Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or 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 automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
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.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
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 that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
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.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on it for almost 6 months now, and have had little to no insight from any other editors. I would like to get this article up a class or two but are not sure how to expand or improve it at this point in time.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters an encyclopedic article normally will have a History section. This article clearly needs one, and some topics it might address include: why was the group formed? for what purpose? did it fulfill its original purpose or has that been redefined over time? how? something many SAR units have trouble with is inclusion of women: did the original bylaws specifically exclude or specifically include women? how about black men? how about "Oriental" men? Say something about the connection with Boy Scouts; does it still exist today? how does it work? do teenagers get out of school for SAR missions? Can they respond at night? How do you handle the logistics of having many SAR team members too young to drive a vehicle on a public road? does the group in fact have a lot of young team members? Does their youth nececessitate special procedures for missions that may involve a suicide or other highly sensitive, damaging mission scenario?
I think Tiptoety wants to write an article about this group but has not yet "discovered" what to write. Currently it is rather a list of factoids and boilerplate info gathered from the unit's website. Is this article intended as a recruiting tool for the group? If so, it does not belong on Wikipedia.
The article needs references. Only one of the items now treated as references seems to be a true reference. Most of the others are external links to the group's website or to other groups' websites. Appropriate references would include historical newspaper articles about the group's adventures in SAR or local politics or whatever it does that is notable. Or, if you can get the group to deposit its old bylaws somewhere public, you could then cite them.
The one real reference appears after something about hundreds of homicides being solved by the group; IMO finding evidence during a search of a crime scene does not equal solving the case.
I've put down Blackwater Worldwide for peer review, for the process of eventually getting to the level of a Featured Article. I'm aware of some defects in the article (some writing structure, formatting of the sources is only about 50% complete), but wanted to get the process started to expedite the improvement of the article. The talk page and activities from other editors has dropped off, I suspect from them not being in the news each day now, but I still wanted to run with it for FA. Thanks for any assistance, Lawrence Cohen20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me so far. Someone does need to go through all of the references and make sure they all have the necessary information because some them are just links to an article. It also might help if there was some more organization in the external links section. Finally, someone should make sure that all books referenced in the article have the applicable ISBN numbers listed. But that is pretty much all I saw in one read. I made a couple of small changes but other than the suggestions above it looks good to me (but I am new at reviewing articles so maybe I am missing something). Remember (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still going through all the sources to standardize them. It took me about 3-4 days to do it on another article with half as many, so probably by next week I'll have them all caught up. Lawrence Cohen16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is a good article. It has a lot of information but it's missing that extra little bit in terms of formating for wikipedia (which should be fairly straight forward for someones that's used to it)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's quite FA-ready yet. Here are a few suggestions:
The bulleted list at the end of the lead should be converted into prose. Also the lead isn't really a consise summary of the article.
A number of the sections are inadequately referenced, or not at all. I should expect to see about 1-2 references per paragraph.
The first usage of a unit should be wikilinked, as per "23u".
Please run the page through a spelling/grammar checker. I'm finding errors such as "travelled", "accelarates", "ionisation", "analyser" and "Labelling". (Unless these are British English spellings.) Is "quantitation" a word?
There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Most of these should be expanded or merged. There may also be too many one-paragraph sections. In the "Other Separation Techniques Combined with Mass spectrometry" section, for example, I'm not sure I see the benefit of three different one-paragraph sections. That would work just as well with wikilinks in place of the "See also the main article on...".
I tried to avoid sources which IMO may contain original research. The article needs mainly some copyedit from a native speaker, but any suggestions are highly appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently Start class and I would love to get at to at least GA status but I'm unsure of how to proceed.
I plan to give it the full look-over when I've got a bit more time, but the main thing that jumps out is the lack of in-line references, of which there's only one in the whole article. I realise that there are sources listed at the bottom, but a GA/FA is expected to have in-line references against all the key facts. See WP:CITE for more on this, and feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you need any assistance ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In progress
The references was the main thing I noticed. A couple more things really jump out as per WP:MOS are linking to relevant pages, like competitions (particularly in the honours section), years in football, and the ground section; making sure years use endashes, e.g. 2007–08, and in results e.g. 1–0; and I'm not sure you need all the club officials, e.g. marketing manager, masseur, etc, etc - just the key ones.
Done
Notable former players is also WP:POV. If you can change this section to either prose, or as a list of players who went on to play league football with maybe the header to see the relevant category.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Automatic Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The article was recently promoted to GA after a good deal of work, but didn't get a thorough play by play of issues the article has, and ideas on where, and perhaps how to improve it are appreciated.PatrickѺ05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn
Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
"The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
"Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
"The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
"band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
"after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
"(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
"until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
"By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
"to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
"local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
"April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
"to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
"released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
"being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
"By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
"band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
"The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
"In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
"In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
"2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
"their band Stone Sour" Link?
I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [1].
"Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
"Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
"The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
"The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
"The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
"several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
Done
Done
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
Sourced
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
Done
Done
Could you be more specific?
I have actually order two new books [2] and [3] on top of the one I already have [4]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
Did they have any musical influences?
Why was Welts fired?
When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara❤Love21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help with this article.
I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
I have added why Welts was fired.
I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
The only incident I have heard of is this: [5] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get a reasonable review, with some good eyes pouring over the article to get it to GA, A, or FA-class. It has a good B-class foundation, so some outside eyes would really help with this. I'm hoping that three or four (if not more) users could jump in and take a look. --Son (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to see how the article can be improved to GA status, and ultimately FA status. I will fix any nuisances that are mentioned here. The last peer review was almost no good (as it was reviewed by a bot). TheChronic23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Jayron32
Random thoughts, as I come across them.
Problems with informal language:
In lead: "laced up sneakers" very informal.
In History section: "did not achieve much success" exessive verbage. Try "were unsuccessful"
Same section: "reverse the team's fortunes in a dramatic way" informal, uses peacock words
Section title: "Plunge to the lottery": rather jargony. Non-NBA fans have NO idea what this means.
Probably lots of other language issues. I am NOT a good copy editor. Consider seeking the help of the league of copy editors for help with this.
Organization issues:
summary style issues. When you split a section into a new article, there is no need for the section to remain as long as the daughter article. For example, the "History" section is WAY too long and excessively detailed in places. Consider paring it down to the highlights, and move the details to the daughter article. Think about "lead" sized (or maybe slightly larger). I would think you could pare the history section down to like 3-5 paragraphs total. If its long enough to have subsections, its too long in this case.
The section on transactions also has the same problem. Consider reducing ALL sections on players down to a single section. "Notable players" and spliting info to other articles. Under notable players, it is probably OK to significantly limit this to players of real distinction (such as Hall of Famers or Top 50 all-time players, like Pippin). We don't need every single draft pick the team has ever made here.
This article should be the kind of article where someone who knows next-to-nothing about the Blazers would get a general overview of the team. The daughter articles (like a Players article, and a Seasons article and the like) would be the place to get more details. Consider the following organizational scheme:
Name and branding (condense the Blazermania stuff into here)
History (condense some of the "and the media" stuff into here too...)
Players
Notable past players (keep it about MAJOR players, such as retired numbers, hall-of-famers, and Top 50s (like Pippen)
Current players
Coaching staff
Front office
Media personel (keep on the personalities, like radio and TV play-by-play etc.)
Team and league records (include team record holders, league record holders, championships won, overall and playoff records, etc.)
Venue
Consider the following "Daughter" articles to take up the details from this one. Some of these probably already exist:
History article
Players and coaches article (include sections on draft picks, all stars, major trades, retired numbers etc.)
Seasons article (several NFL teams have featured seasons articles... try Chicago Bears seasons for a great example)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following a somewhat acrimonious bungled FLC attempt, and since one of the major editors no longer supports the list in its current state, I thought I'd bring this to peer review again so that the community can decide on a consensus for a number of things most significantly the inclusion of the current season which brought the majority of opposition at the failed FLC. In its current state it's very close, in my opinion, to the standard required for a WP:FL but I'd like the community to assist with the odd contentious issue and the wording of the lead. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear some suggestions on getting this article to GA status, and after perhaps FA status. At the moment, the article lacks a "direction" and "music" section under "production", so I'd like some help compiling all information with reliable sources and creating it into a section for the page. Trueromance33 (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to have every section that every film article has. The music of A Nightmare on Elm Street was never really the most noteworthy thing about the series, especially since it really didn't carry over significantly to all the films. I mean, you may find something for a subsection of Music, but if you don't it won't be the end of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me)12:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut a lot of information that has more to do with the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, than it does this one particular film. There's no need to end up covering the same information in the same space. One thing that could be mentioned, which I didn't think of until just now, was that the original film was adapted into a novel. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list has four columns of what I think are the most important data: Opus, Title, Instrumentation, and date completed. I don't know if it is clear enough to read, and if it is organized effectively. ALTON.ıl08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, writing about this book is definitely a worthy endeavor albeit a horrific topic. It makes me wonder how many terrible massacres have occurred throughout human history, and especially most recently. My comments are:
The lede should state where the massacre took place right away, which is in the then capital of the Republic of China. Perhaps copy something out of the Nanking Massacre article. Also maybe mention the historical context of this massacre. Was it the only massacre done by the Japanese Army. Also, why were they doing it? Why were they there? Maybe even convey what the book revealed that had been forgotten. Although this article's about the book, it presents important facts and you want the lede to basically give the reader a complete picture. So because the history is so important, the lede should tell you more about it.
Also, mention in the lede how Chang took her own life which is sad.
See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article, starting with In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil."
Why didn't The San Francisco Chronicle publish her rebuttal? Was it cowardice or something else? Surely, they should have. Who did publish it?
In the lede mention that the book was published in English, and that a Japanese language edition was never published due to the controversial publishing practices, and Chang's refusal to submit to them.
Overall excellent and really the only issues are with the lede, and you definitely know this topic inside out. Best of luck as you proceed towards FA.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, especially about how to use quotes - that has always been confusing to me but was one thing I was too lazy to go and read about. I'll see about implementing the changes you suggested and reply again later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John Smith's
I would personally not mention Chang's suicide in the lead, though it may be relevant somewhere else. If I'm right she was so traumatised by the research on the massacre that it was the main reason she "lost it" in her last years?
I would propose merging the criticism section with the "reponse to criticism" bit. The critical review mentioned in the latter is confusing to lead off a section titled "response". Put that review in criticism and then have a sub-heading for the attempted response. It slots in much better that way. John Smith's (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article on an eighteenth-century journal is already GA. I had originally thought there wasn't enough material to allow it to become FA, but I discovered some more and now I think it can. Therefore, I would appreciate comments that will help this article along in its preparation for FAC. Thanks. Awadewit | talk07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by BillDeanCarter
This is actually a very lively read. I could see Robert Bolt adapting the article into a play, similar to his A Man for All Seasons just because of the tragic ending of its publisher. It's also amazing you could find out this much about a periodical from several centuries ago. This is definitely FA material. I have a few comments below which may or may not be useful.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lede could be improved to briefly summarize the sections about the political leanings and the Anti-Jacobin Review.
Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review, by William Sharp (after Moses Haughton) Perhaps the caption should explain what kind of portrait of Johnson this is, considering Sharp was a line-engraver. Out of interest, what is meant by (after Moses Haughton)?
Now reads: Engraving by William Sharp after a painting by Moses Haughton of Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review - it is hard to work all of those prepositional phrases in - do you have a better formulation? Awadewit | talk19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley's Theological Repository (1770–73; 1784–88). Maybe rephrase this as "The first was the Theological Repository, created by the __ Joseph Priestley, for the purposes of..."
WillowW has already spotted this problem, I think: The first was the Theological Repository (published 1770–73; 1784–88), whose driving force was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley.Awadewit | talk19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example. Did this go unnoticed at the time or did it cause some criticism of the Analytical Review? I know the Anti-Jacobin Review criticized them on other matters from your article.
Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. This is interesting. Could you illustrate how they came to recognize the ultimate futility of "preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future"?
The source does not expand on this point, I'm afraid. Anything further would be speculation on my part. Do you think I should remove that sentence? Awadewit | talk19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of personal interest, was the Anti-Jacobin anything more than an archnemesis looking back now, given history? I was amused by this section, recalling the feud between The Voice and the NYPress in the 90s. The Anti-Jacobin also came off as angry the way a Wikipedian can get when they detect POV in an article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mike Christie
I'd like to see something in the lead about the importance of the AR in literary history. I gather from the body of the article that this is one of the more important literary periodicals of its day; perhaps the most important? Can it be regarded merely as part of the Republic of Letters, or did it mark a new departure in radicalism, in print at least? I think much of this information can be gleaned from the body, but a sentence or two in the lead would be useful, perhaps at the end, where a summarizing statement about the magazine's importance, influence and legacy would fit naturally.
It is always hard to say what the most important journal was, but this was probably not it. In the eighteenth century, The Spectator (1711) would probably win that award. I don't think that the AR was a "new departure in radicalism", either - at least not new enough to make a big hullabaloo about in the lead. I want to be careful not to oversell the AR. It was important, but it was not the only periodical of its day. I have reorganized the lead a bit to make the journal's political threat clearer which may help to make its importance clearer, but I am wary of overstating the journal's significance. There are very few sources on this journal, so I feel that I need to be careful about making overblown claims. Awadewit | talk04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The additional phrase "Perhaps most importantly" is the sort of thing I was looking for -- I wasn't looking necessarily for an assertion that it was significant, just a statement of what its significance was. I think this is enough. Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking travel literature but not belles lettres seems odd; of that list, only "belles lettres" might need elucidation for the average reader. I'd link it and unlink travel literature.
This periodical ceased publication just before the death of its proprietor. "This periodical…" is a little clunky. I'd suggest we only need to know about Maty's death if it's related to the cessation of publication -- e.g. he was ill and had to cease publication before he died because of his illness. If the source doesn't say, I'd drop the sentence completely; if it does say, I'd restructure the sentence to start with the information instead.
There was a vacuum waiting to be filled by the demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review. I don't think this means what you want it to: surely you mean that the demise of the TR and NR left a vacuum, which was waiting to be filled? Actually I'd cut that last clause; vacuums are always waiting to be filled. Or am I missing your meaning?
Now reads: The demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review left a vacuum and the arrival in London of the author Thomas Christie, who was dedicated to starting a new periodical that would replace and perhaps even improve upon these forerunners, was the primary impetus in the creation of the Analytical Review.Awadewit | talk05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might eliminate one use of "forerunner"; it's a highly visible word and you use it three times (counting the section title) in a fairly short space.
First para of "Founding and ideals"; the Roper cite gives us a definite "was the primary impetus", but the Tyson cite weakens this to "probably resulted in". Is there a distinction here? I'd guess the message is that Christie's arrival is agreed to be the key event, but the way in which the decision was taken to found the AR is only "probably" identified. If so, it might be easier to phrase this clearly by integrating both comments and citing both sources at the end of the paragraph (clarifying in the footnote what comes from which source, if necessary).
Johnson and Christie shared many of the same friends, such as Priestley, and their combined interest in beginning such a journal probably resulted in the foundation of the Review. - The "probably" is supposed to apply to the statement about their combined interest - how can I make that clearer? Awadewit | talk05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to stop and think about this for a minute. Initially I was going to suggest a rewrite such as "…and it was probably their combined interest…", but something about that sounds odd. It could be read as "The probable reason they started the journal is because they were all interested in starting such a journal", which doesn't sound very informative. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't quite see what the Tyson quote adds. Please feel free to ignore my comment here if you're confident it conveys what it should. Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism of Gibbon is a nice quote; can it be cited back to the original AR issue, via the source that quotes it?
It would actually be much harder for anyone who wanted to check this quotation to get a copy of the Analytical Review than for them to get a copy of the book I cited it from. I think it is best to cite from the book. (The Analytical Review is only available in its original form in rare books libraries or on microfilm at research libraries.) Awadewit | talk05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tend to like to add cites back to the primary sources in addition to the secondary ones, using a cite of the form "cite A, quoted in cite B", but you're right that it really wouldn't add much value for most readers here. Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seeming collusion: I'm not sure of your point. Why would collusion occur if the full names of reviewers were used? Because the authors would then know who the reviewers were and could contact them in order to collude? Is literary society at that date small enough that this would be expected? The examples you give (Fuseli and Wollstonecraft) don't seem to fit with that explanation; and in fact those examples seem to illustrate the perils of anonymity, rather than the existence of collusion.
