think you are close to GA, and I agree that FA is possible, though the alt text and dead urls and several other things need fixing. Since the article is in some way a breaking news story, the dead urls and frequent updates are apt to be a continuing problem until the story has become old news. Here is my second set of suggestions:

• I find puzzling the doubts and allegations about the passport. If Abdulmutallab boarded the plane with his passport, it would have been found on the plane or his person after his arrest. If no passport was on him or the plane, he must have boarded without one or deliberately parted with it between the time he showed it to the boarding agent and the time he boarded the plane. Didn't the McClatchy reporter or any of the others investigating this matter ask about this? If they did, I think this should be included in the article.

Lead

• You might add "United States" to the information in the first sentence. Since the new sentence might be a bit too complicated, you might consider altering it along lines like this: "Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was an international passenger flight that was the target of a failed al-Qaeda bombing attempt on December 25, 2009. Originating at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands, its destination was Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in the U.S. state of Michigan."

Getting on Flight 253

• I'd remove the wikinews link from this section. It's already covered in the "External links" section, which I think is the right place for it.

Bombing attempt

• "Flight 253, a Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-300 twinjet with 279 passengers, 8 flight attendants, and 3 pilots aboard, left Amsterdam around 8:45 am local time."[1][10][5][11] - Serial refs like these should be arranged in ascending order; i.e. [1][5][10][11]. Ditto for similar instances here and there in the article.

Analysis of explosives

• "The suspect apparently carried the PETN onto the plane in a six-inch-long... ". - Metric conversion? I used {{convert}} to do the first of the unconverted ones I encountered.

Umar Abdulmutallab

• For better flow, I'd suggest merging the two one-sentence paragraphs that occur in the middle of this section. The first one begins, "On June 12, 2008, Abdulmutallab applied for... ". Ditto for any other one-sentence orphan paragraphs in the article.
• "On November 11, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad... ". - I think this is the first mention of al-Awlaki in the main text. If so, it would be good to include a brief description of him here rather than in the next section.

United States

• The Manual of Style recommends using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. The intelligence officer quote is only three lines long on my laptop screen, while the Hoekstra quote is only two lines long.

Effect on travel

• "However, on January 3, 2010, Stuart Clarke, a photoreporter from the British newspaper Daily Express claimed to have smuggled on a jet from Schiphol Airport, bound for Heathrow Airport just five days after the Christmas Day terror attack, a syringe containing fluid, and which could have contained a liquid bomb detonator like that used on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, in spite of the extra measures that were said to have been put in place to forestall a follow-up attack." - This sentence has a few too many clauses. I'd suggest re-casting as two separate sentences.

U.S. political fallout

• "... the Senate hearings will begin on January 21." - Needs updating. A general problem with articles based largely on breaking news is that they require frequent updating. This can be fun but begins to feel like high-performance juggling if you have several articles like this in circulation. (This is not an objection to news-pegged articles, just an observation.)

Account of pre-boarding event

• "Kurt Haskell, a U.S. passenger on Flight 253, said he saw two individuals approach the boarding agent." - It might be helpful here to add "in Amsterdam". This is a long article, and people are used to the idea that planes often take off and land more than once. This one didn't, but a reminder of that wouldn't be out of place.

Images

• The description of File:Awlaki 1008.JPG says, "Imam Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen October 2008, taken by Muhammad ud-Deen", but the metadata at the bottom of the licensing page says that the photo was taken in June 2007. It's good to clear up discrepancies like this if possible.

References

• I'm not sure why some of the references have been tagged with "verification needed", but that will have to be sorted out.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for the detailed, in-depth review. I hope to be able to make the suggested changes over the next few days!  fetchcomms☛ 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the minor wording, etc. stuff; now it's on to checking all the refs. About the al-Awlaki image, I would say that the metadata is the incorrect one--it relies on the camera's internal calendar, which would probably be out of sync if, say, a battery was removed or something. (I know that my own camera's date is off, but I always remove the batteries to preserve them, and don't use it often enough to change the dates each time i turn it on again.) At least, I hope the photographer knew when he took the image!  fetchcomms☛ 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

About the passport, I can't seem to find much on it—seems like either nobody bothered to find out, the information was withheld, nobody knows, or something of that sort.  fetchcomms☛ 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 February 2010, 02:26 UTC)

---

History

Philip the Arab and Christianity

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

Hey, thanks. This article took on some harsh criticism in its GA candidacy on its style. The main areas of concern are on the clarity and focus of the text.

Thanks, G.W. (Talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from MoreThings

My take on the readability, FWIW.

The prose strikes me as pretty dense. Subordinate and parenthetical clauses are common, sometimes a couple of levels deep, and often themselves containing links to other articles. I'd say it's a style that makes the reader work pretty hard.

• "The ancient traditions regarding Philip's Christianity can be divided into three categories: the Eusebian, or Caesarean, in Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica; the Antiochene, in John Chrysostom's homily de S. Babyla and in Leontius, bishop of Antioch's record in the Chronicon Paschale; and the Latin, in Jerome's Liber de viris inlustribus and Chronicon, Orosius' Historiarum Adversum Paganos, and Vincent of Lérins' Commonitorum Primum."

This sentence has 9 links, a dollop of Latin, and the description of each category is quite a mouthful in itself. It packs quite a lot of info into a single introductory sentence. I'm just wondering if each title needs the whole nine yards right up front. Would it be possible to use shorter category titles at first--say, something like the Eusebian, the Antiochone, and the Latin, and then expand them later?

• I've split the sentence in four parts: first, the "ancient traditions...three categories", followed by three sentences listing the sources included in each tradition. Does that sound sensible? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "With the growth of erudite criticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the increasing awareness of secular texts, which did not describe Philip as a Christian (and which, indeed, recorded him participating as pontifex maximus (chief priest) over the millennial Secular Games in 248), fewer historians held to the old narrative.".

The main clause is "With the growth of erudite criticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the increasing awareness of secular texts...fewer historians held to the old narrative", but by the time I'd read through subordinate clause and its embedded parenthetical clauses I was starting to lose the gist.

Also, my personal preference would be scholarly rather than erudite.

• I've separated the subclause from the main clause. On the second poit, was riffing on Arnaldo Momigliano's distinction between erudite and neoclassical historiography. But yeah, I've made it scholarly. (Don't think there's much sense lost.) G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• By the end of the lead I find myself going back to check if the ancient traditions, the old narrative, the ecclesiastical narratives, and possibly the sources, all refer to the same thing.

• Um. They are related, but not the same thing: the ancient traditions include more than one source (the Eusebian, one; the Antiochene, two; the Latin, three); the old narrative is not an original source, but is all narratives that call Philip a Christian without caution (it thus includes Bede and Tillemont as well as Eusebius and Leontius); the ecclesiastical narratives are all stories related by churchmen (so, all three traditions, all six sources). Bowersock reads the ecclesiastical sources alongside the secular, so the sources is likewise a separate category. This is a lot to keep straight! Um, any advice on how to make this clearer? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "...proclaiming a man named Pacatianus emperor."

Including "a man named" doesn't really add anything, and it almost sounds as though he was just a guy in the street. It prompts the question: who was he, and why was he chosen? Including a brief description would be helpful.

• Removed the "a man named". Pacatianus is unknown; I've added a notice to this effect. G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In 249, to restore order among the rebellious troops, Philip gave Senator Decius command of the Danubian armies.".

This left me wondering why that particular appointment would restore order.

• Because he was a native of the region. I've added a notice to this effect. G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "(though it must have had one before the Council of Chalcedon in 451).".

Why must it?

• Because they sent one to that Council (we have fairly complete lists of attendees, I believe). I don't know how to make this obvious. Would "though it must have had before 451, when they sent a bishop to the Council of Chalcedon" work? (I haven't made any changes to the text itself yet.) G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Beryllos is an early example of the heretical beliefs that Hellenic Christians imputed to the Arabs as a race:[14] because he denied the existence of Christ prior to the Incarnation, his views were condemned as heresy following debate at a local synod.[15]

This struck me as rather convoluted. It's not Beryllos who is an example, it's his beliefs. After I'd read the second part of the sentence, I went back to read the first part again.