Yes, the community was that small - everybody knew everybody and was friends/enemies with everybody. I agree that the example doesn't work well. Now explained better: It was also meant to prevent any unethical puffing, or false advertising, of friends' or one's own books, but this also occurred: both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example.Awadewit | talk05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the sources say that's what it was meant to prevent, then OK, but I don't see how it was supposed to do that. Why wouldn't anonymity make the unethical puffing much more likely to happen (as it did happen)? Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity was supposed to represent objectivity - that it did not work like that in practice is clear. However, the theory was mixing reviewers' names with writers' names would taint the project. It is a different idea of how anonymity operates. Awadewit | talk15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this since I now understand it and there's nothing inaccurate in the article. If you think other readers might fail to understand, perhaps some additional explanation of the point in the article would be useful. Mike Christie(talk)15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. I agree with BillDeanCarter's comment, above, that this sentence piques the reader's interest. It's a pity it can't be expanded, but I think it should stay, even so. However, anything else you can find on this would be very interesting. A separate point: I don't like to see a sentence start with "Yet" followed by a comma, but perhaps this is an American usage.
OK. You'd think I'd know American usage by now, but sometimes I think that living on both sides of the Atlantic has just confused me as to what usage belongs on which side. Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, specifically tying it to scientific knowledge. Sorry if I'm being slow here, but I don't follow this. I think "tying" is not the right verb here, or at least I'm having trouble with it. Do you mean "specifically asserting that it was a natural consequence of an interest in scientific knowledge"? The subsequent quote seems to imply that reading. "Tying" doesn't give a direction or mechanism for causality, and I think you need to be clear here.
Perhaps "tying" is a lit crit word. How about: It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, associating it with scientific knowledge. - There is no cause-effect link - there is only an associative link - if you have one, you have the other. Awadewit | talk05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the use of "such as" with the colon which I think is wrong. Take a look at [6] which gives that as an example -- I've no idea how authoritative that source is; I just wanted to link to an example showing I'm not on out on my own on this one. I would drop the colon myself, but I think you could legitimately keep it and drop "such as". Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning with its third issue, Mary Wollstonecraft was the key editor for dramas, romances, and novels for the Analytical Review. A couple of things I would suggest here. First, I'd use a verb of change such as "became" rather than "was". Second, I think "its" is rather distracting, since the referent is deferred right to the end of the sentence. Can the AR be named at the start of the sentence instead, or another rephrasing be found?
The sentence beginning Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews is a little long, and you might consider breaking it at the colon. The embedded quote in the second half is also somewhat hard to parse; I assume that this is Myers quoting Wollstonecraft. The elisions within both inner and outer quotes make this a rather disrupting sentence to read. Not sure what can be done here, but if you can simplify the presentation (perhaps by eliding less?) that would be nice.
New version: Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews, criticizing the passive novelistic heroines of the time and praising, for example, the "wise and resilient" Mrs. Stafford of Charlotte Smith’s autobiographical novel Emmeline (1788). Wollstonecraft "singles out...the knowledgeable mother figure who has felt and thought deeply", a character who resembles the women she described in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman as having "power...over themselves".[7] She derides the "derivative, prescriptive, imitative, and affected" and celebrates "natural, innovative, imaginative, and real, true feeling".[8]Awadewit | talk05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rephrasing is a definite improvement. I'm having second thoughts about splitting the sentence: you now have four sentences in a row starting "Wollstonecraft…", "Wollstonecraft…", "She…", "She…"; the repetitive form is a little wearying on the ear. It's difficult to restructure because the nature of the sentences is consecutive reporting of what Wollstonecraft wrote. I'll think some more about this and post any bright ideas I get. One possibility: is there some introductory phrase that could be used in the second or perhaps third sentence, such as "According to Myers"? Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive coverage of Wollstonecraft in the "Organization and Reviewers" section is interesting, but I feel obliged to ask if this accurately reflects the amount of scholarship on the various reviewers. Pardon me for checking, but I know Wollstonecraft is someone you know a great deal about and so would have an easy time finding sources for. Of the list of reviewers, I'd have said Cowper was the best-known, with Wollstonecraft probably second, yet there's little about Cowper in the article. So can you confirm that this does reflect the relative weight of the sources?
As far as I know, more information is available on Wollstonecraft than the other reviewers. I've even had trouble finding out who the other reviewers were. I keep adding information as I find it, but it is usually only a line or two. I agree that this disproportionate weight to Wollstonecraft is not ideal and I keep trying to rectify it, but so far I have had very little success. Awadewit | talk05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of works at the start of the "Content" section should have an "and" between "Military Operations on the Coromandel Coast" and "Poetry and Musuic of the Italian Opera".
The journal also laid provocative facts before the public in order to provoke them to think and, if necessary, to take action—it claimed not to champion one viewpoint over another. Can you avoid using both "provocative" and "provoke" so close together? I also think the dash does not work well as a conjunction here; I think its intended meaning is something like "although", and perhaps the final clause can be parenthetical, since your subsequent examples only exemplify the laying of provocative facts, not the failure to champion any particular viewpoint.
Fixed "provoke" situation - changed to "promote".
Changed dash to "although".
Did not make the final clause parenthetical, as the next paragraph explains the political viewpoint of the journal. These opening sentences are meant to be a sort of summary of the section. Awadewit | talk05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes: this sounds wrong to me. You could make "consistent" adverbial in form, though "consistently" is an ugly way to start the sentence; or you could reconstruct the phrasing to say something like "The Analytical Review tended towards a "moderate radicalism", which was consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes; this meant that it opposed the Pitt administration and celebrated the general values of Paine's Rights of Man."
I'm not enough of a formal grammarian to be able to explicitly detail what sounds wrong to me here. Perhaps the problem is that this is a dangling clause? My reading of examples of dangling modifiers doesn't seem to quite fit this case, so I hesitate to accuse you of such a sin. Let's just leave it that I don't like the way it sounds, and wait and see if anyone else comments. Mike Christie(talk)12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reiterated the protections -- I don't think one can reiterate a protection; probably should be "reiterated a defence of the protections". What is the first iteration that this repeats, though?
Christie attempted to assuage these fears in his advertisement: I think this should be "an advertisement" unless you can more precisely identify the advertisement in question (which might be interesting to do in any case -- e.g. where was this advertisement placed?).
The sources say "the advertisement". Oftentimes, an early advertisement was released for new projects in the eighteenth century. It would not have been placed in any particular publication - it would have been a free-floating piece of paper - posted up around town, handed out, etc. Awadewit | talk05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back over the article, I've just realized that there are no dates for issues of the magazine. The "Founding" section doesn't give dates for Christie's arrival in London, or the discussions with Christie (if any dates are known), or the first issue. I think the lead is the only place you say that 1788 was when the magazine began. The first issue date at least should be in the body of the article.
We don't know the exact date of Christie's arrival in London. I'm not sure I have access to the issue information. It is not in any of the sources I have read and I'm not sure I have access to the AR itself (I don't right now - that would have to wait until I returned to my university). Awadewit | talk05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"frequently review the Monthly, criticise the Critical, and analyse the Analytical Reviews" [sic] [emphasis in original]: a copy-editing question: should "[sic]" be inside the quotes? It applies only to "Analytical Reviews", not the whole quote. And I think you can use parentheses rather than square brackets for "emphasis in the original", given that it doesn't have to be within the quotes.
[sic] now inside the quotes - I don't know how that happened.
This sincere attitude seems to have largely prevailed in practice. Given the statement that "contemporaries perceived a bias", and particularly given the existence and the attitude of the Anti-Jacobin Review, this is a remarkable assertion. Can you just confirm that it is supported by a consensus of the secondary sources?
Yes. Ask Willow - she has read about this topic. I find it odd, too, but that is what they say. (However, keep in mind that this "consensus" of secondary sources is about 3-4 sources.) Awadewit | talk05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand the caption to the advertisement for the New Series to note that it's an advertisement? It's apparent that it is from reading it, but the caption actually misleads the reader a little bit right now. Personally I'd like to see you note where the advertisement was published. That applies to the original prospectus, and to the advertisement mentioned earlier where Johnson defends the Review's neutrality, too, but I don't know if others would find that interesting.
This is wonderful! I probably won't get to it for a few days because I'm at an academic conference, but I eagerly look forward to it. Awadewit | talk20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I would have done it myself but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate on the peer review pages, where after all there are no "opposes" to strike. Mike Christie(talk)15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article (about a village in Scotland) for peer review because I have some experience in obtaining GA and FA for articles about British settlements, though find WP:PR invaluable in furthering these articles. I believe this article would meet the GA standard, and it is WP:UKCITIES compliant, but would like some additional feedback and input as to improving some of the prose and referencing.
Good images here: they are relevant and provide good context. Provide more context in the intro paragraph, like "...a village of 5,000 people..." - a village for me is less than 1,000 people. What kind of agriculture are they involved with? Avoid single-sentence paragraph - sounds like the "Toponymy" sub-section would make a better paragraph than section. The "History" section is weak and generalized. I'm sure its history is not earth-shattering but the story of its development would better illustrate what the village is. The best History sections I've read are written as narratives (the story of the village). Clarify the local government part: is it governed by its own mayor and council? or by a regional authority? Or to put it differently, who do the people elect? A map of the town (with roads, rail, parks, water courses, etc) is invaluable - I had success approaching government offices for them (eg. Image:PouceCoupe BC map.PNG). Can we get a demography tables that compare the settlement to the regional area and/or country. Any historical population data available? That is useful to illustrate the good times and bad. You may contact me for a copyedit when you get to the FAC stage. --maclean01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is fantastic advice - exactly why I love the peer review process! Thank you for these pointers. I will endevour to make these changes asap. Some however will be harder to fulfull due to Neilston's banality, but in time.... Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk)01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some points (mainly from the start of the article):
The infobox picture manages to have most of the town in shade with the sky being the really striking thing. Would it be possible to lighten the bottom of the picture a bit so it was easier to pick out detail?
Done
The infobox has a website option, you could put the Neilston.org website in here.
Not done - per the infobox rollout, this is reserved for official governmental sites only I'm afraid.
I don't think it should be "Neilston" in the History section. Possibly Neilston though.
Done
'Over his grave a burial mound, according to the custom of the age, was erected, and called Neilston, from which, according to this theory, the locality ultimately received its name' - this is very clunky! How about 'According to the custom of the age a burial mound named Neilston was erected over his grave and the locality ultimately received the same name'.
Done
You put a citation to each theory apart from the one about the 'supposed Highland chief, name Neil' (which should be 'named' anyway) which together with the 'supposed' and 'allegedly' makes it look very weak. Is it?
Not done - hard to say. I've quoted the source almost word for word. Certainly the next couple of sentences discredit this theory.
I don't think that you need to link the 2nd Neil. Check for more of these ('football' for example).
Done
'Neilston's earliest history is unknown' - is this needed given we've just been told about pre-recorded history in the previous section
Done
Is there any info about what was farmed or done in the village pre-industrial revolution, particularly if unusual
Not done - I've purchased a new book which should help; I'll take a look asap.
though evidence attests that the settlement is much older than its larger neighbour Barrhead' - it would be nice to know what this evidence is or have some vague explanation. Maybe mention the age of Barrhead.
Not done - I'd be interested to know too. Struggling for source material, but will see what I can find now the challenge has been set. Done
'The first known recorded mention' - this is clunky too, is there any reason to expect unknown recorded mentions or could 'known' be cut?
Done
Link dun. Maybe doun should be in italics but I'm not sure.
Done
'prefix perhaps implying' - is this your speculation or the sources? Why not just a physically cold dun?
'Neilston was the most important settlement in its region' - how large a region are we talking about here?
Done
'Despite this distinction of central importance' - apart from this being a fairly meaningless set of words I'm not sure that you've established any central importance. It had a chapel, it may have had a fort or watchtower. How many people lived there? How did this compare to other places in the area at the time?
I would link calico
Done
'one whole connected village' - does it really need both of these?
Done
just scanning quickly through the rest there's a bit of stray capitalisation on links, you might as well link things like 'Primary school' as school systems may be a bit different in the part of the world that the reader is from.
Can we have a scan of the 1895 map of Neilston? Are there any older maps?
Not done - the 1895 map which I have to hand is A2, and I have an A4 scanner. I have approached a local history group for historic photographs, illustrations or maps that could be added though.
Comment: Fantastic feedback! Thank you ever so much. It just shows me exactly how sloppy my text can be. I've added done and not done tags (at the time of this sig) to your points to keep track of my progress. I hope you don't mind. I will try to fix the outstanding points asap. Hope you do get chance to return! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk)00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconds away, round 2...
'Lying within the county boundaries of Renfrewshire from a very early time, from 1845 until 1975, Neilston formed its own parish.' - I would rewrite this as it can be read that 1845 to 1975 was the very early time which I assume is not the case. Plus how is the 2nd half of the sentence related to the 1st? Split into 2 sentences maybe?
Is the coor template needed at the start of the article and the Geography section?
Not done This seems to be the standard of all place articles within the remit of WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO. Certainly all UK FAs have them both.
'Amongst the hilly areas of the village, the soil is of less fertility, whilst in all other parts, the land is moorland and mossy' - 'is less fertile'? also the land is moorland doesn't sound good and this sentence started talking about soil and finishes talking about land, has a bit been missed out maybe?
Done
'rising to a height of from' - this doesn't work, rising to the highest height maybe or reword if you want to give the range.
Done
'Long loch' - capitalise
Done
"Aboon the Brae" - this needs explaining
Done (not sure I've explained this to what you had in mind)
I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning the population density figure unless you say whether this is high / low etc.
'There was no Roman Catholic church or chapel in Neilston between 1560 and 1861; there was no Roman Catholic community' - was there one prior to 1560? if so what happened to those Roman Catholics? Also presumably there was some community pre-1861, surely the church wasn't erected at exactly the instant the 1st Catholic arrived?
Done - I think I've cleared this up, but this may need checking.
'stretching back more than 170 years' - can we just say what date it started then it will never need updating!
Comment: Again, my eternal thanks go to you. This kind of critique is fantastic constructive feedback. I've marked some of your points again with dones and not dones (at the time of this signature). I will endevour to work on the remaining outstanding issues that are either unmarked or not done. -- Jza84 · (talk)01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I found a couple of players I'd missed out, after which I've checked again through my sources and am fairly sure now that this list's complete now. The idea is to get it to featured list status, so please have a look and let me know anything it's missing or could do better.
I've got to pop out shortly but at a very quick first glance, I have to say the image caption with all the links in it looks really silly. Personally I'd shorten/amend it to: "Maik Taylor, the club's most capped player" ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Struway2, just got back from holidays so apologies for belated comments, but, for what they're worth, here you go:
While you've got objective reasons for including most players, I can't see a reason for Frederick Speller. I understand he played "back in the day" when appearances were hard to come by but I'm not sure that his inclusion isn't POV, he's the only one that doesn't meet any specific criteria.
"no other player comes close." - is this necessary? It'd be worth stating who came second and how far behind they were I reckon.
"still active for the club" - not sure this is really a football term. I think it's probably an Americanism, maybe just "still play for the club" would be more Brit-Eng?
I've listed this article for peer review because I've covered what seem to be the main points for the species, and I'd welcome copy editing, comments and improvements before submitting to GA/FA. The map seems to use non-standard colours, but I can't do maps anyway.
In the taxonomic section I have exchanged this part: "The Himalayan subspecies maximus is strikingly different from the subcontinental forms" with "The Himalayan subspecies maximus is strikingly different from the simillimus group". There were two problems with the initial version: In birds, form is mainly used to refer to temporary plumages (and, to a lesser extend, morphs) and therefore stands in contrast to taxonomical entities. Second problem is that a part of the Himalayas is, strictly speaking, included in the Indian subcontinent. I'm certainly not ecstatic over the new version, but at least it is correct. If anybody can come up with a better version that also is correct, please do feel free to change it. Unfortunately, Peninsular India is out, too. Rabo3 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article is in great shape. I made up a list of questions before I began, and all of them got answered in detail in the text. The lead is excellent. The images are fantastic, as is the sound, and I particularly like the detailed descriptions of behavior. I only have a few suggestions.
Would it be useful to have a distribution range that distinguishes subspecies? (I see some subspecies have such a restricted range that they wouldn't show up on a global map.)
It might, but I lack the skills to do it, and some forms overlap
Is much information available on Blackbird nutrition? Yes, they're omnivores, but are there nutrients that Blackbirds need to get adequate amounts of (different from other omnivorous birds), and are there problems with Blackbirds facing health problems from a lack of, say, protein in some areas?
Other than an almost endless list of things they will eat, not much. Blackbirds are generalists that adapt their diet to what is available, and the only obvious point is that good habitats (ie my garden), have a higher density than poorer ones like farmland.
Related question: Are there Blackbird health problems that are separate from those of passerines in general? Blackbird-specific parasites or viruses that are significant? Anything else on health that is known and important?
This astronomy article on hydrogen-fusing stars like our Sun has recently undergone expansion and I think it has become a reasonably complete discussion of the topic. (It is essentially a sub-page of the more general Hertzsprung-Russell diagram topic.) What do you think needs to be improved to turn this into a quality article?
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare for WP:FA nomination. I've looked at this article for the better part of a year, and I need a fresh perspective. I have received brief comments about the length of the Table of Contents, but it appears that this is properly sectioned. I would like detailed comments on how to improve the sectioning especially. Regarding references, there is a section on the talk page that details the choice of references and weight given to certain sources.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for GA, but since I have not written a non-fiction book article, I am unsure about some of the issues involved in these articles. I would appreciate any feedback provided. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently tackled a non-fiction book (in the middle of an FAC with it). You may want to browse the comments on it at Wikipedia:Peer review/The World Without Us/archive1 and at its FAC. Some comments on this article:
I'd be hesitate to put quotations in the lead section - should stay with a general overview/summary. Quotes are specific.
The "Subject" section uses a non-standard structure with the open sentence "...who were dying:" followed by the sub-sections. I admire the unique thinking there, but don't be shocked if someone objects to it. The structure used at The World Without Us uses a "Background" for the book/author's origin and sources, a "Synopsis" for spelling out the contents, and a "Genre" section for relating its approach to the general genre - in And the Band Played On's case 'investigative journalism' or 'science/medical books'.
The "Subject" section may be too detailed about the book's contents. It sometimes (not always) takes the historical tone that would be expected in the HIV/AIDS in the United States article, rather than an article about a book.
Watch out for puncuation in quotes. See WP:PUNC or examples at User talk:BillDeanCarter#Punctuation in quotes. An example from this article: ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity." - should be ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity".
Be a more specific with "It remained on the New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks" - what did it peak at?
The part on "...have been compared to Shilts' book as a standard." left me a bit confused: standard in terms of what? Research? Writing quality? Dramatics? Popularity?
There is good coverage of newpaper reviews, but you may also want to include the response from some science/academic journals such as The Journal of Social History (Winter89), the British Journal of Addiction (Sep88), Annals of Internal Medicine (May88), and American Journal of Law & Medicine (Vol. 12 Issue 3/4). --maclean19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Maclean25. At this time, I don't intend to nominate it for FA. I had some questions about citing for a nonfiction book, but I think those have been answered. (I think...) --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Awadewit
Currently housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid, the work is one of the most important and famous paintings in Western art history, and a classic of seventeenth-century art. - This sentence needs to include a clause explaining why the painting is important.
Have moved quotes to the 1st para to back up claims, but the lead could still be strenghtened. I usually leave the lead till last.Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The royal couple presumably occupy the space where the viewer of the painting would stand, though some have speculated that their image is a reflection from the painting Velázquez is shown to be working on. - Some scholars perhaps?
According to John Searle, "the painter is painting the picture we are seeing: that is, he is painting Las Meninas by Velázquez". - Identify all people the first time they are introduced - why should the reader trust Searle, for example? Later in the article, "writer" is used as an identifying tag, but it is not clear what that means exactly.
Philip IV's first wife, Elisabeth of Bourbon, died in 1644, while his only heir, his son Baltasar Carlos, died two years later. - the "his's" become awkward and confusing here
Velázquez was, by the mid-1650s, at the height of his powers, however Mariana and her children Margarita, and Felipe Prospero were to be Velázquez's last royal subjects. - sounds as if Velazquez was the sovereign - "subjects" has a double meaning here that is unfortunate
Throughout his life and career, Velázquez struggled against this, working his way up the ranks of the royal household to his ultimate aim of becoming a knight of the Order of Santiago.[3] In light of this, critics such as Svetlana Alpers have argued that in his portrayal of the artist at work in the company of royalty and nobility, Velázquez is making an argument of the high status of both the artist and his art. - "this's" become vague and sentence is not as clear as it could be
The former living quarters of Baltasar Carlos,[6] the high-ceilinged room is presented, in the words of Silvio Gaggi, as "a simple box that could be divided into a perspective grid with a single vanishing point" - Has to be explained - picture of this, maybe?
Though the royal couple are ostensibly the models for the entire composition, and thus the painting's anecdotal subjects, they do not appear directly on the canvas. - Why is "anecdotal" necessary?
The twentieth-century French philosopher and cultural critic Michel Foucault observes that the light from the window illuminates both the studio foreground and the unrepresented area in front of it, in which the king, queen, and viewer are presumed to be situated. - Foucault must have said more than just this - it is Foucault, after all.
Have expanded this section, and the Interpretation. Problem with Foucault is, as you mention, he has a lot to say. I have two dense quotes from him at the moment, but condensing them is difficult.
I guess I just don't understand what is so significant about this observation. Why, for example, would we even need to attribute it to Foucault? Does he attach any particular meaning to it? Perhaps I'm just missing something. Awadewit | talk06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infra-red has shown that Velázquez made minor alterations to the figures as he worked; at first his own head inclined to his right, rather than his left. - Lone sentence
This idea of illusion was popular in Spain during the seventeenth-century, and was based on the earlier thought that temporal truth is not skin deep, and that human existence is just a semblance of a greater reality. - vague
In recent years, attempts have been made to view the composition in allegorical terms, based upon the portrait and mythological pictures hung on the background wall. Yet it seems most valid to accept at face value, in Michel Foucault's words, "the working painter in all his objective realism". - POV - why valid?
What do you think about putting the Velazquez as curator material earlier, under "Background"? The article moved from the general to the specifics about the painting and then back to the general history again. It was a bit jarring.
Overall, I started to wonder whether the painting was about realism or artificiality. It seemed like both interpretations could be offered, but I didn't think they both were in the article.
I am also curious about the prominence of Foucault. He is best known as a philosopher and literary theorist. The Archaeology of Knowledge is not a text about art history. Do other art historians refer to Foucault's interpretation a lot?
Thanks Awadewit, for another careful and thoughtful review. I work through these, and you have highlighted areas for expansion. Will post back here when I'm done. This will help enormously. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks for these. I think most have been dealt with, or the section rewritten anyway. There are comments on more recent versions at the talk page also. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe that this is an excellent and accessible article that is a great introduction to the complicated Virus article. I would like to see what the world thinks of it.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think of the common question "How do viruses reproduce?" I would think this is a basic question that this introductory article should explain clearly. But the lead section does not answer it, and the only explanation in the article is this: "Replication of virus particles is the stage where a cell uses foreign messenger RNA in its protein synthesis systems to produce viral proteins. The RNA or DNA synthesis abilities of the cell produce the virus' nucleic acids by viral polymerase." No links. This does not help an introductory reader understand. – Quadell(talk) (random)16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions in passing the big question "Are viruses alive" but this topic does not appear in the article. Some other big questions: Where did the first virus come from? How did it evolve? What did it evolve from? Do all viruses share a single common ancestor virus? Are all viruses bad?
A section on the history of virology would be appropriate.
A section on the use of viruses as tools in biomedical engineering would be appropriate.
Explain how viruses usually get from one animal host to another, then also explain how they get from one plant host to another. Plants don't walk around touching stuff, shake hands, copulate, sneeze, or vomit, so how do their viruses spread?
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is my best by far and is getting a Peer Review for any suggestions before FAC. So comment away.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ydone - The infobox says the image was when the storm was located off of New Jersey; it is clear the storm was well south of there at the time
Ydone - The lede could be better written. The first sentence is a bit bland (perhaps just say it was the only subtropical cyclone of the season). Also, since the total number of characters in prose in the article is less than 6,000, having just one lede paragraph would suffice.
Ydone - The article varies between saying that two and three people were killed by the storm; please fix and clarify.
The writing needs to be better. formation by forming (redundant), the Yucatán (Peninsula or Mexican state?), Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico were favorable for tropical storm formation, however westerly wind shear forced the system to not strengthen. - This seems to contradict itself. Wind shear would imply that conditions were not that favorable, and furthermore, forced is a poor word choice, since it is more of a human action. A subtropical depression formed - a location would be good. After crossing the Outer Banks of North Carolina on June 19 - whoa, we just went from gaining SS status over Florida to it jumping to be over NC. Saying that it tracked northeastward, and giving an explanation of why it did so, would be useful. Even though the pressures remained low, the storm expanded and became distorted - this sentence is unclear and vague. minimal - minimal or minimum central pressure?Ydone (Control of tropical cylcones was given to the Canadian Hurricane Centre in 1985.) - Is this important to this article?Ydone In the preps section - including a tornado - there is no parallelism between the words, so either it should be "tornado, severe thunderstorm, and special marine warnings" or clarify what type of warning occurred for each event.YdoneThree people were killed in Florida in association with the subtropical storm with thirteen injuries - this implies that three people died from injuries; clarification is needed.
The storm history needs to be organized, and it should go in order of events; thus, the earliest event (the Caribbean disturbance - the article does not specify where it came from nor when it developed) should be listed at the beginning of the section. The first paragraph does not say what the three systems were. Try and organize the second paragraph better to avoid having so many short sentences together.
Ydone - Metric units and consistency between units are needed. When the original unit is rounded (inches, for example), the converted unit should be as well; 4 to 6 inches should be read as 4–6 inches (100–150 mm).
Ydone - More wikilinking would be useful (Recon, LPA, a link to Florida would be much more useful than linking peninsula). on the morning of June 18 - Due to user preferences, the date needs to be Wikilinked, or, to avoid redundancy, avoid mentioning the date and say the storm made landfall later that day.
Ydone - The two paragraphs in the Florida section could be better organized. It appears there are a lot of words, but not a terribly great amount of information. Perhaps merge the paragraphs and rewrite it as one (or, since they are slightly separate meteorologically, rewrite all but the tornado info as one paragraph, then split the tornado).
Ydone - Small formatting issues need to be better, particularly with non-breaking spaces
Nnot done - I'd like to see some more sources, particularly newspaper sources.
I just noticed a serious problem. The article is not correct! It sources the preliminary report, but it seems to pull information out of the air (or seriously misconstrues it). "The multiple circulations merged creating a strong trough" - the circulations did not merge, and the trough was already there. There are several examples of this problem. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, I want to make this a Featured List. I think the only citing I am lacking is Roy A. Young birth date, William P. G. Harding death date, and Charles S. Hamlin birth and death date. I also was seeing if photos would add to this list. As well as anything else to ensure it will become a featured list.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached what I feel is the best it could be given the dearth of reliable information on the topic. In particular, I'd like the article to be checked for neutrality and grammar, and whether it is heading in the right direction for good article status.
I think the article is not really about the flag of Pakistan or Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I'd suggest you remove these images and move up the other images of the lyrics and the sheet music. If available, you could use portraits of the authors of the national anthem.
I think you don't need the "See also" section for this article. I would suggest you'd remove it entirely.
I think you should, generally, wikilink more words in the article that are relevant to its topic, such as the words "music" and "lyrics" in the lead.
I am not sure the lead section is a good stand alone summary of the article. I'd suggest you make sure all information in the lead section is also in the article, then delete the lead and write a new section that summarizes the complete article. See for more info Wikipedia:Lead section.
I noticed that not all facts in the article have references.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting back in full WP mode, beginning with this article on a famous radio show that has now turned into a weekly habit for me. I am a fan of the weekend reruns on XM; who else on WP listens to it there? (I have DirecTV for that.)
I've gotten the most authorative book on AT40 (by Rob Durkee) for a while, via library loan. Only now am I realising how tough improvement will be accomplished this Christmas; hopefully it will be sped up upon the New Year.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done some substantial editing and adding of information from the standard sources on Sitting Bull (Utley's biography, a few other military sources). I was hoping to get some feedback on the progress so far, how to go about editing the sections on the Little Bighorn and Fame, and whether anything needs to be cleaned up. I also was curious about some feedback on whether the source list was too long, too short, etc.
Thanks so much,
poroubalous (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by BillDeanCarter
Here's a short review from me.
In the lede:
killed by police on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation during an attempt to arrest him. - you should tack on the reason he was arrested.
During a struggle between his followers and police, he was killed by the police. - instead of .. "he was killed by the police" which sounds repetitious explain in more detail his gruesome death in which several officers did this and that.
His body was taken to nearby Fort Yates for burial, but in 1953, his remains possibly were exhumed and reburied near Mobridge, South Dakota. Why the possibly? Incorporate the explanation into the sentence.
As a youth, Slow excelled at foot races, games, and was an expert horseback rider and was very accurate with bow and arrow.[3] What kind of games? Monopoly, paintball, ...?
For this, Slow earned a white eagle feather, symbol of a first coup, and also received the name of his father. His father changed his name to Jumping Bull, and henceforth Slow would be known as Tatanka-Iyotanka, or Sitting Bull.[5] It was also at this ceremony that Sitting Bull received his shield. Add some extra description about the tradition of taking your father's name after a triumphant battle, just like you explain other traditions very well in the following paragraphs. I would also explain the receiving of the shield.
The Early adulthood section is stubby. Maybe elaborate on the two sentence paragraph?
However, Sitting Bull also knew techniques of healing and carried medical herbs, though he was not a medicine man. Is it medical herbs or medicinal herbs? I myself am not sure. Maybe you know?
Briefly explain the reason for The Dakota War of 1862. You tackle the warrior life well, but there's a lack of historical context given and the reader will want to know. Was it all to stop some general campaign by the U.S.? What were the times Sitting Bull lived in?
In 1863, Hunkpapa warriors (probably including Sitting Bull) joined with Dakota refugee warriors to fight against the military. However, Col. Henry Sibley defeated them at the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26 and at the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28.[16] Sitting Bull also possibly took part among other Hunkpapa warriors in the Battle of Whitestone Hill, on September 3. Explain the reasoning behind "probably including Sitting Bull" and "possibly took part". Maybe historians which think so, and a statement from them? A quote from an author of a respected book on the subject. Or the evidence contrary or supportive. It's just when facts are dubious you want to know why.
The last two paragraphs of the Fame section are unreferenced.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have finally finished and expanding the history section on the City. I also feel that it covers all relevant aspects of the city.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ilse@
I think that the history section is too long for the main article, and should be something like five paragraphs, instead of seven subsections. This would also shorten the very long table of contents. I think the current history section should be moved to the separate article History of Geelong. – Ilse@15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sections 'Notable people from Geelong', 'Sister cities', and 'See also' should be removed from the article. The politics section could be expanded with some information about the sister cities, the city government, and information about the mayor(s). – Ilse@15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the politics to cover local government, just linked to the category 'people from Geelong' and deleted the section, and fixed up the reference formatting, and added some. Thanks for the ideas so far. Wongm (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mattinbgn
The lead needs expanding. See WP:LEAD for some tips.
The infobox needs completing - electorates, distance to Melbourne, climate and elevation.
I would move the history section below the geography section
The last two sub sections in history are choppy. Consider combining into paragraphs.
A reference is needed for Pyramid Building Society.
"is larger than the other major Australian cities of Hobart, Darwin, Cairns and Townsville." I would change this to read, "According the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at [year], Geelong was the nth biggest city in Australia." with a source. See List of cities in Australia by population for some ideas.
I would ease off on the historical images. To my mind they are making the article look cluttered.
The heading 1900s Now As a city - fix capitalisation in the heading.
Demographics - some socio-economic material may be useful. Is Geelong a working-class city? I would expand on the ethnic make up of the city. What has been the contribution of the Croatian community to Geelong, for example? The marital status material looks superfluous, unless it is somehow different than elsewhere in Australia. Is Geelong growing, shrinking, ageing?
Geography - needs referencing. Some details on the layout of the city would be useful; where are the industrial, commercial and residential precincts? where is the growth happening? Has there been renewal in the inner city?
Climate - a table may be useful, similar to the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. Could possibly be a subsection of geography.
Education - needs referencing. When was Deakin University founded?
Transport - under-referenced. I would compress the transport section, removing the sub headings and much of the detail about train services. Link to rail lines where that information is better shown. I would also lose the {{main}} links as the links in the body of the article should be sufficient.
Geelong in film - pick a few and write as prose.
Media - remove sub sections.
The sport section is choppy; try and combine into paragraphs if possible. It also needs referencing.
Visitor attractions - de-listify and write as prose.