• It's now Beryllos "offers" an early example. Does this work? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "If Philip had been a Christian during his military service and emperorship, he would have not been a particularly unusual figure for his era—though membership in the army was prohibited by certain churchmen, like Tertullian in his later writings, and would have required participation in rites some Christians found sacrilegious, it was common enough among the Christian laity.^[1]".

This is another which made me double-take.

"If Philip had been a Christian during his military service and emperorship, he would have not been a particularly unusual figure for his era...". First thought is that an emperor is by definition an unusual figure. Second thought: this could be read as a)it wasn't unusual for a Christian to be emperor, b) it wasn't unusual for a Christian to be in the army, c)it wasn't unusual for a Christian emperor to be in the army. Some of those are clearly more likely than others, but the ambiguity stifles the flow.

The fundamental point of the sentence seems to be that Christians were not uncommon in the army, and so as a Christian Philip wouldn't have been out of place there. The mention of his emperorship, for me at least, makes it a bit harder to get to that basic fact.

• I've removed the "and emperorship". G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Whatever the prohibitions, persons raised on the "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" would have been able to justify the acts to themselves. We know that these people exist, and include like Christian army officers regularly guilty of idolatry and the military martyrs of the late third century.^[2]"

I see that you're saying that Christian soldiers would have had to participate in pagan rituals, and the camp had consequently developed a more liberal interpretation of scripture, particularly the 1st commandment, but it does take a bit of working out. The reference to "the acts" presumably refers to the pagan rituals the Christians were obliged to perform, but for me it took a second for the penny to drop. The second sentence is in the wrong tense and seems to have lost something before "like".

• It's now "Whatever the prohibitions, people raised on the "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" would have been able to justify participation in pagan ritual to themselves. We know that these people exist: the historical record includes Christian army officers, who would have been regularly guilty of idolatry, and the military martyrs of the late third century." G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of these examples are obviously clearer cut that others, and each reader will see them differently, but overall I feel that simplifying some of the sentence structures would improve the readability.

Hope some of this helps. If not feel free to bin it! --MoreThings (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! I've started work on them, and have left my responses inline with your examples above. G.W. (Talk) 05:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 14 March 2010, 06:19 UTC)

---

Texas Oil Boom

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I'd like to push it forward to FA. Any advice and criticism is appreciated.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 March 2010, 23:19 UTC)

---

Myles Standish

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

I've recently been working on a major re-vamp and expansion of this page, adding a large amount of narrative, images, etc. I'm considering submitting it for FA status and would appreciate any suggestions, comments, contributions, etc. that might help it to qualify. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 March 2010, 14:13 UTC)

---

Horses in World War I

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

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC at some point soon, and would like to know what else should be done before then. Comments on completeness/comprehensiveness are especially welcome, as there have been extensive talk page discussions about what should and should not be included.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'll take a look at the article and make some suggestions.

I would recommend tightening up the prose. You have several instances in which too much verbage is used and the information could be relayed in a more efficient form. Examples:

"Early in the war, cavalry skirmishes were not uncommon, and horse-mounted troops were widely used for reconnaissance." Try to avoid double negatives, "not uncommon".

I've tried to reword this. They weren't exactly common, but they weren't uncommon either.

"While Britain's cavalry were trained to fight both on foot and while mounted, most other European cavalry still relied on shock action."

Two uses of "while". The first is appropriate as you are comparing Britain's cavalry with the rest of Europe, but the second is not necessary, I'll remove it. Also what is "Shock action"? The term is used a couple of times and seems to be jargon that readers unfamiliar with the concept would not understand. Consider explaining or defining the term if you're going to use it.

I've linked to Shock tactics, does this work or should I include an explanation in this article as well?

I think that's fine. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"For example, they harassed retreating German forces in 1918 during the Hundred Days Offensive, sometimes using both horses and tanks in the same battle."

This sentence is a bit awkward, the "they" is referring to cavalry, if I understand the context correctly. Why, then, have the part about using both horses and tanks in the same battle? If your point is to discuss the importance of cavalry in battle it just seems a bit awkward to have the final portion of the sentence after the comma.

Split into two sentences and reworded a bit. Better?

"In the years following the war, most armies became mechanized, resulting in many of the original cavalry regiments being converted to armored divisions, and light tanks were developed to perform many of the cavalry's original roles."

This sentence is written in a passive voice. Also it seems like the allusion to light tanks simply repeats what is previously said in the sentence: cavalry regiments became mechanized. Consider rewording like this: "In the years following the war most armies became mechanized, which required cavalry regiments to be converted to armored divisions."

Changed, but added a "many" before "cavalry regiments".

"Upon reaching the Marne River and encountering the trench system, where cavalry was ineffective, horses became a liability"

Please explain how they became a liability. I understand that they were effective but what made them an actual liability? This isn't clear from the article thus far. Perhaps its clarified later in the article and I haven't gotten to it yet.

Reworded and removed the liability part. I don't have the source in front of me and don't remember what I was referring too with this wording.

• I added a non-breaking space in the United Kingdom section. Check Wikipedia:NBSP for a guide and then make sure the rest of the article is in compliance. More to come.

• I think I've fixed the spacing in the article, thanks to some help at the MILHIST ACR, but I may have mixed some. Dashes aren't my thing... :)

H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Allenby's forces crushed the Turkish armies, an action viewed by some cavalry tacticians as a vindication of cavalry's usefulness, but others point out that the Turks were outnumbered two to one by late 1918, and were not first-class troops even at the beginning of the offensive."

A couple issues with this sentence, first off it appears to run on with a couple of subjects. Consider breaking into two sentences. Also watch tense, "viewed" past tense, "point out" present tense. Also what is the intent behind, "...even at the beginning of the offensive."? I'm not sure what is trying to be communicated with that part of the sentence.

I've split this into two sentences and changed the tenses around. "At the beginning of the offensive" means just that - when the offensive began, the troops weren't first class, and it just got worse through the war. Do you have any suggestions on how to reword this.

• I'd say "...even at the beginning of the offensive" is unnecessary information. They weren't first class troops period, no matter what point in the offensive. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removed.

• The image in this section should be right justified since the horses and men are looking left. See Wikipedia:Access for image placement. Usually try to put the images so that the subject is looking towards the text. It's a ticky tack thing but I got dinged on that in an FA nom once so I'll save you the trouble. Check images throughout for this.

• I know this about images, but I've also seen people get comments about having too many images on the same side of the article, and there would be at least three in a row on the right side if I moved the image over. I'm going to leave it as is for the moment and see what consensus turns out to be at FAC. Thanks for the comment though.

• Yep that's fine, it's one of those issues that some people really want to key in on, I could care less though. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can the countries be wikilinked to articles about their involvement in WWI?

• Where were you thinking to do this, in the lead or the individual sections? Or possible through see also templates at the top of each section?

• I was thinking the first mention of each country in the lead and then in the article. This would comply with Wikipedia:LINK, or at least my interpretation of it. I don't know that adding see also templates would do it because the link is to the articles about each country during the War. I'll leave that up to you. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'll have to think about this. I don't want to get into the territory of overlinking. How about I'll think about it some more, and maybe bring it up to some other editors and see what they think?

"Prior to 1914, France and Russia expanded their mounted military units. On the side of the Central Powers, Germany added thirteen regiments of mounted riflemen, while Austria-Hungary also expanded their forces.[15] The Bulgiarian army also used cavalry"

Two things, is "Bulgiarian" a typo? I'm not familiar with this term. If it isn't then wikilinking to an article would be good. Second, "the Bulgiarian army also used cavalry" is a bit of an afterthought. Consider combining with one of the other sentences.

Whoops, that was supposed to be Bulgarian, as in people from Bulgaria. Thanks for catching that. I've combined it with the sentence before it, as they were part of the Central Powers.

"The attitudes of the French toward their horses created additional problems."