The article has some potential and the history section is thorough, although it could do with a tidy as mentioned. The article as a whole does need considerable work. Good luck and let me know if you need a hand. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, a number of editors have made substantial changes since it was last reviewed. I would welcome feedback on the changes and additions which would be required to bring the article up to GA status.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ilse@
I think you should say in the first sentence that the line is "between Reading and London in the United Kingdom" or something or that meaning. – Ilse@15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because although I have expanded it from just a list, I feel it needs a fresh set of eyes poring over it. Specifically, I'd like the article to be checked for neutrality and grammar, and whether it is heading in the right direction for good article status.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is well written and comprehensive, covering all aspects of the topic with a detailed discography. I wonder how it can be inproved to reach a featured Article status. I guess some of the photos might be an obstacle. waiting for your opinion and help. --TeemeahGül Bahçesi12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Tarkan had actually broken into America with his English-language album, that extra newsworthiness could've made it a Featured Article (or at least put it somewhere on Wiki's front-page). Short of that, I don't know. It is a competant article. Maybe someone could read a bunch of Featured Articles at once, to see if there are any particular qualities or trends that set them apart. Also, I've entered "Tarkan" on Wiki's Suggested Feature Article page. Does that help? Maybe we can all do that, and with the same suggestion coming from multiple users and IP's, Wiki will listen. --68.164.83.8006:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) a random Elizabeth (tongue nowhere near cheek)[reply]
This article was drastically revamped by a Collaboration of the Week by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music a few months back; it was passed as a Good Article about a week later. I'm hoping to take this article to FAC in the next week or so after I add a few more things. I would mainly appreciate a copyedit, and any other concerns you might have. I'm hoping this article can eventually serve as a model for future musical group FAs. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M3tal H3ad
Following years of underground success, R.E.M. entered the mainstream - possibly link Underground music and Mainstream (terminology), not everyone knows what these terms mean.
A question as such, you introduce the band with the singular "is" then later refer to them as a plural "their", "they" and "were", is this ok as it switches between the two often?
For the musicians first mention in the body it would be suitable to tell the reader what instruments they each play (i had to scroll to the lead to find out)
R.E.M. had recorded its debut EP - link EP at its first mention, not everyone knows what the term is
A positive review of the EP by NME - you need to attribute the review and quotes to the person who said them, that one person does not represent the entire magazine
The writer is credited in the citation. If this were the EP's aricle I'd be more inclined to mention the author by name in the prose, but to mention him in the prose of this article would be awkward and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and reached number 78 in 1983 - where? on the Billboard Hot 100 (America) i assume?
I'm not exactly the best peer reviewer and no doubt only a handful of these comments will be helpful, but the article is in pretty good shape and i could only spot these minor things out, good job. If only the Metal project had something as half decent as the Alternative project does with activity and helpful reviewers...i can keep dreaming. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"While rehearsing for the ceremony, the band recorded a cover of John Lennon's "#9 Dream" for "Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur," a tribute album benefiting Amnesty International, as well as releasing the song as a single for the album and the campaign, "#9 Dream" was Berry's first studio recording with the band since his departure almost a decade earlier." - This really long sentence needs to be cut into two. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - Try to avoid redundant words like "new". The album is currently three years old, and the statement will be old when R.E.M. release a new album. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of Time's lead single "Losing My Religion" became the group's most successful track release when it reached number four on the Billboard charts." - "Most successful" is an opinion. "Highest charting Billboard single" or something similar would be more appropriate to say. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - The fact that the song is "stark" is one's own personal interpretation, and is therefore original research. Also, the mention of fans expectations is mere speculation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the reliability of some of the sources. My understanding is that Wrestleview, Lords of Pain and Gerweck are considered unreliable. In addition, I don't know much about Wrestling-History, Body Slammin 4 Ever, Power Wrestling, Wrestling Attitude, Click 2 Houston, Wrestling DB or Steve's Wrestling. I suspect there may be some reliability issues with some of them, so I would recommend asking about them at WPT:PW. Tripod sites are also generally frowned upon. Finally, Angelfire and 100megsfree4 are also usually considered unreliable, but the sites you've used on these servers are reliable. I'll change the names listed to the actual website names instead of the server names (eg. Wrestling Information Archive instead of 100 Megs Free). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the references seem to be duplicates (eg. reference 36 is to Online World of Wrestling, a reliable site...reference 37 is to Wrestle View, a non-reliable site). In many of these cases, you could solve reliability problems by removing the extra reference. And since quite a few of the references seem to be to pay-per-view results, I thought I would recommend http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/ . It's got results for every pay-per-view (but doesn't list the finishers used). Their results for this event are at http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/usa/wwf/nowayout.html#2004 . Hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the Background section and did a copyedit. I have a couple more things I wanted to being up:
The picture of the poster in the infobox has no Fair Use rationale. Done
The final sentence in the lead paragraph is unsourced. Done
I found this sentence very confusing: "Heyman announced a triple-threat match at No Way Out for a WWE Championship match at WrestleMania XX between the Big Show, Kurt Angle, and John Cena on February 5, 2004." Could it say, "On February 5, 2004, Heyman announced that a triple-threat match would take place at No Way Out to determine who would face the WWE Champion at WrestleMania XX. The triple-threat match featured the Big Show, Kurt Angle, and John Cena." or something along those lines? I think it would work much better as two sentences. Done
Who is Jorge Paez? It would be nice to include a brief explanation of why he accompanied Rey Mysterio. Done
Left hook seems like jargon that might need to be explained with a wikilink or replaced with something simpler like "punch to the head". Done
I'd like to help you get this to GA level, so I'll go through the rest when I have a chance. You've done a very good job so far, and I think this can make it to GA with a little work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence: "Soon after, Shaniqua had control over her opponents until she tagged in the Bashams, when they were clotheslined over the top rope by Hotty." This is about the Bashams getting clotheslined? If so, I don't think the word "when" works. Perhaps "Shaniqua retained control over her opponents until she tagged in the Bashams, who were quickly clotheslined over the top rope by Hotty."? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:LEAD - for an article of this length, there should be a max of about 3 paragraphs.
WP:HEAD suggests that headings should avoid having links; see if you can move the links to some part of the prose. Also, it looks like the text could use a couple more links.
WP:MOSNUM discusses the usage of conversions, eg. 1 m (3 ft). I added already.
The footnotes need proper citing; there are now {{Cite web}} templates, could you fill in the parameters? For example, title, author, date of access, etc.
Have the article fixed for spelling and grammar mistakes (suggest that you request that somebody else helps, since having a pair of fresh eyes is good). Couple of examples: (use cursor to hover over underlined)
Lombo Pocket Watch is a grey harness racing colt, gaited a pacer he was foaled 16 October 2003.
The second sentence is too long and should be split up, as its rather hard to follow the subject of the sentence.
1st of June 2007 - WP:DATE - avoid using 'st' 'th' for dates
As at December 7, before his McInerney Ford Classic victory, Lombo Pocket Watch sat at 28th on the all-time stakes winners list, and Australasia's youngest millionaire pacer.
Also, there are a bunch of typos. In the fourth paragraph 'in' needs to be capitalized. Also spell-check, contributer (contributor),prestigous (prestigious).
Do you think you could find a free picture? That would be nice.
Could you run the slide rule over the updated version and see what else needs to be done. I don't have any photos and I'm not sure he'll race in melbourne again. LPWRHR (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively obscure writers and critics from the 19th century deserve attention too! This one's a not too distant off-shoot of my usual interest in Edgar Allan Poe-related articles... Specifically, I am interested in this article being checked for NPOV, writing/grammar, and if it has the sort of breadth of coverage needed to achieve good article status. Thanks in advance! I love peer reviews! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, infoboxes... going through a hellish FAC as we speak, I'd rather not expand the infobox only to be told later to scale it back or remove it entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviate United States to "U.S." or "U.S.A." to make it fit on one line in the infobox.
Avoid the use of terms such as "famous for" and "best known for", just mentioning the important stuff is sufficient.
The lead should give a summary of the article, I think details such as "Born in Vermont, Griswold left his family at age 15." and "It was in Philadelphia that Griswold first met Edgar Allan Poe." should be removed. Instead, maybe try to summarize each of the article's sections in one or two lines. (Wikipedia:Lead section)
I did my best to follow the spirit of WP:LEAD, but I'm having trouble understanding how I can summarize the article without including things like "Born in Vermont..." and "first met Edgar Allan Poe". --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pieces which I did not respond to in-line are very easy and will be done shortly. Thanks for the review, but I was hoping I could get answers to some of the questions I posed in placing this article on review: Does it have full breadth of coverage? Does it maintain NPOV? Those are, in fact, my biggest concerns and what motivated me to ask for the review. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see major problems with neutrality, but I find the prose sometimes choppy, ambiguous, and the sentences do not always follow the previous ones logically. I don't think it is efficient to review the article sentence by sentence, do you appreciate help in copyediting? – Ilse@15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate help in anything related to this article! As you can see from the edit history, I haven't had much! =) Copy editing in particular tends to be strenuous for me. My formal writing training has been very different from the Wiki MoS! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes! I'm going to try looking at it again myself with forcedly fresh eyes. But, I'm having problems with the infobox now - the image doesn't appear and all the parameters appear bunched up. Any ideas? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Memoir" - it was basically an essay that used the title "Memoir" (alternatively "Memoir of the Author"). Definitely not presented as an autobiography. I tried to clarify that section a bit, and was a little more careful of using the "forged" term. I think it makes more sense this way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to nominate it to GA, and perhaps FA one day and am looking for feedback specifically to get it to GA status. I believe this is one of the most developed articles regarding a Civil War regiment. Thanks for your time, Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Needs to be longer: it's currently unsatisfying short. It hooked me in but didn't deliver :)
Done Under-wikilinked (first mention of Abraham Lincoln, Union, Confederacy etc). Not everyone knows who they are.
Done Dates: Days/months/days should be wikilinked so they appear correctly in browsers ie some people use month/day format, others prefer day/month. (It's a setting in Preferences). Months should be written out in full.
Done Perhaps a paragraph or two something on the history/origins of original zouaves (in general)
Reply: I added a paragraph on Ellsworth's intro to the Zouaves.
Done How did the zouave idea get from Colonial French Africa to New York?
Reply: See above, article explains the origins of the 11th. Other Zuoave units had other influences.
A description/explanation of the colorful/eccentric uniform?
Glorious color picture of the zouave in his finery would be good.
I thought the battle honors detail was insufficient.
Reply: I expanded Bull Run, which was their only major combat. Other skirmishes were noted, but I am currently lacking in a lot of resources other than those found online.
Any explanation for their incredibly light fatality rate (around 5%, using your figures)?
I'd strongly suggest taking a look at some of the fort articles I've created. The 11th New York is frequently mentioned in a lot of the sources I consulted, and I've got a few pictures in them that might be useful to you when building this article. I don't recall offhand if the 11th New York participated in the construction of any of the forts around Alexandria, but in either event, they're considered one of the first units to cross the Long Bridge into Northern Virginia in the days following the secession of that state. Also, I'd be happy to volunteer to copyedit the article if/when you need someone to do so. Drop me a line on my userpage, and I'd be happy to do so. I do think there's a lot of room for expansion first, however. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few typo fixes and grammar corrections. Some remaining issues:
More interwiki links are needed.
In the section about Marshall House, "on the way down the stairs" could use some clarification.
"O'Brian was also short lived" is unclear - I presume you mean he was replaced, but it could be taken to mean he was killed.
The sentence about Hampton Roads is in dire need of a rewrite.
Thanks for an interesting read. I hope you're able to expand it per the others' comments above; I'd be happy to copyedit it more thoroughly later if needed. Maralia (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with some minor mods. As a general comment, if you are intending to seek FA status, you should attempt to find some secondary sources as refs, such as books about the battles in which they fought. I am not too excited about these regimental histories that are often simply rehashes of web summaries.
Unit histories generally include the dates of command for their commanders.
What is the meaning of "distinguished themselves for their foul conduct"?
"O'Brian was also short lived" -- does that mean he died?
It is not good practice to hardcode thumbnail sizes because users can set their preferred size; I removed these.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article struck me as well written, well organized, and well referenced. I'm no expert on this historical period, but the article seems fairly comprehensive. I did have a couple minor concerns, however. First, there are stylistic inconsistencies in the references section. Look closely at the two published secondary sources in this section (Foner's overview of Reconstruction and the 19th-century historical text). This problem can be handled in a minute. Secondly, you might mention that cynicism about the war was common among New York's working-class whites well before the draft riots. The draft riots were an expression of longstanding attitudes of resentment and disillusionment toward the war. This terrible episode raises a couple of questions. Why were so many of the city's poor whites out of sympathy with the stated ideals of the Union cause? Why did they target African Americans, who were, if anything, worse off than them? Answers to these questions will shed light on a question more central to your topic: Why did volunteer recruitment "stall." Overall, I think this article should have no problem meeting the standards of the GAC. I believe it has the potential to achieve FA status. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on the biggest/most influential/successful heavy/thrash metal band ever. Over the past week i have completely re-written the article, which previously looked like this. I hope to take it to FAC in a week or two and hope you will be able to provide useful feedback. It just needs a copyedit by some "fresh eyes", and any information you could think of to be added to the Legacy section would be appreciated. Thanks.
WesleyDodds
Thank god someone has decided to clean that mess up. Before I start listing a bevy of comments, I urge you to dig through the online archives at time.com and nytimes.com for more resources. Those two sites have proved invaluable to me time and again, but most music editors aren't aware of how extensive those archives are, or that they even exist. Now:
Sentences should be shifted around in the lead. List the band members in the first paragraph, or a least the fact that Hetfield and Lars formed the band. Push the Napster controversy farther down. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a definite stretch to list Ozzy as a related act. Trujillo was part of a solo artist's backing band, not the artist himself.
You don't need to list the precise release dates for albums. All you really need is the year; at most list the month and year.
No need to mention which particular card Burton pulled; just say he lost and had to sleep in the bunk.
When you wikilink to the Black Album, link to its proper name (Metallica) not the phrase "self-titled".
Clarify that John Marshell stepped in to replace Hetfield on guitar for the rest of the tour. The way it's written it makes it seem that he took over that very show (which actually ended with the band leaving the stage, Guns 'N Roses acting like jerks, and the fans rioting).
You don't need to mention the details of the Load album cover.
Definitely try to add more about the reaction to the band's change of image and sound when Load came out. My Ian Christe heavy metal book covers this a bit, discussing how long term fans thought they were selling out or "going alternative".
Add a little more to the section dealing with Newssted's departure. Move the mention that he joined Voivod into that section and move his comment about the therapy sessions into the St. Anger section. You don't need to mention the hazing again.
Legacy section: a lot of nu metal bands have mentioned Metallica as an influence, so look for quotes from them. I'm having trouble thinking of any other bands mentioned by them, but I know Alice in Chains are good friends. Dimebag Darrell probably had a lot to say about Metallica (there's a story I've heard that Pantera dropped their glam direction when Darrell showed Hetfield his home with all his glam metal posters, and Hetfield spit on them.)
I'm not sure the Dave Mustaine feud needs its own section. Try and rework that information into the rest of the article.
I think it is notable enough to warrant its own section - the two bands have been bashing each other in interviews their entire career.
You're going to definitely need a Musical Style section. This should be pretty easy to write if you have access to enough references (and there are tons). I have several Metallica-centered articles in my Guitar World back issues, but I don't think I'll have time to review them any time soon. Maybe in January I can help you out there.
It looks pretty good so far. Aside form my comments about, watch out for redundant wikilinks and only link full dates. I'l check back later to see how things are going. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irritated, as I just lost everything I typed over about three quarters of an hour thanks to my college's dependence on the 'wonderful' Internet Explorer.
In any case, I will attempt to write it out again, but I'll do it in sections this time.
Lead
Periodical should be in italics.
"Napster became a pay to use service." Perhaps rephrase to "pay-to-use", the sentence threw me at first.
"Mustaine were kicked out of the band" Perhaps "were later kicked"- it gives the impression it was pretty instant.
"without the members consent." Apostrophe!
Sorry, that's all I have time for. Internet access is currently limited, and if I am not online before tomorrow evening, I won't be able to review until next weekend. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, managed to find some reliable Internet access, on a computer with Firefox, so I will give a full review now.
Early days
"Metallica recorded its first original song titled "Hit the Lights", for the Metal Massacre compilation." This says that the song was the first song called "Hit the Lights", not the first original song. Perhaps "Metallica recorded its first original song, which was named "Hit the Lights", for the Metal Massacre compilation."
Image caption- "The band's Power Metal demo would take its name from this card." Demo name should be italicised.
"at the Whiskey A Go-Go" What is it? A music festival? A pub?
"the year he accepted, only if the band would move to San Francisco" Perhaps "the year he accepted, on the condition that the band would move to San Francisco"
"at The Old Waldorf," Again, what is it exactly? Without a link to an article, an explanation is needed.
"concert promoter Johnny 'Z' Zazula offered Metallica to play live shows" This doesn't make sense- perhaps "asked Metallica to play live shows" or "offered Metallica live shows"
"was at The Stone in" Again, a description of what this actually is.
"Burton was released on Megaforce." Do you mean to link to the film? If so, perhaps "was released on the 1982 film Megaforce."
"on April 16, 1983 at The Showplace Dover, New Jersey." Again, what's the showplace? Also, it there should be something separating 'Showplace' and 'Dover'- a comma, 'in', or both.
Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightening
"distributors' refusing to release" That apostrophe is misused. It should either be "distributors' refusal to release" or "distributors refusing to release"
"and "Blitzkrieg" from the band Blitzkrieg." It doesn't make it clear whether this was a cover- it implies that a song by Blitzkrieg was added to the album, not to mention the fact it links to a song by a KMFDM side-project.
"the Seven Dates of Hell tour" What's the consensus on tours? Leave as is, italics, or speech marks?
"now considered collector's items." Should be "collectors' items"- the items belong to multiple collectors.
Master of Puppets
"Returning to the U.S marked" should be "U.S. marked".
"at Castle Donnington in England," If you mean the village, you have misspelled it- but we also have an article Donington Park, which is where the concert will have taken place. Finally, you may want to link to the specific section section.
"of All Music Guide consider the album" Needs a comma after 'Guide'.
Death of Cliff Burton
"who would sleep on which bunk. Burton won and chose to sleep in Hammett's bunk." The first mention of 'bunk' should have the link, not the second.
""ADD Video," which" What's ADD Video, and should it be in speech marks? Also, even if the speech marks are correct, the comma should be outside of them.
Metallica (The Black Album)
The brackets in the title shouldn't be italicised- it should be "''Metallica'' (''The Black Album'')" rather than "''Metallica (The Black Album)''".
"was "bubbling like on the Toxic Avenger"." The title is The Toxic Avenger, as opposed to Toxic Avenger, and the film name should be italicised.
"three live CD's, three home videos," No need for the apostrophe.
Load, ReLoad, and Garage Inc.
"headlining Donington Park"- Links to a DAB page- you want to link to Donington Park.
"The short tour was titled 'Escape from The studio Tour 1995'." Why have you put this tour in inverted commas?
"of plexiglass, not all fans were happy with the cover" Maybe "of plexiglass, but not all fans were happy with the cover"
"called Blood and Semen III." As the name of a piece of artwork, I think that should be italicised.
"got their haircut" That should be "got their hair cut" or "got haircuts".
"collector's item." Again, should be "collectors' item"
Napster controversy
"The lawsuit named three universities for copyright infringement, the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University, no individuals were named." Perhaps "Though the lawsuit named three universities for copyright infringement, the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University, no individuals were named." or "The lawsuit named three universities for copyright infringement, the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University, but no individuals were named."
"making it a pay to use program." Again, "pay-to-use" is probably a better phrase.
Newsted's departure and St. Anger
St. Anger in the section title should be italicised.
"over 1000 hours of footage" For consistency, that should be '1,000'.
""behind his back" but to help him" There should be a comma after the closing of the speech marks.
"Following three months of auditions Robert Trujillo formerly of Suicidal Tendencies, and Ozzy Osbourne's band was chosen as the new bassist." The commas are all over the place in this sentence. I would recommend "Following three months of auditions, Robert Trujillo, formerly of Suicidal Tendencies and Ozzy Osbourne's band, was chosen as the new bassist."
You link to Pitchfork instead of Pitchfork Media. Also, as a periodical, it should be italicised.
"and the song was used as the official theme song for WWE's SummerSlam 2003." I can't remember the name of this mistake, which is bugging me, but despite sharing a name, the song and album are not the same. As such, you should say "and the song "St. Anger" was used as the official theme song for WWE's SummerSlam 2003."
"Mudvayne, Deftones, Linkin Park, and Limp Bizkit, and the" Why do you not link to Linkin Park?
Legacy
"Machine Head, Bullet for My Valentine, Chimaira, Mastodon, Mendeed, and Trivium" Why are they not all linked to?
"Metal Militia: A Tribute to Metallica, A Metal Tribute to Metallica, and Tribute to the Four Horsemen." Check the italics on that phrase.
"Beatallica faced legal troubles when the Sony Corporation who own The Beatles Catalogue ordered a" should be "Beatallica faced legal troubles when the Sony Corporation, who own The Beatles' catalogue, ordered a" (changed capitalisation, comma use and apostrophe use)
"Metallica appeared on The Simpsons eighteenth season premier The Mook, the Chef, the Wife and Her Homer on September 10, 2006.[75]" Single line paragraphs are frowned upon. Off the top of my head, I can't think of them appearing in anything else.
Section still needs to be expanded
Also, shouldn't there be an apostrophe after 'Simpsons'?
The name of the programme should be in italics, while the name of the episode should have speech marks.
"He wishes that Metallica would have helped him with his addictions instead of kick him out." That doesn't make sense. How about "He later said that that he wished Metallica had helped him with his addictions, rather than kicking him out of the band." A reference would be nice, too.
"He has a strong disliking to Metallica guitarist Hammett," Again doesn't make sense. How about "He has a strong dislike of Metallica guitarist Hammett,"
"Mustaine comments" When? Who to?
"Were not enemies and were not friends and I think it is best kept that way. Back in those days we were all drunk and having a good time, but he took it too far. He was a real excessive person who had to take everything too far, which included drinking and drugs"" The lack of apostrophes makes my eyes hurt. Perhaps we could edit them in? Maybe using square brackets.
Awards and recognition
"a medley of "For Whom the Bell Tolls, "Enter Sandman", and" You don't close one of the sets of speech marks.
Band members
Is it worth mentioning the technicians who performed live?
Overall, another great job. The prose in the section on Mustaine is a bit dull, but I can't really put my finger on what is wrong with it- perhaps it should be rewritten. Also, it may be worth expanding the fair use rationales on the images. I'll take another read through once you have gone through this review. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider moving article to a less misleading article name. Even though there's no article on the term "thrice" meaning three times, I wasn't expecting to find an article about a band.
Could do with a third party copy-edit. Some examples from the first few parags:
"the band was known for their "powerful, driving beats and buzz-saw riffs,"[2] mainly due to the release" - does that mean that aside from that album, at that point in time the band's style was usually very different?
"showing off their musicianship by intricating music stylings such as complex time signatures" not sure about POV here, and not sure about intricate being a verb
"experimentally unique, using non-conventional Thrice elements in the process" every album is unique (unless it's an exact copy) and if it's unusual, then adding it's non-conventional is a tautology
Lead should really summarise the article. Do you think you've achieved this? Giving charity isn't really very notable, for example. Bill Gates' giving is massively notable, but I'm not sure if I'd include it in his article, as his other achievements are so much more important.
Very early history could do with expansion, how the band came together. The inside joke should be summarised and included.
Really don't understand the artist in the ambulance name explanation
Consider moving the band members section to above the history and expanding a little about the members. Yes, they've each got an article, but they're pretty important for this article too.
Not sure if other band FAs have done this, but since this is a band that charts, it might be nice to include some chart positions in the discography.
Nice that you've included some music clips. Their captions need some wikilinking and some caution over POV
I have no expertise on licensing issues for music and photos, but if you're not 100% sure find an expert who'll check the clips and pix are properly labelled before you take this to GAC etc.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I start? Expand reception using reviews of the game. Perhaps you could mention the GameFAQs character contests. The article desperately needs images, perhaps just a cutscene screenshot with all of the characters. I think you should defy whoever said not to include images identifying characters - it's not a policy or guideline, and it's perfectly fair under fair use laws. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a little to deatailed...
I found the information so detailed and complete that it is incredibly long. I think that you need to do some editing and comdensing to shorted the length. Also the information was very overwhelming...Historybuffc13 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Keep them coming. Suggestions 1) The bit about coming off the List of World Heritage Sites in danger should be merged smoothly in somewhere. 2) I don't see much information on the economics of running the park. I see good numbers on the restoration cost, but where is their income (how much state, federal, how much admission fees, etc) and what are the running costs? It is unfortunately something that is missed in all of the other articles you pointed out, which also seem otherwise great. With those items fixed, I can't see anything else separating this from FA. I'm not a great copyeditor though, perhaps there are improvements someone can point out on that front. - TaxmanTalk15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I included a section about park economics under park history, and moved the 1-sentence paragraph. Thank you for your suggestions and comments. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Though the economics section seems a bit out of place, I can't immediately say where it would be better. Also the sentence "In 2001, the National Park Service set a goal to generate $161 million US from fees and income by 2005." needs some context on how it relates to this park. Finally $35k seems incredibly low, but if that's what the source says, so be it. Depending on how your schedule is you could delist this here and take it to FAC right now if you wanted to. I'm sure that in short order you could deal with any of the suggestions brought up there. - TaxmanTalk19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified who made the goal. It was the superintendent of ENP. As for the $35k, the document I took the information from listed all the national parks in a table. I don't know what they consider "local economy". I imagine that means the economies of Everglades City, Florida City, and Homestead - all very small towns. Although the park is close to Miami and Naples, I don't know if they considered them as well. If you, as your username implies, are into accounting, I can give you the URL for the pdf that I got that information from. I'm not a whiz at accounting, so it could mean something different. Thanks again for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, send the link, either here or email is fine; I'm sure you're right though. On that goal, that is such a larger number than the ones that preceded it (100,000 for fees etc) that those all need more context on how they're different/related, etc. - TaxmanTalk20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hmm. As I look at the document again, those numbers should be multiplied by 000, I think. That number should be $35,000,000 shouldn't it? This is why I am not an accounting whiz... --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well, easy fix. :) Does the strategic guide give more information on the current number that compares with the $161 million goal? That's the part thats odd to me. I assume most of the difference is government funding, but that still leaves out the current info, which would be better than the goal. - TaxmanTalk22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the table points out - and I realize I need to make this clearer - that the income generated within the park is not from entrance fees, but tram tours, fishing licenses, gifts, etc. I need to find how much overall income the park generated...or I'm just not reading that table right. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with Joey Santiago, I'm looking to take this to featured status soon. Any comments on comprehensiveness, arrangement or quality of prose welcome. (Note I haven't been able to locate a free image, so suggestions on that front welcome.) CloudNine (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have probably already considered this, there are a few semi-decent free images that feature Lovering on Flickr [7]. Unfortunately, there aren't any clear shots focusing specifically on Lovering; you may want to crop him out of an image of an ovation for the lead, like this. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat slight--particularly in the Early Life section--compared to the other Pixies band members articles you've written, but he's the drummer so what can you do. Pretty good overall; there's some grammer cleanup that needs to be done but hopefully I'll get around to doing that myself. A few specific comments:
Indeed. I've submitted in a less-complete state than my earlier projects, as a kind of experiment. It still needs copyediting for flow and other things. The Early life section (and others) is about as comprehensive as possible unfortunately; the oral history of the band doesn't cover Lovering's early life, for example. Could you perhaps take a look in the Spin article when you have the time?
"Active since 1985, he is best known as the drummer for the alternative rock band Pixies." Try "He is best known as the drummer for the alternative rock band the Pixies, which he joined in 1985".
Done. I wasn't sure about that sentence, as he did drum in local bands before 1985.
Write "Pixies bandmate Joey Santiago's band The Martinis" in the lead.
Done. I think I removed it initially because "Pixies bandmate(s)" appears twice in the lead.
You don't need the reference for Cracker in the infobox anymore.
Done. Moved it into prose.
You link to Frank Black/Black Francis a number of times in the article.
Hopefully I've fixed this.
Two sentences in the last paragraph of the Scientific Phenomenalist section start with "He also". Rephrase.
Fixed. I've rephrased quite a bit of that section.
Out of sheer curiosity: is there any follow-up news on Lovering's state after the death of his father and subsequent drinking? That section was rather sad. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, although the last Lovering interview I can find was in 2004 or so.
Promoted to Good Article status back in October, I was wondering what to do the Didsbury article next to make it FA. I know there is a lot to do. I've been adding some other language versions, 7 in total. Any and all comments welcome. Also, I would like to say that since I'm trying to get another list upto FL and reviewing articles I may be a bit slow to respond over the next few weeks. Thank you. — Rudgetcontributions19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anymore stats be added to the demography section? The economy section needs info other than stats. The bus part at the end of the transport section looks odd. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This little girl deserve to be featured on wikipedia. Since the age of 6, she started raising funds for child heartpatients and she has saved at least 234 childrens. She also raised funds for 2001 Gujarat Earthquake victims, Orissa cyclone victims. She raised funds to provide shelter to 39 childrens of sex workers. She has appeared in almost all print, TV channels in India and she has received many awards including highly prestigious Rajiv Gandhi award. But at the end of the day, she is just happy when she receive one doll for saving one life. I never heard child prodigy saving life of other childrens. This is unique example of its kind on planet earth.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way in respect to Bangladesh location articles, and may well represent, I hope, a guiding article for more than 400 other articles in the category of Bangladesh upazilas. These articles do need a guiding way, which is currently being discussed here. That is exactly why it needs careful reviewing and development. Please, comment on everything from writing style to arrangement, and from sources and citations to neutrality and notability of the stuff that went in there. The next few steps for the article will be to take it to GA, then get the League of Copywriters to take a look at it. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs)17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please! Please! Please! There should be a lot wrong with the article. I know that the intro is all wrong (but, that I plan to fix last), and there are loads of redlinks (I plan to address those the hard way - creating articles for each of those). And, there are a number of minor fixes proposed by the automatic suggestions. But, I am really expecting a more through scrutiny. Please. Aditya(talk • contribs)15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is bounded by Mirsharai to the north, Pahartali to the south, Fatickchhari, Hathazari and Panchlaish to the south, and the Sandwip Channel in the Bay of Bengal to the west. What is in the eastern side??? Done
No Geo coordinates. Done
A sentence about the loaction may be given in details. Ie. Repeat the first line in the intro
Wikify water divider Done There is no wiki article that contains an explanation. Haryana uses the same term, though.
There should be non-breaking space ( ) between the units. Done
The Girujan Clay Formation, named by P Evans[26], runs through Sitakunda at a thickness of 168 m.[27][28][29] In the Sitakunda hills the Boka Bil Shale Formation, named by P Evans... The sentences can be better structured, no need to mention named by P Evans as citations have been provided. Done
Demographics
As of Bangladesh national population census 2001, Sitakunda has a population of (Female:Male ratio 121:100). ->According to the census of 2001, Sitakunda had a total population of 298,528 distributed to 55,837 units of households (average household size 5.3), including 163,561 men and 134,967 women. The gender ratio is 121:100. Done
The average population of each ward, mahalla, union, mauza and villages respectively are 4072, 1666, 29853, 5060 and 5060. -> The census of 2001 recorded an average population of 4072, 1666, 29853, 5060 and 5060 person in each ward, mahalla, union, mauza and villages respectively. Done
Moreover wikify or expain the terms like mahalla, union, mauza, thana, etc. Is average pupulation same as density of population ? Doing... To link these units, I'll need to create articles or at least stubs for each. Working on that. And, it's not population density. It says how many people leave on an average in the a village or a mauza etc. in the area.
Where is the religion wise breakup of population, crime chart, language spoken?? Done There is no data available on crime rates.
Sitakunda Town, the 28.63 km²... No need to make it bold and add area. Done
Info about Administative chief, police, fire service must be provided. Done Apparently Sitakunda has no fire station.
Other
As the info is very less, no need to create sub section in the history section, and also move this section in the top ie, first section. Done
A paragraph about the ship breaking industry is enough, move the rest material into another new article. Not done There isn't enough material to justify a forking right now. May be things can evolve to that point later.
Environment section can be renamed as Flora and fauna Done
More photos can be added to enhance the article. Done
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked. Done Done by User:LaraLove
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use 30 January was a great day. Done Done by User:LaraLove
Try to Turn all the red links blue. Doing... Oh, new red links have a strange way of popping up constantly.