What follows this statement are examples of ill treatment of horses by the French. There isn't anything about their attitude toward the horses, it's about how the horses are treated. Also it appears that the "attitude" issues were early on in the war and that those changed later. Consider changing this sentence to better reflect the rest of the paragraph.

Reworded, changed attitudes to treatment. Also, I'm not sure why you feel that this attitude changed - the French used horses very little during the rest of the war, partially as a consequence of having many of their cavalry disabled during the early parts of the war. The fact that their lancers, whose entire training was on horseback, charged on foot was symptomatic of this problem.

Perhaps we're talking about the same thing, the treatment or attitude of the French changed through the course of the war because at the beginning they used them and towards the end they didn't (over-simplified for sure). I think we're on the same page, and "treatment" is better than "attitude".

What is "lance-against-lance"? This almost sounds like jousting, is that right?

I think this is being answered below, but please let me know if you need more information.

"In this battle, both sides used cavalry forces as strategic parts of their armies, and cavalry were included in engagements that continued through the end of the year."

The last part of the sentence after the comma has nothing to do with the first part. Consider breaking into two sentences.

Split into two sentences.

• Check Wikipedia:QUOTE for MOS requirements on quotes. Such a short quote may not require a quote box. Understandable that you want to feature it so I'll leave that up to you.

• Are you referring to the one in the US/Canada section or the one in the Australia/New Zealand section? Either way, both of these quotes are ones I want to highlight, so I would prefer to leave them pulled out, unless it violates MOS.

• Sounds good, I was referring to the Canada and United States little quote about capturing the machine guns before a cavalry charge. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the United States Cavalry linked while the other countries' cavalry units are not? Consider either delinking (for consistency, or linking other countries' cavalry pages) or specifying the link to the WWI ideation of the US Cavalry, currently it links to a general article about the US Cavalry history, which is a bit broad.

• Delinked, reworded slightly.

That concludes my prose review. I've gone through the Cavalry section. Overall I would keep an eye out for sentence structure, make sure the last half of the sentence fits with the firts half. Look for words that are unnecessary given the context of the sentence, this will help tighten up the writing and improve the flow of the article. I think the article is very far along and just needs a thorough copy edit to be ready. I'll read through the rest of the article and if I see anything glaring beyond what I've already suggested I'll bring it up. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The end of the Allied forces section is a bit abrupt. What happened to alleviate the horse shortage? The reader is left without knowing how the situation was resolved.

• I would love to include this information, but I honestly don't know how they resolved it. I would guess that they found a few horses here and there, maybe "borrowed" some from other units, and finished out the war with a shortage of horses. Considering how late in the war it was and how far ahead the Allied powers were, it is certainly possible that trouble moving their artillery didn't really bother them that much. This, however, is all OR until I can find a source that actually says it, which I haven't managed to yet.

• You might want to consider moving the entire Procurement section up to above the Calvary section. It seems to fit better in chronological order. That's just my opinion though so take it for what it's worth.

• Interesting thought. I'll bring it up on the talk page.

• How did the lack of horses contribute to Germany's loss? Perhaps a one or two sentence explanation would help.

• Tried to add in a bit of explanation, let me know what you think.

• As a side note I want to tell you that I think the way you have presented this topic is fantastic. An underlying current through the article is the hardship and cost paid by horses in WWI. The suffering these animals endured is something I never fully appreciated and this article certainly conveys it without explicitly saying so. It is a fantastic example of how to communicate a message without coming right out and saying it. You should be commended for your treatment of the subject. Thank you for this important contribution. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for all of your comments above. Writing this article definitely taught me a lot about WWI that was not covered in my high school and college history classes :) It's great to be able to combine my love of horses and my love of history, and I look forward to completing more articles like this. Thanks again for your comments, the article has improved because of them and will certainly have an easier time at FAC when it eventually gets there. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of replies, shock action is basically the traditional cavalry tactics of the charge with lance or sword, Richard Holmes contrasts shock action versus fire action. Perhaps we ought to spell this out more. Another term commonly used for basically the same thing is the French arme blanche. As for "lance-against-lance" (some sources have simply "lance-on-lance" is basically trying to show the last vestige of traditional cavalry v cavalry action, in the midst of a war dominated by machine gun and artillery. David Underdown (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the Shock action term is not one I am familiar with. I am admittedly not a WWI buff but it's important to make sure the article is readable to as wide an audience as possible. One term doesn't make it unreadable of course but it would be good to perhaps spell it out a bit. The lance-on-lance term seems to be a bit of jargon. I understand the meaning but for the uninitiated I fear they would think that as recent as WWI, there were soldiers riding around with lances having at each other. Thanks for the clarification. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some linking and tweaking per your above comments after dinner, but wanted to answer this one right now: they were actually "riding around with lances having at each other" (love that phrasing by the way!). I know it sounds crazy, but as recently as 1914/1915 military commanders still thought that sending two bodies of men at each other with sharp sticks constituted modern warfare. In this case it was two lancer (lance-using) units, one German and one British, attacking each other. Hope this helps; as I said, more later. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, learn something new every day. I figured warfare would have advanced from the middle ages but I guess I'm wrong. I do remember hearing about mounted cavalry charging at entrenched machine guns and tanks. But lances? Seriously? Well there you go. The article is very strong by the way, just some fine tuning of the prose and it's ready. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lances had changed slightly, by this time they were a simple straight wooden pole, often ash or bamboo I think, rather than the sort of thing you see people using in recreations of mediaeval jousts (partly since firearms had seen off armour), but yeah, no real great advance in technology (take a look at File:Memorial to officers and men of 9th Lancers who died in WWI.jpg and File:Memorial to officers and men of 9th Lancers who died in WWI-detail.jpg). Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts the main British commander in the Boer War had tried to get the lance relegated to ceremonial use only within the British Army, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Forces from 1900 - 1904 but when John French, 1st Earl of Ypres (a cavalryman) too the equivalent position (now renamed Chief of the Imperial General Staff in 1912, the lance was reinstated for use in the field. I seem to remember that Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig was one of the prime proponents of its reintroduction. All of which (arguably) explains a lot about the main British commanders during the war... David Underdown (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And all the while, the US Cavalry had been refining firearms to be used from Horseback from the Mexican War forward...we do love our firearms...! Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 19:27 UTC)

---

House of Plantagenet

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

I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion it is very close to GA quality. The "deposed house" section is all that needs doing before it is nominated and I just wanted to see if there is anything else it needs.

Thanks, Yorkshirian (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from vernajast: The first step to cleaning up this article will be cleaning up the prose. I suggest finding a willing copyeditor to do so. In particular, the overuse of commas makes reading this article extremely difficult and confusing. I apologize for not giving a line-by-line review, but this problem inhibited me from clearly understanding the information being presented.

I don't know much on the specific subject, unfortunately, but I would like to point out a comment left on the article's talk page regarding French lineage (entitled "Terrific article !!!"). I'm concerned by the implication of bias against French involvement in the matters discussed in the article, and whether this is a real issue or not, it should be addressed, clarified, or otherwise made transparent.

Good luck with this article! It seems very interesting, but I don't think it's ready for GA just yet. vernajast|^angstwhore 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nasty Housecat: This is a very good article, well researched and well-referenced, and does a nice job summarizing a complicated topic. Nice work. I will agree with vernajast that the prose is a bit tedious in places and could benefit from a good copyedit by someone not so close to the topic. I will disagree that it is far away from GA. I think the prose is up to the GA standard of "clear" and the spelling and grammar are correct. In my view it is not far from GA, with some improvements noted below:

• The lead should summarize the article completely without introducing material not found in the body of the article. Here, you oversummarize the article in the first paragraph, and discuss culture and politics in the last two, which you do not actually cover in the article. I might suggest dedicating the first to the background and Henry II, the second to Edward and the Hundred Years War, and the last to the dynastic dispute and House of Tudor. Or something similar that might make more sense to you.
• “After three ruling Lancastrian monarchs, the crown returned to senior primogeniture.…” This is confusing. Is primogeniture important here? Or is it important that Yorkists held the throne?
• “killed in battle during 1485.” Perhaps “in 1485”?
• At first glance, the “Tardy Adoption” article appears to be self-published, but it is actually a journal article, is it not? You might want to use the {{cite journal}} template to make it clear and display all the required information. And you need page numbers for each reference to it.
• For web references, the website is the work, not the publisher. So, work=brittanica.com, publisher = Encyclopedia Brittanica.
• “The system and reforms put in place by Henry restored law and order to create a self-standing system which used…” Maybe “…and created a stable system of government managed by competent…”?
• “It could operate smoothly with common law prevailing…” Maybe “it operated efficiently and common law prevailed, even if…”?
• Would it be acceptable to use the anglicized spellings of the Irish and Welsh names?
• “Henry allowed MacMurrough enough soldiers to instigate…” Maybe “Henry gave MacMurrogh enough soldiers to launch…”?
• “Scotland who” You mean “Scotland which”?
• The discussion of Beckett and his murder does not read well. It is too colloquial, you should cite the direct quote, and the last sentence appears apropos of nothing. Needs to be reworked.
• Be careful in placing images not to sandwich text between them, as the Richard Lionheart and Magna Carta images do. Happens again a bit later.
• English folklore. Does this need a link?
• “Sold the island to Guy…” Guy who? Is there a link? This needs a citation, too.
• Section headings generally cannot begin with articles. It should simply be “English Justinian.”
• “Hereditarily “ Is that a word? Is there a better one?
• “National Identity.” Does this need a link?
• The Black Prince died in 1376. Needs citation.
• The {{Main}} template is used “when a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section.” Perhaps {{Details}} or {{Further}} would be better here. See Wikipedia:LAYOUT.
• King of France is linked twice in the body. So is Tower of London. I happened to notice that, but do check for Wikipedia:OVERLINKing.
• Does mental breakdown need a link?
• You mention Eton College and then use an image of King’s College. I wonder why?
• Watch for Wikipedia:WEASEL words. “Some have suggested.” “It is claimed.” Etc.
• The Henry II of England image is a candidate for deletion due to copyright issues. You might want to find another one.
• Many of the images have the wrong license tags. They are using PD-old when they should have PD-art. I went ahead and fixed the ones in the body of the article. Someone should fix the rest.
• The Henry IV of England and Henry VI and Edward V files have been superseded. You might want to use the new ones.
• The Baldwin and Almaric note needs a citation.
• Please alphabetize the Bibliography for ease of use. “Bibliography” is problematic, as well. I suggest “Notes” for the note, “References” for the citations, and “Works cited” for the book list. There are other ways to do it. See Wikipedia:LAYOUT. Also, they should all be level 2 headings, level 3. See the example.

Of course, these comments are one editor's opinion and others might disagree. Thanks for all your hard work on this and good luck with the article in the future!

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and positive comments. I'll work my way through these. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 March 2010, 01:40 UTC)

---

Geography and places

Engineering and technology

Vietnam Airlines

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing the article for around a month and so I would like to know how well I have been doing my job. I'd like to know what other information I should add to the article to further improve it; it might be those on maintenance, financial standing, fleet, destinations, history, etc. I hope that many people will pay attention to this message, and, maybe, spend a few minutes reviewing the article. I would like to thank those who will be reviewing this page, I appreciate it. Thanks, Sp33dyphil 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing... Benny the mascot (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Apologies for the delay. It seems that you have a lot of referencing issues to take care of. Several sections are marked with referencing banners, and the maintenance section has a copyvio banner. I would take care of those first, but remember that you must use reliable sources. Websites like facebook are simply unreliable. Also, it might be helpful to use some citation templates.

Furthermore, you have a few sections that need expanding. I admit that I haven't taken a detailed look at the sections you mentioned, but I'm going to post some additional comments soon. I just wanted to make sure you have some feedback to respond to at this moment. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 March 2010, 05:39 UTC)

---

Google

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to have it reviewed for GA soon and would like some input on where to go from here.

Thanks, iBen (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As your goal here is to get to GA, I will focus on the GA criteria. There are others more familiar with the company who can provide better guidance on the completeness and accuracy of the coverage. If you have not, I would urge you to seek out reviewers on the Google WikiProject (or any of the other projects tagged on this article) for an expert opinion.

Here goes:

General observations:

• The products discussion needs the most work. It is confusing to read and seems incomplete. It does not leave the reader feeling like they understand what Google does and what they sell. Someone intimate with the products themselves would be invaluable for improving that.
• The article assumes a lot of industry knowledge. Who are all these companies? What does all this stuff do? It tends to lapse (unintentionally, of course) into jargon which someone new to the topic would not understand. A review by an utter newbie (someone’s proverbial grandma) could help highlight a lot of these issues.
• The article uses Summary Style quite a bit, which is a good thing, but feels like it cuts off discussion of a lot of interesting points to do so. It seems abbreviated. Some examples are below. Even a little more discussion and explanation would go a long way to improving the quality of the prose and sense of completeness.
• The prose is good and grammatically correct. But like a lot of articles that came together through the work of many hands over time, it makes a choppy read. A good copyeditor, with a fresh set of eyes, can help smooth it out.

Some comments:

• You should either cite everything or only direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead. You current do a bit of both. I would suggest only citing the quotes and extraordinary claims, as it would make an already heavily linked lead more readable.
• You should unlink the dates. See Wikipedia:LINK#Chronological items.
• The google logo needs the correct Fair Use Rationale. I doubt that the current text logo rationale is going to fly. Use this template {{logo fur}}. Non-free logos must also be reduced resolution, which this one is not. I would try to find a lower res version to avoid potential problems in the future.
• The caption on the 1998 screen shot could be better. What’s should we notice or think about this image? This more or less true of all the images. See Wikipedia:CAP for good advice.
• The server rack image is good, but the claims that (1) it represents “The first iteration of Google production servers” and (2) was built with inexpensive hardware and was designed to be very fault-tolerant” should be referenced.
• Captions that are complete sentences need periods. Fragments do not.
• You should avoid sandwiching the text between two images, as happens at the top of the History section.
• You cite more than one source in many places, which is not wrong, but detracts from the readability. In general, it is a good idea if the statement supported is highly controversial and/or likely to be strongly challenged. For most things, you should just pick the one best source and use it.
• Watch out for overlinking. Things like PhD and US$ really don’t need links.
• You link Brin and Page more than once in the body. Check for other cases of overlinking.
• On the other hand, things like “domain” and “link” do need wikilinks for a non-technical audience.
• You should define acronyms before using them. For example, “initial public offering (IPO)” before using “IPO”.
• Don’t use bold in the body. GOOG and GGQ1 can be normal text.
• Why is the appliance image next to the Advertising section? You don’t describe it until later. It might make more sense there.
• Why were uploads to Google Video discontinued?
• “Google has promoted their products in various ways. . .” This paragraph seems really thin. Is that ALL they do to promote their products? Are these especially noteworthy? This discussion, along with those on Android, Chrome, Wave, and Chrome OS seem out of place in the Search engine section. Most of this section is about other products. Is there a better name for it?
• The Products and services section as a whole could be better organized. Why is Books its own section and Desktop is not? What about Scholar? Finance? Calendar? Groups? Doesn’t Desktop go with Productivity tools? There is a huge range of products, I realize, and some of them only distantly related, but this section is hard to follow. I fear it would be incomprehensible to readers who do not already understand the products. This is where an expert reviewer could help this article a lot.
• All of the ^{[citation needed]} flags need to be cleared up. That would be a quick fail at GA.
• “On 7 July 2009, Google announced the project to develop Google Chrome OS…” Why? What was the “window of opportunity” all about?
• What is an “invitation-only beta release”? What’s a “beta product”? I know what they are, but non-technical users will not. As a general comment, you have a tendency to slide into net jargon throughout the article. Avoiding Wikipedia:JARGON is an explicit GA criterion. You should pay close attention to fixing that here.
• You have several broken links: Custom Search Business Edition, Google Security Services, Netshops. Check for others.
• “Platform” is not obvious to non-technical people. Would “Technology” or “Computer platform” be more self-explanatory?
• The ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag at “Prior to 2004, Schmidt was making …” should be resolved
• The direct quote at "personal information for 18 months" should be referenced.
• YouTube is linked more than once. So is Yahoo! So is IPO. I notice many of the Google products are also repeatedly linked.
• “The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.” I am not sure what this means. The whole Viacom discussion is hard to follow. What was it about? Why was Google involved?
• “The parties therefore will further meet on the matter lest the data be made available to the court.” This sounds like a quote. Is it?
• “Google has faced allegations of sexism and ageism from former employees.” Can you elaborate? Certainly worthy of additional detail.
• Do you need pictures of both the building and the sign? Are there available photos of the interior? I want to see the piano, lava lamps, old server clusters, and a projection of search queries on the wall.
• “In 2008 Google announced its "project 10^100"...” Is there more to say? What kind of ideas? Have they done anything interesting?
• Not sure using the block quote to define net neutrality is the best way to go. Maybe define it yourself (including why it is an issue at all), and then use the “In our view . . . “ part of the quote to highlight Google’s position on it?
• Is it worth mentioning in the article that Google is in the NASDAQ 100 and when that happened?
• Only include links in the See only section that you have not already used, and try to work as many as you can into the body of the article. You could probably do without that section altogether. See Wikipedia:ALSO
• You should pare the external links down to the official links, and remove any you have already used as references. See Wikipedia:EL
• References should all have publishers and dates. Websites all need accessdates. You should pick one date format and use it consistently.
• There are several dead links. Go here and it will show you which.
• You are linking to a couple disambiguation pages. here will show which ones. Link directly to the article you want instead.