I don't know about the Bangladesh political system (i will learn about it in a day or two), but the political parties and members elected from the Upazila may be incorporated. Done Incoporated the National Parliament results, but the short lived local government system for the Upazilas were abolished in 1991. BTW, I may be able to help in learning about the Bangladesh political system and create a few articles in the process.
The education system and boards must be mentioned. Done
The following lines in the society section according to me is unneccessary, In 2003, Atahar Siddik Khasru, the president of the local Press Club, went missing on 30 April and was rescued on 21 May.[102][103] He was abducted and tortured by unidentified men allegedly on charges of protesting against the harassment of Mahmudul Haq, editor of local magazine magazine Upanagar.[102][104] On 6 May, about 30 local journalists working for national and local press took to the streets in protest. I think this is not so relevant to the main context and may not be so important to mention in the main article and this line probably can find a place in the history section in another main article about the History of Sitakunda. This section can be renamed as Culture. Done Renamed as Media and culture and expanded, too.
Apart from the newspaper and the inicidents mentioned, it is the same as the rest in Bangladesh. There are no separate TV channels running from upazilas and so on. West Bengal is a entity as large as Bangladesh. I'd rather compare Sitakunda with Shiliguri or 24 Pargana (Kolkata compares to Dhaka). Aditya(talk • contribs)15:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following must be mentioned; courts, electricity, fire stations and water supply. Done
Yes, i know how small is Sitakunda; but can u name the telephone companies operating there and even can mention a line about that such and such papers are available in Sitakunda which are printed in Dhaka (or elsewhere). Done
I have noticed that the period after the Partition of India and the significant events during Bangladesh Liberation War, Bengali Language Movement (if any) has not been mentioned. Doing... Apparently nothing worth mentioning has happened during the time. Trying to take a deeper look.
Yes, the article is going on the right track. Don't get disheartened it will surely achieve FA. One more thing i want to add is that, pls correct the citations, u can use WP:CITET for help and if possible create a navigational template on Chittagong division or Upazilas of BD. AmartyabagTALK2ME11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious problem with the copy. Can someone go a bit specific on the copy, so a poor copywriter like me can follow the suggestions and get it fixed at least to a decent state? Aditya(talk • contribs)16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 1 is a little unclear (in terms of history).
After the defeat of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah by Sher Shah Suri in 1538, the Arakanese captured the region. The region was under the control of Portuguese pirates with Magh origins. In 1666, Mughal commander Bujurg Umed Khan conquered the area.[8]
The sentence on Portugal seems almost random, and if another clarifying sentence was given, talking about how the portugese took control, it would be more easy to read. Done
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed a Featured Article nomination in the past, but has been greatly altered since then. Several daughter articles have been forked from it, leaving the mother article shorter and in better shape. Many references have been added and a period of semi-protection has reduced vandalism and led to a good period of stability.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? -Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been massively expanded and rewritten in the last two months, and needs a MOS check badly. I'm interested in comments about the scope/coverage as well as readability. I'm looking for advice on how to structure the "ancient achievements" section and the "open problems" section. Do we need to include anything on fringe theories and the culture's legacy? My goal is to take this to FAC in a month or so. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good stuff here but I will only comment on what I perceive as the weaknesses:
It has an ambitious History section that gets (dare I say) 'too long'. Continue summarizing, focusing on the sub-article History of ancient Egypt and less on the sub-sub-articles (listed in the "Dynasties of Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt" box - 'Dynasties'? the box looks like it is listing 'periods').
I'm working on it. Is the material up to and including the middle kingdom section succinct enough? (~JD)
There is an {{expand}} tag in the Language section but its presence is not explained on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. Is the wrong tag being used?
I think the section probably needs to be re-organized into a 2 paragraph section with no subheadings, but should include a little more coverage, so I'll rewrite. (~JD)
On your specific questions: I cannot answer on quality of coverage. On the "ancient achievements" I would frame it less like "achievements" and more like "technology of". Song Dynasty#Technology, science, and engineering is an example. On the "open problems": maybe a Historiography section framed to illustrate what being academically debated. Don't have to include fringe theories. --maclean23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to your questions, you don't need to include anything on fringe theories unless there is verifiable evidence that those theories are important in some way, in fact so important that they require coverage. But the legacy of Ancient Egypt would be a very important since it's one of the ancient civilization's that has a significant legacy and mindshare.
OK. In fact there is actually an article on Egypt in the Western imagination! I'll include some material about the "Egyptomania" craze in Europe, and the more direct legacy they had on greek and arab civilizations. (~JD)
Basically it's an issue of prioritizing - what can you justify as a major subtopic relating to Ancient Egypt and what not? I think "Open problems and scientific inquiry" should be condensed to "Ongoing research" or something and you would again need to prioritize what goes in that section by the most important ongoing research. Every section needs to include only the most important information on that subtopic.
A general category needed when discussing an ancient civilization would be the economics. You have a little on trade, but it needs to be more general to include what activities were most common, what information is available on the size of the economy, distribution of income, etc. Also demographics (slaves, free, foreign, etc) to the extent it is known.
Good suggestion about the economy, I can think of several important things about price and payment schedules and bartering that ought to be included. As for distribution of income, I'll add material that shows how the taxes were distributed, but nothing in terms of the percentiles that sociologists like to obsess over. As for demographics, I resist adding its own section because the history section already mentions when large numbers of foreigners/slaves came into the country; again doing percentiles is not the right approach due to the long span of time and vast changes involved, even though there is actually a decent amount of data available. I'll add demographic material about the total population size (which maxed out at 3 to 4 million in the new kingdom) and maybe some other general stuff but I want to keep it to a "broad-brush" approach. (~JD)
You've got your work cut out for you on researching to prioritize and justify what is important, but congratulations on working on such an important article. - TaxmanTalk15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is thorough, well-referenced, had ample images to enhance the article, and is of a topic interesting. I believe that it meets the barest minimums for Featured Article status, but needs some polishing, primarily in the area of formatting references to meet FA standards (using the long cite versions rather than simple inline ref tags). There is little more information that could be added to better the article, but it stays away from extraneous or trivial information for the most part. Could this be a potential Featured Article? I would like to know!
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great start, but it needs expansion. I'm not sure what all the best subsections are to make sure it's comprehensive, try surveying the best other animal related FA's and see what major sections they use. The best way to expand it is to get a hold of some more reliable sources. Books and or the latest important research articles would be very helpful. - TaxmanTalk19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right off, the list of where to find capybaras in zoos is out of place in an article. Instead, replace the "captivity" section with a paragraph or two about issues concerning cabybaras in zoos, and link to a separate List of captive capybaras or something similar. Also, the gallery is long, distracting, and not necessary. Simply make sure all images are on The Commons and link to it prominently; having a gallery is unneeded. There also needs to a section (or sections) on capybara biology and physiology. – Quadell(talk) (random)19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at some featured articles in the Biology section; Bobcat is an example of the increased content that will be needed. There is some WP:OVERLINKing (see WP:MOSLINK), citation formatting needs to be completely reworked (see WP:CITE/ES), there are dead links, see WP:ITALICS on foreign phrases, the gallery should go (see WP:MOS or WP:GTL, can't remember which), review Tony1 (talk·contribs)'s redundancy reducing exercises, the list under captivity should go (see WP:NOT), WP:DASH fixes are needed. Named refs aren't used correctly (see WP:FN), and be sure to ignore the automtated script when it tells you to overlink common words and terms known to most English speakers. See WP:MOS#Images on image sizes, and WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation after sentence fragments on image captions. I left you quite a few sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VigilancePrime, I think you're off to a really good start. I've done some work on some animal articles, and here's an outline that I think might work really well for Capybara:
Lead section & infobox (of course)
1 Taxonomy and naming -- to discuss how scientists classify the animal and what names are used.
1.1 Evolution -- it's nice to know how the species evolved (but hard to research)
1.2 Looks like most scientists think there are two species of capybara, so you'll want a section discussing that.
2 Description
3 Behavior -- you've already got a start to this section.
3.1 Diet
3.2 Reproduction
3.3 Social life (if there's enough info)
4 Habitat
5 Conservation
5.1 In captivity
That's just a general outline that might work well for this article. And the good news is that you've already got a start to all of those sections! That's just a rough outline, and if you see sections in articles about other animals that might work, you can definitely add them.
I think the biggest challenge will be finding good sources. Right now most of the sources are zoo web sites. Zoo web sites are usually fairly reliable because zookeepers now a lot about the animals in their collection, but the information usually isn't very detailed. In order to get that in depth, really comprehensive information for a Featured Article, you'll want to learn about scientists and conservationists who study capybara and see what the newest information is. Once you start finding some of this research, you'll start finding more details to add to the article. Good luck with it and if you ever need any help, let me know! --JayHenry (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively worked on the scientific aspect of the article but would appreciate a grammar review.
A good start: the facts are here and the refs are very thorough. Rewriting (not just punctuation and spelling) will improve the article significantly.
The article should put information into context better, so that the average reader can understand what is going on. For example:
"Non-ligand bound Ahr is retained in the cytoplasm as an inactive protein complex consisting of a dimer of Hsp90 " the phrase 'Non-ligand bound' is incomprehensible to the average reader, but if I write:
"When no ligands of the receptor are present, Ahr is retained in the cytoplasm as an inactive protein complex...When a ligand enters the cell and binds to the receptor, this inactive protein complex dissociates, allowing importation of the receptor into the nucleus so that it can interact with the cell's DNA."
This sentence can be the lead of the paragraph or section, after which you can discuss the details. The idea is to tell the big story first so we can understand it in context, and only then can you explain the details.
This receptor is responsible for activating the body's response to xenobiotics, right? So this should be explained clearly in the lead.
The opening sentence is: "The Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a member of the family of basic-helix-loop-helix transcription factors." Is this really the most important thing about this protein, and does it help explain the essence of the receptor to a casual reader? Consider replacing with the suggestion above.
The lead should summarize all important aspects of the receptor, such as who discovered it and when, what the receptor's purpose is, and why scientists are still researching it.
There is a problem with licensing of Image:AhR.jpg. This has a half-written fair use rationale, but a free version can be made! We can't have fair-use material if free versions can be made. In fact, I will volunteer to make a free version of this, but I'm going to tag the existing version as a copyvio. ("reprinted with permission" where is the documentation? What is the permission given, and who gave it? if permission really has been given, should have an OTRS ticket). As for Image:AhRSignaling colour.png, I'm not entirely happy since it is almost an exact re-drawing of the original and a free version could easily be made. I'm not quite sure what to do with that one, so I'll leave it alone for now.
Are there any crystal structures available? How about any structures or models of any of the binding domains? I can access Sybyl and Chem3D for rendering structures if coordinates or other structure information is available.
Abbreviations: I recommend not using abbreviations unless you really need them, so if you only use a term once or twice, why bother abbreviating? Abbreviations are very hard to read, and make the article look like an alphabet soup. On the other hand, there are things than should not be spelled out, such as CYP1A1, Hsp90, XAP2. Just say: "...the metabolic enzyme CYP1A1..." (no need to say "cytochrome P450, family 1, subfamily A, polypeptide 1" or spell them all out). The choice of what words to spell out should be made carefully.
Abbreviations: Even more annoying than an unnecessary abbreviation is re-defining the abbreviation over and over: "...aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator(ARNT)..." and later "...AhR Nuclear Transporter (ARNT)..." (note inconsistency) Why say it more than once? Clunky abbreviations are a pet peeve of mine in journal articles, so I'm sorry if this sounds terse. For ARNT I would suggest saying: "...AhR's dimerization partner, a nuclear transporter called ARNT." Also use consistent CAPS on AhR or Ahr.
"...the end result is a variety of differential changes in gene expression." add perhaps 2 sentences summarizing what these changes are.
Avoid sentences like "reviewed by[8][9]." and "as shown in[52][53][54][46]." (don't use a footnote as the object of a sentence!) and the period should come before the refs.
I hope I don't sound too harsh; I don't mean it to be. The article needs some rewriting so that non-experts can read it, but the content and refs are good. I would suggest one more image, if possible, would be a structure or model of the receptor, or at least one of the subdomains. And perhaps a structure of a typical aryl hydrocarbon with a caption like "Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins such as TCDD activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, activating the xenobiotic response element" I'm happy to answer more questions, take another look, and help out if I have time. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. 1) The lead needs to be made accessible to non specialists. It's a detailed topic, so the whole article doesn't need to be accessible, but the lead section should be maximally so. The first sentence "Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a member of the family of basic-helix-loop-helix transcription factors." tells me absolutely nothing about the topic, and I have a fair amount of science background. The next sentence and the rest of the lead don't provide much more; it's not until the very last two words that I can tell what the topic is related to. Luckily the article is short, so there is a fair amount of room to add context here and there. Particularly in the lead you should minimize the use of overly complicated terms where possible, and define them in context when not. For example I can read the Transcription factor article to find out in general what AhR is, but in general the reader shouldn't have to. Also the lead section should be 2 or 3 paragraphs, see WP:LEAD. 2) In all that research, which is impressive by the way, would you say there are no other important bits of material you have left out? Without references and markup it's pretty short for a featured article candidate. - TaxmanTalk19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran218:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a complete newbie to peer review, so please take my comment with a grain of salt. The plot section heavily covers the beginning of the movie, but the rest is summarised simply with Harry and his friends, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, discover the plot and seek to prevent the theft of the stone, which is hidden in a protected chamber at Hogwarts. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#PlotAs this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. This guideline also says the plot summary should have between 400 and 700 words. This one currently has 217 words. So just expand the summary of the stuff that happens later on in the film, especially the ending. Good work so far! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how some cast sections are. The first three cast members have a large paragraph of info, while the rest just have a sentence or so. As such they work better without bullet points. Gran220:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article really isn't bad :) But some suggestions I have include creating a new section entitled "Casting" under the Production section for all the prose that there currently is under the Cast section. A table or bulleted list can than be made for the actors and their roles. Next, I notice the article lacks a release section. What should be done is this: create a "Distribution" section and combine the marketing information with information on the film's release (i.e. rating, premieres, home video- that one's lacking right now- worldwide release dates, etc.). And finally, change "Reaction" to "Reception" or "Response" as "Reaction" more or less implies critical reaction and not necessarily commerical response, which that section also happens to cover. Otherwise, I think it's excellent! The no erz (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because It is currently B-Class, and I at least want it to reach GA status. Please comment and contribute to improve this article.
For a PPV like SummerSlam, the background needs to go into a lot more detail, especially with the ECW feud. Also, you should have info on HHH/Booker and Rey/Chavo, as they were the other two big feuds. Davnel0318:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've flown TAROM, but in the magazine I didn't find hardly any of those destinations. I think it needs to edited, especially the Cluj section.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ydone Use the en-dash for year ranges (see WP:DASH).
Ydone Introduce the player as a footballer before saying he's a defender.
Ydone "contracted to" - odd terminology in UK football - try "currently plays for"...
Ydeleted *"highly rated" - by whom? Citation required.
Ydone Use the {{convert}} template for height in the infobox.
Yhe has played for ireland under-19 In fact, this article is verging on being up for WP:AFD - has he actually played any professional football?
Yreplaced words A few too many peacock terms like "gifted", " good first season ", "very quick recovery" - need removing or citing.
Ybracketed what it meant in first mention What's DDSL?
Ychanged to Donoghue Not "Gavin does this blah..." use "Donoghue does this blah..." - it's an encyclopaedic article.
Ydone Numbers below ten need to be written out "eight months"....
Ytagged sections " Donoghue combines very good aerial ability with a classic approach to playing central defence. His reading, patience, and excellent long range passing being his best assets" - whoa. NPOV required.
YdoneI can still see at least one instance of "Gavin does XYZ", which should be "Donaghue does XYZ"
Ydone "defeats" is spelt wrong in the "international career" section
Yi have tagged this, and requested a copyedit"Donoghue combines very good aerial ability with a classic approach to playing central defence. His reading, patience, and excellent long range passing being his best assets." - this is all very POV and possibly OR - what does "a classic approach to playing central defence" even mean? Unless a citation can be provided to say that a significant figure in the world of football has specifically praised the player for these abilities then the whole section has got to be removed
Ydone"the 2007 season" - 2007–08 season, surely?
Ydone "Donoghue was included in the 2007 1st team precurrently plays forseason tour of Ireland" - what on earth does this mean? Firstly there's no such word in the English language as "precurrently" or "forseason", plus the whole thing just reads as gibberish
Ydone"Donoghue decided that a move to Wearside suited him best" - says who? This is just one of a number of statements which desperately need a citation (in fact almost all of the "early career" section is completely unreferenced
Ydone"He plays as a central defender. Donoghue is an Irish defender" - don't need to say "defender" twice in consecutive sentences
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs quite a bit of work. First off, you need to remedy the problems that have led to tagging. It needs a lot more citations, it needs a bigger WP:LEAD and you need to clarify some points in the text. (where it says {{clarify}}) *The lead can only be expanded once the information in the main body of text is beefed up. You need to expand it.