Overall it is a very-well researched article that needs some polishing and re-organizing but could certainly be a good GA candidate.

I hope you find these comments helpful. They are, of course, one editor’s opinion. Others may disagree. Good luck with the article!

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 February 2010, 00:44 UTC)

---

Natural sciences and mathematics

WildBird

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it is new and unreviewed. I have checked it for spelling and grammar and no corrections are necessary.

Thanks, Max Deployment (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 March 2010, 00:12 UTC)

---

Saganagan Orogeny

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

I'd like to know if this article is long enough to be considered for a peer review. Would it qualify for featured article status based on its length?

Even if it is too short to be considered for a peer review, I would appreciate feedback if it would qualify based on citation notes, etc.

I chose this topic because it was the first redlink in my Rove Formation article.

I have spent a lot of time Googling the topic, using any and all terms I could think of. Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted. I will check out whatever the library has.

I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you. Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: while this is a good start and what is here is interesting, the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. here are some suggestions for improvement.

• One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion.
• Another sign that this is too short is that is has no sections and lacks a lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see Wikipedia:LEAD
• Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only four references in the article and they all have some issues. For now I think this would need additional references to print sources, not just lecture notes and a blog.
• Blogs are usually not relaible sources, lecture notes are better but books or journal articles or perhaps a USGS type website would be better.
• Article needs more references, for example The collision of at least two of these probably created the Saganagan Mountains. The theorized first supercontinent, Vaalbara, existed during the early Archaean Era. have no refs. 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
• Any chance for a map or other illustrations?
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class Geology articles

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 _><>°^° 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What is there reads well and is interesting, but the length is about the size that I'd expect a fully-developed article's lede section would be. A search does indicate that there isn't much more to say though... Some background on where this occurred (near equator, mid-latitudes, or near poles), how high the mountains may have been, how long they lasted, where the eroded sediment went, etc are needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would agree that at this point, the article doesn't appear to be comprehensive enough for a FA. It doesn't help that only the first few sentences actually discusses the Saganagan Orogeny. The rest just summarizes the geological context. My suggestions would be to do a literature search. Right now most of your sources are just lecture notes. Not saying those are bad, but the article can only summarize someone else's summary of this topic. With a specialized topics such as this, you really need to look at the available papers on the geology of this orogeny. You said, "Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted." This begs the question, what is the evidence for this orogeny? Compared to other Archaen Eon orogenies, is this among the oldest? --Volcanopele (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of literature, Google Scholar (play around with the precise search terms if needed) seems to have a few good articles on this orogeny. My suggestion would be to take a look at those, peruse them for relevant info on this event (particularly what evidence exists for it), and use that to expand the article. You created sections for the article, but personally, those could all just be combined into one section, titled "Geologic context" or something similar. --Volcanopele (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Those look promising!! I'm becoming too tired to really look at that tonight, but I did browse. Thank you. If I don't develop more information on the 'sections', I'll combine them per your recommendation. Again, I truly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 7 March 2010, 19:18 UTC)

---

Hepatic encephalopathy

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

This page has recently undergone a major rewrite and expansion using several high-quality sources. Before submitting for GA I thought some feedback would be useful. Specifically, I should like to know if the prose is too difficult to comprehend, as the topic is tricky. I will get a peer review from a colleague with regards to the scientific content.

Thanks, JFW | T@lk 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Colin:

This article was easier to read than its title might imply. Well done for explaining most of the technical terms. I'd never heard of this before so thanks for working on it and polishing it. The sources look to be first class. At a first pass through, I've made some comments below. I'll try to find time later to confirm the source-accuracy and comprehensiveness.

1. Definition mentions "altered level of consciousness" -- these range from confusion to coma according to our WP article. So is there some redundancy in our definition which also mentions both extremes. The source says "functional disturbance of the brain" and later says it is characterised by "personality changes, impaired intelect, disturbed sleep patterns and depressed level of consciousness". On the latter includes those we list.
2. "tendon reflexes may be lively" -- I suspect the use of "lively" here is jargon, of which I'm unfamiliar. Is this the same as "exaggerated"?
3. In the "Electrolyte or metabolic disturbance" box, explain hyponatraemia (low blood sodium), hypokalaemia (low blood potassium), alkalosis (alkaline blood), hypoxia (insufficient oxygen).
4. Is it "PSE-Syndrom-Test" or "PSE-Syndrome-Test"?
5. "stage IV encephalopathy". Is this the same as the "Grade 4" above or referring to some other scale? See elsewhere too.
6. "TIPSS" or "TIPS". Seem like both are acceptable but consistency?
7. Several sentences cite four sources. This is overkill for what is often just one fact. Can we just pick the most appropriate source from the four?
8. "Given the frequency of infection...is sometimes required". I'm not sure about "required" as the need isn't established for sure. How about "antibiotics are sometimes administered empirically (...".

Colin°^Talk 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have taken the liberty of changing your bullet points to numbers so I can respond to each.

1. Conciousness is only impaired in more severe forms; I am not keen to refer to confusion as impaired consciousness.
2. Have changed to "exaggerated" as the term "lively" implied that this was normal and not really pathological.
3. Agree that these terms needed expansion and have done as suggested
4. The name is hyphenated because it is German; I thought I should stick to the German spelling rather than introduce an English word in an otherwise German term
5. In the sources, the White Haven grading is with Arabic numerals; generally grading is doing with Arabic numerals while classes (e.g. NYHA) use Roman
6. Have changed to TIPS for consistency
7. Is there a guideline prohibiting this? I feel more comfortable that claims are thoroughly sourced; it also implies that the Harrison's chapter leaves out of a lot of treatments that were already known at the time of its writing
8. Have rephrased as suggested.

Thanks for your input! JFW | T@lk 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read over some of the sources and compared to the article (to my limited ability). It does appear to be accurate and comprehensive. I did notice that the West Haven Criteria was a match for source 7 but not source 1, which in addition to different text had a grade 0 (subclinical). Wrt multiple citations, I think that if you are confident your source is good, then one is sufficient unless multiple is literally needed (e.g. you say "several authors report..." and cite several sources). I find multiple citations to be common in poor articles where the editors are citing primary sources or multiple unreliable sources as if quantity can make up for quality. This is often a sign that the editor is trying to prove a case in front of the reader, rather than cite one authority who has judged the literature for us. It is rare for FA-level articles to do this. Good luck with the GA. Colin°^Talk 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Officially there is no grade 0 on the West Haven scale because it is only used for overt encephalopathy. The entity of MHE was introduced properly by Ferenci et al.

I have never had trouble with multiple references, and I'm sure you'll concede that my references are all MEDRS-compliant. Again, I will immediately yield to any policy on this matter. Thanks for your input! JFW | T@lk 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 March 2010, 00:08 UTC)

---

Rove region

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like the feedback, AND I'd like to nominate the article for Featured Article status. I chose this topic because I live within 100 miles of the Rove Formation, have an interest in geology and it was a redlink.

In the discussion page of the article I do have three concerns relating to the article.

Thanks so much, I do throughly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Fetchcomms

After perusing the article, there are a few things that stick out and need to be fixed.

• Is this officially the Rove Formation or region, and which is capitalized/lowercase? if the article is mainly about the formation, then move the page to that name, otherwise, maybe refer to it as the region in the lede section?
• Some wikilinks in the lede might help especially for those unfamiliar with geology
• first section heading needs to be level 2
• give images captions and maybe cut down their size, especially the one in the first section and the one under puckwunge formation
• for measurements/units like 10-mile (16-km), etc. use the {{convert}} template
• image under human history is broken
• references are cited ok, but format should be fixed: links need titles, authors, publishers, accessdates can be changed to DD Month YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD? etc. as well. Maybe use {{cite web}} or other citation templates?
• also for references: yahoo! answers and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable, and the one that is complicated to get to, just put the main link anyone can access should be fine

Hopefully this has given you something to work with, although not very detailed about the prose itself. Regards,  fetchcomms☛ 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It is officially Rove Formation. The red link was Rove region. I'll correct it.

I didn't want to clutter up the lead with wikilinks. They are in the main article. If you feel strongly they should be there, I'll add them and delete them from the text.

Good eye! I thought I had caught all of those. I have corrected it now.

I KNOW I need captions. When your message came up, I was in the process of trying to determine why the captions weren't showing. It appears to my eye that I entered them the same as the image that has a caption. Can you tell why the captions aren't showing? I do notice that both of these are maps. Does that make a difference?

I did downsize the first map. It didn't show that much detail anyway (the Rove Formation is that narrow grey area at the border).

I resized the Puckwunge Formation image; not by much - the text on the map is important.

I'll insert the convert template

I just uploaded that image to Commons and noticed it didn't work. I'm hoping there is a delay from the time an image is uploaded until it "shows up". If not, I'll troubleshool tomorrow.

I'll look again at the citation you referred to.

OK, maybe I'll put hidden notes for the Yahoo and answers references. I'll take card of the Grand Portage citation. I'll look at the complicated one again; as I remember I couldn't access that from the web address, so I have to enter by the "back door".

Thank for your help and comments. I'll continue working on the article!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Betty, I'm glad to see that there is finally an article on this important feature. Suggestions and comments:

• Use the "Move" button at the top of the page and move the article to "Rove Formation". The talk page will go with it automatically, and the "Rove region" will remain as a redirect.
• Confine the article to the formation itself and its geological aspects-- I think ecology goes too far afield as there really is no way to differentiate the flora and fauna atop this area that those of the Duluth Complex, Saganaga batholith (another idea for an article, or section within your other new article), etc. It is valuable material, but would more properly belong to other articles on the region.
• For the same reason, I'm not sure the human history section is needed, at least to the present extent. It is already covered elsewhere. Keep your focus here on the Rove formation. (As in this case geology did influence human history, you may want to simply cut back this section, at least the last paragraph.)

• An example of this: When Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben was first created it concentrated on geology. It then accreted a lot of stuff on human history and culture,[3] until that material was split off into Ottawa Valley. Now the article is refocused on geology, and addresses human history only as influenced by geology. It shows how you could handle similar material here.

• You should get some print sources, and not rely so much on web sources. A good general work on the region's geology is Ojakangas, Richard W.; Matsch, Charles L. (1982). Minnesota's Geology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press . ISBN 0-8166-0953-5.  It mentions the Rove in several places, but I haven't looked in detail to see if adds anything more than you already have.

• I've looked at this source, and pp. 175–76 would be a good source on how geology influences history; in this case, the Grand Portage. Kablammo (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked at some of your sources and I think your text in places uses too much of the source language. To avoid unintentional plagiarism, here's a suggestion: Rather than copy-and-paste text into your editing page, print out the source, and refer to it while drafting. That makes it more difficult to simply adopt the wording and phrasing of the source. Use your own words.
• The article is a long way from Featured Article status. You need a consistent citation format, with the requisite elements for each source, including author, title, publisher, and date, and page numbers if available.

Good luck with this. Kablammo (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

I will move the to article to Rove Formation.

I included some of the ecology because those plants are found only on the north-facing cliff faces in this part of the continent. Otherwise those plants are usually found in sub-Arctic environments. I had realized I had too much emphasis on the ecology and had already cut half of my text. Would it be inappropriate to mention that the micro climate of the north-faing cliffs is unique for this part of the continent, and cite just the names of the flora?

I just finished cutting down on the verbiage about the flora. After your comments I did remove half the verbiage and tonight I removed the subsection headings, so each plant has a paragraph. This also resulted in making the flora seem less bulky in the table of contents.

I have done an article on the Saganagan Orogeny; it should be in the Peer Review process. I didn't find much (online) on the batholith.

I will cut back on the human history portion.

Earlier I cut about half the content of the Human history. If possible I'd like to leave some in because the Grand Portage is completely within the Rove Formation; I think it adds a human interest slant to the article. BUT, if I'm off base, please let me know.

I do have a copy of "Minnesota's Rocks and Waters" by Schwartz and Theil, 1963. The Rove Formation is mentioned several times, but in no great detail. I used it mainly to affirm information retrieved from inline. I'll go the library to find more reference works.

Needless to say, with a 1963 copywrite date, they give NO coverage to plate tectonics! lol

I do print out my sources; I did try to reword them, apparently I wasn't too successful. I'll work on rewording.

Fetchcomms also talked about citation. Last night I printed off the guidelines and haven't had time to work on that yet. I will.

I continue to work on this. It's not difficult (I have two screens open on the monitor), it's just tedious.

Again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. I will work on them. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. It may have been another article where I was struck by similarity of language. If there is a direct relationship between geology and flora, by all means include it. I think a trip to a library would be helpful-- those sources won't disappear, and are more likely to be well-regarded by reviewers (especially if they are peer-reviewed, or by known experts) than are many on-line sources.

On citation, if you do not want to use parantheticals (which most do not), you can either just cite the source directly in the footnotes (eg. Midcontinent Rift and Traverse Gap) or list the sources separately (eg. Geology of Minnesota and Duluth Complex). There are variations of these, but just be consistent. Kablammo (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For the images, don't forget to add the |thumb parameter. Otherwise, good work on the improvements; as I don't know much about geology, I can't provide much advice about the content, but the only thing now for me is fixing those refs! Very nice work so far, I was pleasantly surprised by this article's coverage.  fetchcomms☛ 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you so much for your help. I really do appreciate it. (I haven't gotten to the library yet, but do plan to go.)Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 February 2010, 20:43 UTC)