Some points for expansion:
Why did he choose Wearside over other Premier league clubs. (Is that accurate?)
Y 'done Expand the international career section, talking about the games, (when were they?)
Other problems:The NPOV problem is a big one. Wikipedia is not a fanzine and phrases such as in time to return to action make it seem like a football fanzine and not an encyclopedia. Also the second paragraph in the Sunderland section needs to be completely refactored in order to remove the POV bias.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] - Done - I checked, it looks like all full-dates within the article itself are linked, but some within citations are not, I will get to linking those full-dates later, but I'd imagine this review point only applies to dates within the main article text. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Separate information about Jurassic Park IV from the "Films" section -- at first glance, it would seem that a film had already been made about it. It'd be better at the end of the article in a "Future" section.
Provide some prose about the box office performances of the three films, such as the descending trend (using reliable sources, of course).
Provide some prose about the critical reaction to the three films. A good idea would be to look at reviews for the third film, which will usually go back and comment on previous films. If this doesn't work out, try to find reviews from film critics that have watched all the films and string them together to reflect their opinions.
Maybe a Development section could be created, not for the specific productions of the films, but why Jurassic Park was made, why they decided to follow up with The Lost World, and again with Jurassic Park III. You may need to utilize print sources for this -- not all your answers will be online.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was recently passed as a good article and I would like to see what it takes to get it to Featured Article status. Any suggestions along those lines would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you to Stardust8212 (talk·contribs) for starting this Peer Review! (We worked together to get the article to WP:GA status.) I think the article is close to featured status actually, it covers a wide range of topics and is well-sourced. I am just curious if there is anything more that can be added from the DVD commentary that is not already in the article? I have not listened to the DVD commentary myself so I don't know what's discussed on there. Cirt16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I took notes on the commentary for interesting things they mentioned, most of them are already represented in the article but I'll post them on the talk page if you'd like to see them. They're my personal confusing shorthand style though so they may not be useful. Stardust821216:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, just so that we can draw as much information/background as possible out of the DVD commentary. Thanks again for starting this peer review and suggesting the move to FA status, there is a good amount of analysis presented, and I think it can be a good FA candidate soon. Cirt16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
We discussed this in other places, but I decided to get it to the peer review,and amplify a bit. So my references make sense, I am discussing this version.
The article, and its sourcing, are weak. References 1, 3, 4, and 8 are from DVD commentary. This is a compensated source, so it doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if they did, the statements supported are that the audio was recorded late, the Beastie Boys didn't perform a song, and that the producers liked the writers. Not very important statements, and certainly not establishing any importance for the topic.
Reference 2 is essentially a plot summary. Nothing about impact, nothing about how the world changed in any way as a result of this episodes existence. The closest it comes to having anything from the outside is Billy West refusing to name who the episode satirizes.
Reference 5 is used to explain plot points. The headings may say "theme" and "cultural references", but they are really part of the plot summary.
Reference 6 and 7 actually references things that ties it into the larger world.
Reference 8 and 9 support statements about a Simpsons episode, and it's questionable whether it belongs in the article at all.
Reference 10 supports the concept that the producer liked the episode. Not a particularly important statement ... very rarely will a producer come out and say he disliked it. Again, the producer is not a reliable source ... the inclusion of this episode was undoubtedly a balancing act of any number of marketing pressures. Whatever his actual opinion of an episode is, if the DVD is labeled "Matt Groening's favorite episodes", he isn't going to contradict it publicly.
References 11, 12, 13 and 14 are used solely to support that fact that the episode came out on DVD.
References 15 and 16 are reviewers statements, and are legitimate.
So, in summary, the article has very little well-referenced material supporting its statements, the statements that are supported are trivia, and the article fails to even demonstrate that the subject is of sufficient importance to warrant an article.
Thanks for moving this here, I think this is the appropriate place to discuss these issues and I knew Cirt would be interested in seeing this as well. I wanted to get my thoughts in order before responding but failing in that I'm going to try not to ramble.
DVD commentary as a source: While I agree that DVD commentary should not be used to verify anything contentious I don't see a problem with any of the claims that are cited to these sources. WP:EPISODE specifically notes that production information should be included in the article. A brief look through the current FAs of TV episodes shows that many such articles rely on either DVD commentaries or other DVD featurettes for this type of information. Is this good practice? It could be argued either way but that seems like an issue for a wiser venue. My personal view is to regard DVD footage in the same vein as self published sources which are acceptable if the person is established as an expert on the subject matter. I can see no greater expert on the subject of making a TV show than the people who actually made it.
I agree that reference 2 doesn't add much to the article but it does back up many pf the statements from the DVD commentary and demonstrates that the episode received more than the usual press coverage.
I disagree with your portrayal of the themes section as a restatement of the plot. I think there is an important line between a statement of the plot and an analysis of the plot. The themes section discusses the plot and how it portrays religion in modern culture. A section describing the themes of a work of fiction is also common practice on Wikipedia (See WP:NOVELS) so I don't see a problem with including it. If we're going to include it then it should be sourced, which it is and I don't see a problem with the reliability of the book itself.
The inclusion of a cultural references section is a contentious point among editors and I won't try to claim that it's strictly necessary from an encyclopedic point of view however once again it seems to be common practice to include such a section when the items in it can be sourced, as these are.
"Reference 6 and 7 actually references things that ties it into the larger world." - Honestly I'm not clear on what the complaint is here.
References 8 & 9 were added by Cirt I believe to verify some notes connecting this to the rest of Groenings body of work, showing that it's part of a larger topic. Do they belong in the article? I could go either way on that and perhaps Cirt will address it.
Reference 10 - I disagree with the general statement that the producer is not a reliable source, as addressed above, however I understand where you're coming from with this particular sentance. Perhaps it would be more appropriate wording to say the DVD was marketed as one of Groening's four favorite episodes.
References 11, 12, 13 - Yes, we could probably just use one of those rather than all three to source that statement. My theory when working on the article however was to include all relevant sources so that people working on it in the future would be able to find the same articles and see if there was anything else useful in them. There's probably not but that was my thought process.
Reference 14 does not back up that the DVD was released, it is a third party stating this is one of the best episodes and is thus relevant to the reception section. There's no weblink so I cant't view it myself at the moment but it shouldn't be lumped in with the other three.
15 and 16 - At least we agree on something. :-)
I'm sorry you feel that the article is generally not encyclopedic but obviously I am prone to disagree. I think a lot of the items you take issue with are not things that only address this article and so I am not really sure how to address them but I have tried to answer them to the best of my ability. Stardust821215:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't complaining about 6 and 7 ... they are the only two references that I think were both appropriate and appropriately used. You are right in the larger sense ... any episode article I review will come back with a review like this at best, and frequently much worse. Please don't take personal offense at my review. As episode articles go, this is clearly one of the better ones. Most episode articles would fare much worse, but the comments I made do illustrate why I don't think episode articles should be in Wikipedia at all. If the same class of references were used in a science article, the author would be flamed for weeks. Kww (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take offense, I've found this discussion and the one it sprang from to be one of the most overall civil discussions I've witnessed where episode articles are concerned. Perhaps someday the question of whether episode articles are ever notable will be discussed in full and we will be on opposite sides of the line but for now I'll just keep making what we have the best that it can be.. As for science articles..."Physicist A thinks this is the best theory he ever came up with"... that makes me giggle. Stardust821217:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] -- Done -- Though the Lead/Intro could maybe use an extra sentence or two, it's an episode article and doesn't really need that much more, and it adequately summarizes the current material. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] -- Done -- There was only one instance of this, in the infobox, which I fixed. Other full dates are in the citations, but these don't usually have to be wikilinked, though they could be. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) “In the year [of] 3000” -- Done -- It looks like this has already been taken care of through copy-editing by other editors. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence, which says the show is a "BBC television drama produced by the BBC ...for BBC One", is unnessarily redundant. I'd lose at least first instance of "BBC" (you can always pipe link "television drama" to BBC television drama if that's necessary); the third reference could be moved to another sentence.
The second sentence in the lead is very choppy, with lots of short clauses and two parenthetical statements. It needs to be simplified, either by reordering the clauses, or by breaking them into two sentences—something along the lines of "Created by G.F. Newman, it follows the exploits of a High Court judge—Sir John Deed, played by Martin Shaw—as he tries to seek justice in the cases brought before him." You later mention the fact that Newman is well-known as the creator of Law and Order, but you probably don't need to do so in the lead; it's not really relevant to this article.
There are multiple wikilinks to the same articles; per WP:MOS, only the first instance should be wikilinked. Examples include Martin Shaw (three times in the first three paragraphs), High Court (twice in the first three paragraphs), G.F. Newman, Law and Order and many others.
Commas are missing in lots of places. Some examples:
"As of 2007 there have been 29 episodes..."
"In later years the series has shifted to a serialised format..."
"Ratings for the series peaked with its first episode at 9.1 million[33] but it still ..."
"the BBC had announced an intention to use Martin Shaw in a range of new projects and it was apparent..."
The sentence "The series remains on a break until the style is changed and due to Martin Shaw's involvement in a new series." is not well-written grammatically.
All single dashes need to be converted to em-dashes, per WP:MOS.
"Deed has been accused of hypocrisy..." Is it the character or the show that's been accused? It's unclear from the article.
Glad to hear you've approached the LoCE; that will probably clean up a lot of these issues. I'll try to add more comment about the content of the article (as opposed to the writing) if I get some time over the holidays. Good luck with your drive toward improving the article! MeegsC | Talk12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a Good Article candidate. I've added many new references and pictures to expand upon the existing sections. Other sections may need to be added, so I would like input on that and where I could add more sources or expand on information already in the article.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[From MeegsC]: I'll start by saying this is my first bridge article review, so if any of the following doesn't seem appropriate, feel free to ignore it!
There are a couple of problems with the lead. First, it's recommended that you don't include anything there that you don't also include in the article. That's a bit tough with one this short, but you might want to move very specific details, like the bridge dimensions, down into the article itself. That said, the lead is currently a bit short. Generally, you want to include salient facts from each section of the article, so you'll probably want to briefly mention something about it becoming a "suicide bridge". Not sure if you need to mention the accident, but you might give it a sentence in the same lead paragraph.
Is there any information about why the bridge was named for Washington?
Are there any details as to what, in particular, justified its listing on the National Register of Historic Places?
I've put in a request to NRIS for their file on this property, including its nomination. Once I have that, I'll scan it, put it online and cite the material. They said it would take them 2-3 weeks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
Are any stats available re: amount of traffic per year, whether that's increasing or decreasing, etc. How many was it projected to carry? Is the real total higher or lower? Stuff like that.
The article says the design "was awarded to" a local architecture firm. Did they design it? If so, this statement is confusing and should be reworded. - Done
Were the builders local? Any trouble with schedules, deaths during construction, etc.? (Just trying to think of ways you might expand the article a little, if appropriate...)
You should replace the double dashes "--" with em-dashes "—" to meet WP:MOS standards. Done
I am considering running this through FAC sometime in the next few months (it has to be in a few months because she has a new album coming out and the thing needs to be stable first.) It's associated with the Musical Theatre WikiProject, and has gone through substantial editing. It's already been through one peer review, but I'd like some additional feedback before I do so. Thanks in advance. Crystallina (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a firm idea how musician articles should be structured, but this one doesn't feel properly laid out. Perhaps that there is so much on career and little else. The section on music and voice is a good idea, but it should probably be broader and a greater proportion of the article. It should include more description of here vocal quality, acting ability, etc, such as the best reviews that cover those. Try checking the other FA's on musicians, find the best ones, and see if you can distill an improved layout from them. - TaxmanTalk19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the improvements made to it, and what else would have to be done to it to make it even better (more pics, I know)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Jeff
This is a pretty good start, but I have bone to pick: the term selective catalytic reduction certainly covers more than just reduction of NOx. Imagine if the article on reduction only talked about catalytic converters. In fact, the catalytic converter is itself an example of selective catalytic reduction. Consider changing the title to 'Selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides' or something along those lines. Many things can be catalytically reduced in a selective way; industry buzzwords don't always make good article titles; you might have to think hard about which title to go with.
Sources: You need a lot more. I see only 4 or so unique sources, you probably need about 15 at least, including scholarly publications, books, and other print sources, not just websites. Your sources should be properly cited as well, including page numbers, year of issue, access date, etc. Suggest using the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. Other sources to add might be mentions in the press, such as newspapers and articles.
Consider adding information about the history of the development of the technology. If the article is only going to talk about SCR of nitrogen oxides, then add information about how many plants are in operation, worldwide distribution of the technology, and any other things you can think of to make the coverage more thorough.
One good thing I see is that the article is fairly balanced. Often, industrial technology articles with environmental applications are written entirely from the perspective of the environmentalist, with much less emphasis on the actual technology. Still, I do get the sense that the article was written in a power plant, or at least from that perspective, because much of the article relates to the technology as it applies to plant applications. Try to keep the article balanced, with a wide perspective not limited to just one application of the technology.
As for images, I would only be looking for one more: a picture of a unit in operation, or perhaps a picture of some element of the unit. A good start, plenty to work on. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA. Compared to current FAs like Tulsa and Minneapolis we can't be far away. All constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks. • Freechild'sup?10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Titoxd
The Elkhorn annexation seems like a rather important topic, as it is covered in the lead section; but it is only covered in passing in the Omaha, Nebraska#Neighborhoods section. Expand to satisfy WP:WIAFA §1.b.
Make sure to use s throughout the article in unit measurements. See WP:UNITS.
The city and its suburbs formed the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States in 2000, with an estimated population of 822,549 (2006[1]) residing in eight counties or about 1.2 million within a 50 mile (80 km) radius. - the sentence is a bit confusing, particularly because of the ambiguity given by "or".
Capitalize the first word of the third paragraph in the lead.
at the turn of the century Omaha was known as a "wide-open" city, meaning that anything went, - what do you mean by "anything went"? (I understand what it means, but I'm not sure if that may not be understood by non-American readers. You may want to link to Wild West, something similar, or reword the sentence.
Music in Omaha has always been important to the city, - the "in Omaha" is redundant. pipe the link and reword it.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition passed by the riverbanks that would later become the city of Omaha in 1804, and met on Council Bluff at a point about 20 miles (30 km) north of present-day Omaha, at which point they met with the Otoe. - confusing sentence with two verbs. Split and reword.
Some of this land was later used to entice Nebraska Territory legislators in an area called Scriptown. - it's not readily apparent that Scriptown is part of Omaha.
The history of the cession by the Omaha Tribe to the U.S. government is introduced in the first image of the History section, but is not developed in the prose.
The Early development section is unreferenced. While this might be due to Summary style, the statements about prostitution seem controversial enough to merit inline citations.
The picture used for the Enola Gay is just tangentially related to Omaha. Consider removing it, or replacing it with a different picture with a stronger connection to the city.
What happened in the '60s, '70s, and '80s? The article jumps straight to the 1990's...
The Civil Rights Movement section seems fairly short. How exactly did this region contribute to the national civil rights movement?
The Metropolitan area section includes counties listed in descending order. Replacing the list with a a table with per-county population totals would be better, IMO.
Early neighborhood development of ethnic enclaves, including Little Italy, Little Bohemia and Greek Town, have given way to gated communities. This sentence gives the impression that gated communities have sprung and replaced the historic neighborhoods of Little Italy, Little Bohemia, etc... is this true? Or is the sentence trying to say that development has shifted from ethnic enclaves to the growth of gated communities in different areas?
Contemporary music groups either located in or originally from Omaha include Mannheim Steamroller, Bright Eyes, The Faint, Cursive, Azure Ray, 49 cents, Tilly and the Wall and 311.
The demolition of the Cinerama Indian Hills Theater by Nebraska Methodist Hospital represented a real loss to American cinematic history. - why?
The Racial and ethnic tension section seems like it could be combined with the Civil Rights Movement section, unless I'm missing something obvious.
References for the Climate section would be nice. Also, having only one level-3 subheading ("===Climate===") under a level-2 heading ("==Geography==") is frowned upon.