---

Gene expression

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it was the Collaboration of the Month article of the Molecular and Cellular Biology project for a long time and it looks pretty good to me. However, I am interested what still needs to be done to bring the article to GA or FA status. Thanks a lot, Firefly's luciferase (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem I see with this article getting to GA is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. There are whole sections, especially towards the end of the article, which do not have any references at all.
• The lead is only two paragraphs long - per Wikipedia:LEAD it can be up to four paragraphs long. As a summary, 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.
• Make sure that symbols and abbreviations are explained at the first use - for example T and U should be clarified in Therefore, the resulting 5' → 3' RNA strand is identical to the coding DNA strand with the exception that thymines [(T)] are replaced with uracils [(U)] in the RNA. This helps to explain what is going on in the next sentence A coding DNA strand reading "ATG" is transcribed as "AUG" in RNA. See Provide context to the reader
• Another place to provide context is to add wikilinks or make sure they are linked at the first use, for example Intron is used three times before it is linked (should be at first use), and Eukaryote is used 13 times before it is linked the first time.
• There are a fair number of fairly short (one or two sentences) sections and paragraphs, which impede the flow of the article. Can they either be combined with others, or perhaps expanded?
• Some headers do not follow Wikipedia:HEAD - for example watch capitalization in "Post-Transcriptional regulation" and try to avoid repeating the title of the article or parts of the title in the headers if at all possible. For example "Expression system" - can this be changed (it is OK if it cannot). Or "Gene networks and expression" could just be "Gene networks" (we already know the article is about expression). By the way, this section has no refs and is only two sentences long.
• Watch use of bold text per Wikipedia:ITALIC, and also use double quotes " not single quotes per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE: see "For example the simple repressor 'switch' expression system in Lambda phage and the lac operator system in bacteria."
• The article uses bullet point lists in a few places. If possible, could these be converted to text?
• Text is generally good, but watch Wikipedia:JARGON in places.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all these helpful comments, which are an excellent guide to improve the article. It still needs work as I see now. :-) More inputs are appreciated as well. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, while this is not a Wikipedia:GAN requirement, it is for Wikipedia:FAC - the images will need to have alt text for readers that cannot see them - see Wikipedia:ALT

I also forgot to mention that a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - one possible model may be Cell nucleus, or there are others listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Biology. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 February 2010, 00:29 UTC)

---

Neuroplasticity

Previous peer review

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

I have been working on this article to a certain extent, but, while I have a rough idea of what I think needs to be done (as I mentioned on the talk page), I'm not really satisfied that I'm going about it in the right way. I think the article needs a much clearer idea of what needs to be done, as I think it ought to be completely rewritten to improve it - the "History" section is especially problematic, but it does have some decent information in it. Another problem that I've come across is that I'm struggling to differentiate between the "Research and discovery" section and "Applications", and I'd ideally like someone more knowledgeable than me in this area to give me some ideas about how to approach this: what sort of information is most relevant, how the article should be organised, what's missing etc. I can see the problems with the article, but I'd like some more detailed ideas to look for ways to improve.

Thanks, Jhbuk (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: I'll take a further look, but just for starters the link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dead urls in the citations, and the alt text tool shows that the images need alt text for sight-impaired readers. Wikipedia:ALT has explanations and examples. Finetooth (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: If I were re-writing this, I would read carefully the general advice listed at Wikipedia:MEDMOS and look at the organization of the example articles listed at Wikipedia:NEURO. In general, I'd be inclined to put "Definitions" first, "History" second, "Neurobiology" third, and "Applications" last. I would probably modify these as I went along, changing the heads and adding subheads as necessary.

• I'd move away from organizing the "History" section around a series of individual paragraphs on particular researchers and instead organize by chronology. This would mean finding and citing secondary works that have evaluated trends (first this, then that, then the next thing). As it is, we hop from James in 1890 to Lashley in 1923 to Bach-y-Rita in 2006 to Merzenich in three unspecified decades to Nudo in an unspecified time, and so on. The sense of an orderly progression is lost.
• I would greatly reduce the attention given to individual researchers. Something like "His first encounter with adult plasticity came when he was engaged in a postdoctoral study with Clinton Woosley" will mean nothing to most readers. Who is Clinton Woosley? Does it make any difference where Merzenich first encountered adult plasticity?
• I would try to find sources for all of the article's significant claims. As it stands, many of the article's claims are unsourced. For example, the "Treatment of brain damage" section begins: "A surprising consequence of neuroplasticity is that the brain activity... ". This claim and the rest of the paragraph it's embedded in lack sources. Who says it is "surprising"? My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every direct quotation, every set of statistics, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph. If after careful searching I can find no source to support a dramatic unsourced claim, I delete it (giving an explanation either in my edit summary or on the article's talk page or both).
• I would remove from the "See also" section any linked terms that appear in the main text.
• I would turn all of the references that are not already in-line citations into in-line citations and, simultaneously, make the two-part reference section into a unified whole.
• Instead of a long "Further reading" section, I'd try to reduce or eliminate it by incorporating its most important ideas in the main text.
• I'd look for ways to reduce the number of links in the "External links" section.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at Wikipedia:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm aware of most of these problems, but I was hoping for some information on things that should/shouldn't be included, missing information etc, although thanks for the review. Jhbuk (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 February 2010, 18:34 UTC)

---

General

Death of Jeremiah Duggan

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

I'm considering submitting this for FAC, and I'd appreciate reviews from uninvolved editors as to whether it's appropriate, policy compliant, and ready.

Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I knew pretty much nothing about this topic until I read this article. Having done so, my immediate reaction was this: Very simplified, there seems to be three different opinions about what happened. There's the opinion of the German police/judicial system, the opinion of the LaRouche representatives, and the opinion of the Duggan family/British coroners. Now, the latter two are given ample coverage in the article, but the opinion of the first felt lacking.

My initial thought was "Well, this is just because the article is primarily based on articles from English-language newspapers, of course those will have a tendency to imply that there's something fishy and inconclusive about the German judicial system in this case." But having read up on some German-language press coverage of this event, they seem to be saying the same thing, namely that there's something iffy about the whole thing. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the article feels biased against the German police, even though I can't pinpoint anything about that is biased. Probably the article isn't biased, but I can see that at least one other editor seemed to feel the same way. Is it possible to somehow assuage this concern? I have no clue on how to do so.

This is more of a reaction rather than any specific suggestions for improvement, I don't know if that's really helpful. Overall I think it's a great, well-written and quite interesting article. However, I have little practical experience with the FA criteria, so I'm totally at sea as to whether it is "ready" for FA. Gabbe (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabbe. This is helpful. (The account that you linked to, by the way, is one of the banned LaRouche accounts so far as I know.) What you notice stems from us not having good access to the German media. I asked for a translation today [4] of parts of the most recent German court case, and if I can get that done, I'll add something from it, including to the lead if it seems appropriate, so that might provide a bit more balance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 March 2010, 05:00 UTC)

---

Beccariophoenix alfredii

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I created the article and really want to improve on it's potential as much as possible. I want to make sure everything is sourced as best as possible and the article is fluent in language. Let me know what can be improved and I will try and fix it. It would be really cool to see it go as far as featured article, but even getting it removed from the "start class" would be nice. Let me know how this article can be made better!

Thanks, Zeeth (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• One thing that jumps out at me is the need for better sources. Forums usually aren't considered reliable sources, and I'm not sure why JungleMusic.net should be considered reliable.
• I normally include sections of "taxonomy" and "ecology" if I can find anything useful; two palm species articles have have gotten to Good Article status might be helpful - Roystonea regia and Zombia. I also just nominated a palm genus as a Featured Article candidate - Aiphanes.
• Since you use conservation status in the taxobox, that needs a reference.
• You don't need to add Beccariophoenix and Arecaceae to the "See Also", since they're linked in the taxobox; you could add a link to Beccariophoenix madagascariensis though. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will try and fix all these problems. The only reason that forums are cited so much is that this species is so new that the people from the forum growing it and trying it out is one of the only ways that it's requirements is known. I'll try and find some more non-forum sources though. Thanks for your help, I'll try and get everything better by the end of the day. Zeeth (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added taxonomy, but I couldn't find enough about ecology to add a separate section. I added another non forum source, and referenced more into the original journal source, which actually contains most of the information within the article. The Jungle music source is only used once, and just references trunk thickness, as I thought Jungle music would be a more reliable source than adding another forum source. I could only find Beccariophoenix madagascariensis in the IUCN list, as I think alfredii has yet to be evaluated due to it's recent discovery, so I removed the conservation status for now. I removed the requested articles from the "see also" and added the requested article. Anything else that is needed? Zeeth (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  1. The image is copyrighted and higher resolution than the originals in the pdf description of the species. I suspect this and another you uploaded on Commons come from the describing author, but we have no documentation of that (see Wikipedia:OTRS for instructions - and contrary to what you say here, permission must come from the copyright holder, not palmpedia, which only has a copyright notice on its website anyway).
  2. The forum references are unreliable sources, see Wikipedia:RS for guidelines on this. I've used a forum post or two in the past, but they are only accepted if and only if the post is by a known expert in the field, e.g. the describing author or a palm expert posts a description on a forum.
  3. Is the entire cultivation section sourced to the one forum reference? Unfortunately, if it's not a reliable source, then we can't include the information. Wikipedia is also not the place to publish original research.
  4. What's this about Beccariophoenix sp. windows? Is this an undescribed species or a Cultivar? I couldn't figure that out.
• Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright,

• I've tried to get in contact with the author with no response, but I will continue trying and see if he can either upload a picture himself, or give me permission. How can that permission be properly documented so that the file doesn't violate copyright? Until then I will upload a picture of one in cultivation that I took in South Florida, but it won't be as nice a picture.
• I'll try and find some better sources for the sections which have forum references.
• Some of this section comes from the journal, some from the forums. The part that comes from the forums comes indirectly from Jeff Marcus, who is currently one of the resident experts on this genus. How would be best to cite him? I will try and email him to see what we can work out for a source, but It would be nice to know in which direction we should go.
• Beccariophoenix sp. windows is a species which has yet to be given an official name. John Dransfield is going to be naming it soon, and it is believed he is going to call it Beccariophoenix fenestralis, but nothing is official yet.

I'll try and fix as many errors as possible, and get in contact with people to get the picture allowed for use. I have emailed Alfred Razafindratsira from Madagascar, but he has not returned my email, so I will send him another, and also Mr. Rakotoarinivo. Zeeth (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Madagascar catalogue lists two species of Beccariophoenix: B. alfredii and B. madagascariensis. So Beccariophoenix sp. windows is apparently too new for that. Unless a name has been published, we should keep calling it Beccariophoenix sp. windows (or some such name), rather than using a name which looks like a scientific name but which isn't published. As for asking for permission for photos, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - failing to ask in just the right way can make the permission not usable. Information on cultivation is usually harder to source than botanical information (especially if the species hasn't made it into the gardening books and extension service pamphlets and such), but keep looking around. Do be willing to leave out some material, though. It isn't wikipedia's goal to try to collect and summarize unpublished information on how to grow something (see Wikipedia:NOT), which is good news in the sense that it makes writing the article easier (although if you want to also write a companion article along those lines, there probably is some place for it - wikiversity or whatever it is). Kingdon (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info on requesting copyright permission. Since most cultivation info on this palm is either contained in forums or websites selling the palm, I removed the cultivation section until I can find a book that has the info published. It looks much more plain now, but I guess the info is more reliable now. I have emailed about 6 different people who would be able to either get me the email of the person who can grant the permission, or who can give me a picture that would be suitable until that permission is given. I have about 4 of these palms in pots in my yard, but are way too small to be put in the article. I also have seed that I can also use a picture of in the article, but I'll wait until I can get a better plant picture to put in before I put the seed picture in. Zeeth (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 9 March 2010, 14:26 UTC)

---

Lists

List of bow tie wearers

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a featured list candidate but current participation at the article is a bit thin. Having another viewpoint on the article would be extremely helpful in this process.

Thanks, ~TPW 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 March 2010, 20:40 UTC)

---

82nd Academy Awards

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

I've listed this article for peer review because this list could be a FL and I want to know what is wrong.

Thanks, Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order with the article/list; but a few references are not properly formatted and reference number 26 does not seem to be a reliable source and reference number 7 (Digital Spy) is not considered a reliable source. Also in the "Submitted films qualified for consideration for nomination" section I think it would be easier to read without the red link and I also think the article/lists lead does not completely summarize the pages content, the page is over 76 bytes long so the lead should be about three paragraphs long. Granted, I haven't gone over this article word for word so there could be other problems with this article that I can not identify. Other then the problems I've listed, this article appears to be FL status. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• number 26 does not seem to be a reliable source — I'll ask to other users

  reference number 7 (Digital Spy) is not considered a reliable source — Y Done changed to Telegraph Daily

  the lead should be about three paragraphs long. — Doing... I think it's Y Done

  Thanks Crystal. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome : ) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction In the "Nominations and awards" subsection, the color key provided has an asterisk in the green for Best Picture Winner and a cross in the yellow for Best Picture nominee, yet in the chart itself there are no asterisks or crosses. Unless it's purely color-coding and that's it, symbols need to be added or else they're there for no reason. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 March 2010, 05:25 UTC)

---

Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year

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

I've listed this article for both User:Remember and for myself for peer review because we believe it is close to meeting all of the criteria to become a featured list, but would like suggestions or improvements before submitting a formal FLC request. It already has a sister page (Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year) that we made reach FL status a while back and would like this one to do so as well.

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 March 2010, 23:44 UTC)

---

List of FC Barcelona seasons

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

This list matches List of Ipswich Town F.C. seasons in type of sourcing, exceeds it in information and illustration. Comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me (a non-fan). I have several suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• "played its first friendly match" - Should friendly be linked or briefly explained?
  • Yes. Done.
• "members of La Liga in 1929, and is to this day one of three clubs" - The phrase "to this day" is ambiguous. Does it mean 2009? 2010? What will it mean in 2011? Perhaps "through 2010" would be better.
  • Yes. No longer caught in time.
• Should "relegated" be linked to Promotion and relegation or briefly explained?
  • Okay, linked.
• "from 1899 to the most recent completed season" - It's probably better to say "from 1899 to 2009–10".
  • Ok, done. Thank you for the comments! Will go through more extensively later. Sandman888 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Layout

• The trophies image is displaced on my laptop screen to a position above and to the right of the table. To the image's left is a large blank space. Would it be better to move this image up to the right of the smaller "Amateur era" table?
• upsized.

Key

• The amateur table includes the abbreviation "Other comp". Perhaps this should be spelled out in the Key.
  • It's changed.
• Should a note explain the meanings of Round of 16, Round of 32, and Round of 64?
  • W-linked.
• W is defined in two ways, as "Games won", and "Winner". It would be more clear to choose something other than "W" for "Winner". Perhaps "C" for Champion?
  • Done.

Footnotes

• "Last updated: 8 March 2010" - I've never seen the "last updated" line added to a Wikipedia article before. The problem is that it's a semi-private note that other editors might not see when they make changes to the page; when that happens, the note will not be accurate. I'd suggest removing that particular note.
  • Deleted
• "1 FC Barcelona participated 1959–60 season in UCL and ICFC" - Missing words, "in the"? I'd suggest turning this into a regular in-line citation between a pair of ref tags placed perhaps right after "League" at the top of the table. Also, the abbreviations should be spelled out as well as abbreviated. What do UCL and ICFC stand for?
  • Deleted
• Citations 5, 6, and 17 need terminal periods because they are complete sentences.
  • Done
• Citation 17 is odd in that it has an external link embedded in it. There are probably multiple ways to add a note with an inline citation. I've recently started using a "Notes and references" that makes it easy to add notes with their own citations. See Frank Dekum, for example. Just a suggestion.
  • Good suggestion! How do you make multiple references to the same note though?

Um, good question. I don't know the answer. Finetooth (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • See List of Birmingham City F.C. managers#Notes for one way of making multiple references to a note. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. Thank you Struway. I'm saving the link for future reference. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 16 March 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. Finetooth (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Sandman888 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2

• You probably wouldn't know that by consensus, featured seasons lists don't include the ongoing season. Reason being, it affords too much opportunity for incomplete updating to pass the stability criterion. Add a hatnote link to the current season article: {{for|details of the current season|FC Barcelona season 2009–10}}
  • I didn't. hat added.
• A season list is basically a timeline, so consider expanding the lead section to talk a bit more about the history: when their best season(s) was/were and why, periods of relative lack of success, anything interesting... At the moment, it's little more than a list of how many times they won things.
  • Yes, good idea.
• Alt text on the team photo says "11 bearded men" and "They sit on chairs". Most of them aren't bearded and several are standing...
  • Now it's so much better.
• For the amateur era section, include the League record Pos/Pl/W/D/L/GS/GA for the regional competitions
• GS/GA isn't standard English usage. You'd normally expect GF/GA (usually just F/A) for goals for/aga