Are all the sub-headings in the Infrastructure section necessary? These are all one-paragraph sections that can be condensed into one big section without loss of content. Alternatively, expand them.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, I wouldn't have thought this subject could be written about so well.
also known as Chronarion[3], -> Chronarion,[3] move the reference tag after punctuation, not before
Add more "retrieved on" dates to the references. Some have them, some don't. "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia." for example. For a wiki, the date it said something is very important! Same for author, write that Angela Beesley wrote that one.
Were Chronarion and Stillwaters originally Wikipedia editors?
leading to the deletion of many new articles.[24][6] move the earlier ref before the later one -> [6][24]
There seems to be some overlap about the Chinese/Taiwanese encyclopedias and their blocks between Criticism and In other languages sections. Are there two different blocks, the Golden Shield and Great Firewall, or are these the same thing?
Done all except the Wikipedia editors part. They do have accounts (User:Chronarion and [[User:Euniana]) whose contributions started before Uncyclopedia's creation, but I'm not sure how to cite them properly. --Jedravent (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has made large leaps towards being NPOV and out-of-universe in the past couple of months through a series of merges and vast rewrites. A review will help bring to light problems with the articles that others like myself have missed and allow us to make it even better.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FICT you want to write from an out-of-universe point of view. When I read "The Egyptian Gods are one-of-a-kind all-powerful cards created by Maximillion Pegasus," I went looking to his article to see if he is a game designer with a weird name, rather than a fictional character himself.
The article says "when summoned..." giving game effects. Later the article says "they do not possess effect text". So which is it?
I've listed this article for peer review because this is quiet a new article, and so am I. I've read some university-related articles here but I still don't see if there's a standard in such type of articles. Editing this article, Far Eastern University Institute of Nursing, by others (peers I guess) would be of great help, I hope that responses would be unbiased, discriminative and offensive like I read in some articles before. I just wanted to improve this article, and to ask others what they think of it, and what the article needs (to improve on, to add more information on something, etc.).
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one of the top performing nursing school ; one of the best Master's program-- need plurals: schools, programs. Also you need to cite extravagant praise like that. Who says it's one of the top, by what standards?
Backed up by its new Dean; Annabelle R. Borromeo, RN, Ph.D, CNS - "new" makes it more of a current events piece than an article that can be read equally well 50 years from now. Is Borromeo somehow more important than the half dozen others? Also why give the degrees in the lead? Most deans have degrees.
Previous Deans of the Institute of Nursing - if they were all deans, how can #3 be first dean of the Institute of Nursing?
ANNABELLE REYES BORROMEO, RN, PhD, CCRN, CNS, CPAN - again, seems to be a section about the person rather than the school. She obtained her Master of Science in Nursing Degree from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, Texas ... she moved from staff nurse, unit teacher, head nurse ... not that relevant to the school, this is supposed about the school, right? And don't use all capital letters for a person's name, the section heading is sufficient.
Her leadership skills were soon recognized; Her life’s mission is to teach, motivate, and inspire. - Please cut down the puffery.
Because of the consistent and sterling performance of nursing graduates - more puffery. This can be cited by actual numbers, so cite the numbers. Say that this is the best result among the 18 schools surveyed by test X in 1998 or whatever, and give a reference to a reliable source. I think there is more like that in the article, making it like a press piece. Try to write the article objectively, as if this were one article out of a dozen on nursing schools.
I have to agree with AnonEMouse; most of the text about Dr. Reyes Borromeo is extraneous to this article. I would take it out. Also the mission statement and anything else that (hint, hint) is either a copyright violation or, if not, then an adaptation which the school might find objectionable. That leaves not much information about the school itself. Re the History section, some questions occur to me: Why was the school founded? What was its expected role and how does that differ from its actual role? Eg, was the school intended to train only women but now is co-ed? Or vice versa? --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WillowW and I have worked up this article on an important and interesting eighteenth-century publisher. I intend on taking it to FAC, so comments along the lines of its readiness for that venue would be much appreciated. (This article is currently nominated at GAC as well, but they are very backlogged over there.) Awadewit | talk07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Scartol
I'll skip the usual platitude about how this is another fine article from two of Wikipedia's finest editors. Anyway, it is. I doubt I can offer much substantial constructive assistance, but I am good at picking nits. Therefore, let us begin!
Lead
The last three sentences of ¶ one and the first sentence of ¶ two all start with "Johnson". I don't know how or if it's possible, but some variety would be good.
These two characteristics of his home—Dissent and commercialism—remained an important part of Johnson's character… "characteristics … remained … [a] … part": I dunno, it feels wrong to go from plural to singular. (But then "these characteristics remained important parts…" also looks weird.) You make the call.
it was unusual for the younger son of a family living in relative obscurity to move to London and become a bookseller. I removed the final "to" here, but then it occurred to me that maybe it's intentional; if so, please re-add it.
It was supposed to be for parallel construction: "to move to London and to become a bookseller". I have restored it, if that's ok. Awadewit | talk11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars have speculated that Johnson was bound out to Keith because he was associated with local Liverpool Baptists. Presumably the "he" refers to Keith, but maybe it needs to be clearer?
The appearance of religious books is rather sudden; maybe say: "…religious texts began to dominate his book list…"?
They didn't begin to - they did from the start. I have tried to make this clearer by making Johnson's connection to Dissent more clearly religious in the previous sentence. Awadewit | talk11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…he also published works relating to Liverpool, his hometown, and medical texts. For purposes of series continuity, maybe make the last item "medicine"? (Unless he was publishing works about other works about medicine?)
No, I deliberately left it because I couldn't think of one. Let's see. How about "Fuseli was his closest friend until Johnson's death."? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society. Whose induction?
Priestley's - this is supposed to be inductive. :) Why would it be worth stating that Priestley trusted Johnson to handle Johnson's own induction? Suggestions? Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Sometimes I slip away from logic and go into pure sentence-structure mode. I trust you to decide if it needs revision. Re-reading this sentence, I don't think it does. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newly independent, with an established reputation, Johnson did not struggle as he had before. This is the first we hear (unless I'm mistaken) of previous struggles. Include a mention earlier?
It's just a general struggle. Sentence changed to: Newly independent, with a reputation, Johnson did not need to struggle to establish himself as he had early in his career.Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to know what the Chapter Coffee House is/was? The quote makes me feel like I ought (and makes me want a cup of joe).
No, you aren't supposed to know. I don't know and the sources didn't say anything beyond this. I was hoping someday someone might add something there. :) Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Johnson looked to his business interests, he did not necessarily publish only works that would enrich him. I didn't want to remove "necessarily" in a unilateral fashion, but if I owned the article, I'd take it out.
…he helped Priestley publish the Theological Repository, which was a financial failure, but which called on its contributors to submit… How about: "…Repository, a financial failure which called on…"? (Again, I didn't feel safe making this change myself.)
He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790… The end of this sentence is a bit confusing (two possible subjects for the verb "publishing").
Now reads: He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790, when Dissenters introduced repeal bills in Parliament, and published much of the pro-repeal literature written by Priestley and others.Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This probably isn't the place for it, but I feel compelled to say that the internationalist in me always bristles when "American" is used to refer to people in the US. I know American Revolution is the most widely-used term, so it's not a big deal. I just have to always be difficult. (By splitting my infinitives, for example.)
Yeah, I guess. Actually, I think it's just a personal problem. I know people don't mean anything by it. I should get over it. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I split infinitives, too, by the way. Do you know why English has that rule? In the eighteenth-century, when grammarians were codifying English grammar (part of nation-building and imperialism projects), they looked to Latin and since Latin doesn't split its infinitives, they decided English shouldn't either. However, the Latin rules make sense for that language while they don't for ours. The grammarians just wanted English to be more Latinate. So, I don't feel bad about splitting. Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really interesting to watch everyday English gradually morphing back into German, putting its verbs at the ends of clauses, with the adverbs just before. I hope I live long enough to see it fully completed. ;) Willow12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. Did you see the story about the language is Mexico that is dying because the last two living speakers are refusing to speak to each other? They got into a spat. Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…and the inalienable right to liberty of conscience", rights he viewed Dissenters as fighting for as well. Is it not possible to just say: "rights Dissenters were fighting for as well."?
"Important early publications" seems like an odd subhead title, given all the other important publications which have already been mentioned.
I know - it is an artifact of an older version before we had all of these new, exciting sections. Do you have any ideas? That section is kind of disparate. Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume no author was listed for Laws Respecting Chicks? (Do I have enough street cred as a feminist to make that joke? Am I going to be assaulted on my way home?)
Oh I'm so ready to work on EG. I forced myself to grade some papers this morning, but now I can work with a clear conscience. Boring side note – When I got back from the libraries the other day I realized that in my zeal I had checked out the same book from two different libraries! I've got a problem. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you need the sentence: Johnson had begun his career as a relatively cautious publisher of religious and scientific tracts. The earlier parts of the article seem to make this clear.
Just in case someone skips to this part of the article. Also, it's a nice little summary to remind readers of the chronology, I think. Awadewit | talk11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Cowper's major poem. It deserves a page - there is tons of stuff written on it. I'm not totally sure you could write a page on the others. I would have to look into it and see how much scholarship there is. Awadewit | talk
Quotes like "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England" which aren't attributed in the article make me uneasy; I much prefer the Chard emphasizes that it "was held together…" variety. Maybe this is WP:ILIKEIT.
This kind of quote does not need to be attributed in my opinion because it is not just one person's theory on Linnaeus. The only reason I have it in quotation marks is because I am using the precise words of the author. However, the idea is widely held. I only attribute quotations or ideas that belong (intellectually) to an author. Otherwise, the prose just becomes weighted down. Awadewit | talk11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I trust you on it. I suppose I've just trained myself to attribute every quote within the text itself. Personal preference, I guess.
I don't know how relevant the deviance from 90° of the house's walls is. Or how grammatically correct that sentence I just wrote is.
Johnson's periodical, the Analytical Review, published a summary and review within a couple of weeks and a mere month after Burke published, Wollstonecraft responded with her Vindication of the Rights of Men. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something, or does it need to be split in two?
In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley. This sounds as though it's related to the previous sentence (about Barlow's radicalization), but that seems wrong. Reword?
Now reads: In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley to escape the increasing pressure he felt from conservatives and the government.Awadewit | talk11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1800s: Declining years and death
Maybe a word about how he came back after the second fire? (It just feels jarring to see discussion of what he published all of a sudden.)
The pound symbol is, I believe, used several times before "Johnson's remaining £60,000 fortune". Is it an oversight that it's linked here for the first time? (Is this a different symbol from the one in the Godwin sentence? Am I showing a colossal ignorance of lbs?)
Awadewit dislikes infoboxes; my peeve is the blue pull-quote box. Can't that be worked into the article or something?
Well, I generally agree with you on this, but since this is a whole poem, I don't feel so badly about it. Poems don't work into articles very well. Awadewit | talk12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be such a dark blue? As a reader, too, I'd prefer to have some sort of context if it's available – maybe a word on who Edgeworth was (she's only listed among other people) and why she felt compelled to write it? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought all quote boxes had to be in that blue. I'll try to find a lighter blue. I don't know much about the composition of the poem. I'll see if I can track something down. Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't own Richardson's works? Good. Richardson was a third-rate idiot hack who got lucky and accidentally helped to invent the novel. (After I was forced to read Pamela – scribbling angry notes in it with a Sharpie™ all the while – I stabbed it, tore pages out, set it on fire, and threw it out of my second-floor dorm room window. True story.)
OK, now I have to read that book. By combining a page-turner with a bodice-ripper, Richardson produced a page-ripper. ;) It's very good, though, that an English teacher and writer should feel so passionately about literature and the craft. :) Willow12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's one way of putting it. =) I believe the police called it "willful defacement of historically canonized literature". (Just kidding. The police never got involved.) Awad: Find the eighteenth-century charm? I'll be honest and admit that I have no interest in looking. Every person gets to be closed-minded about something; Pamela is my something. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I mean the Analytical Review wanted to inform people, did it not? (Did you see the cool new info I added on it being a part of the "encyclopedizing" movement of the eighteenth century?) Awadewit | talk12:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there: In repackaging other publications for its readers, the Analytical Review was part of the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century. The journal shared in the desire to organize and classify knowledge for its readers while at the same time recognizing the ultimate futility of the project. In so doing, the journal's editors believed that they were preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future.Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff! I've learned a lot, and I thank you for inviting me into this project. Now go away! I'm finally ready to work on Red Emma! =) Good luck with this, y'all. – Scartol • Tok23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could assess this article against the GA criteria now that you've read it? I have a feeling it will sit there for a very long time. Awadewit | talk12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Johanna-come-lately, but I don't think that I could've contributed much more to two such sharp-eyed Wikipedians. Thank you, Scartol, for your meticulous review! :) Willow12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, about a year ago, when I first joined up with wikipedia, people actually got reviews over at GA. :) Now they have an inhuman backlog, though. Also, going to GAC forces me to slow down on the way to FAC and meticulously rework the prose. Awadewit | talk16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"often called the "father of the book trade" in England" – called that in England, or father of the English book trade?
Now reads: "father of the [English] book trade" but I don't know if I like that formulation - it looks like a huge editorial comment. I think another wording is needed. Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"issued primarily religious works" - did he issue works that were mostly religious in nature, or did he mostly issue works that were religious? (I'm not saying this needs to be changed, just probing for possible ambiguities.)
He issued more religious works than any other kind of work. I think this is clear from context, but let me know if we should reword. Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"particularly at his famous weekly dinners (the regulars subsequently became known as the "Johnson Circle")." – is there a nicer way to append the sentence in parentheses? "(the regular attendants of which later became known as" – also, I would like "later" better than "subsequently", since there is no clearly defined point in time for the "subsequent" to attach to.
Now reads: He fostered the open discussion of new ideas, particularly at his famous weekly dinners, the regular attendees of which later became known as the "Johnson Circle".
"supporters of the French revolution and" – probably a comma after "revolution"?
"Religious Dissent marked Johnson" – is this precisely what you want to say? The subsequent statements sounds like "J grew up in a climate of Religious Dissent" or similar.
I know the meaning, and I know it's usually italicized when added to ordinary, non-italic text, so I was wondering whether it needed to be non-italic when added to text that is, itself, in italics. Admittedly a minor point. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"opened his own business; however" – why "however"? In what sense does the account of him moving shop limit the validity of the statement that he opened his own business?
I found it hard to formulate this sentence - moving his business made it hard for him to establish himself. One isn't a stable businessman if one is moving about so much. :) Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't moving to a better location as far as I know - when he was, we try to say so: "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." Awadewit | talk21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: Upon completing his apprenticeship in 1761, Johnson opened his own business; however, he struggled to establish himself, moving his shop times within one year.Awadewit | talk18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, as a publisher Johnson did not just sell books." – not quite what it is meant to be. Probably should be something like "However, it should be noted that, in Johnson's time, the role of a publisher included much more than just selling books" or similar (I don't like the "role" in my sentence, but you can see what I mean).
Coming back to this, I guess that no publisher just sells books – after all, per definition they arrange for the editing, the printing, and so on, as well. Hm. How about something along the lines However, Johnson did more than just tend to the logistics of publication. He also...? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
congers: briefly explain in the text. Readers should be able to understand this article without clicking on wikilinks.
"which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms" - This is not enough? (By the way, I think wikilinks are one of the best things about wikipedia - I don't think that everything can possibly be explained inside a single article. For example, I can't explain the French revolution in this article. The balance is tricky, I admit, but the fact that readers can so easily be taken to further explanations is one of the best parts of the online experience, in my opinion.) Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's enough, since the reader doesn't automatically know that the "which spread" is the main reason for forming a conger, not just some additional side effect you mention here. "congers, that is, special syndicates set up to spread the risk of publishing..." might be better. I think a WP article should be written in a way that it is readable without the average curious reader feeling compelled to follow any wikilink. That reader has heard about the French Revolution, but not necessarily about congers. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: other publishers began including him in congers, a syndicate which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms. Awadewit | talk21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnson formed two friendships that shaped the rest of his life." – as they probably didn't immediately shape the rest of his life: "two friendships that were to shape the rest of his life"?
"Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death." – the only concrete date given is the beginning of the friendship, so perhaps "was to remain J.'s closest friend" would be better?
"This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism, as well as other forms of religious and political dissent." – help me out on this: wasn't Baptist faith a form of dissent, too? In which case this sentence appears to build too much of a contrast (Baptism here, dissent there).
Not worth going into. Now reads: This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism as well as pursue forms of political dissent.Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society." – what logistics were those? It would be great if this could be re-written in a way that the average reader immediately understand why this was a sign of trust.
I don't know, unfortunately. Priestley just let Johnson handle a lot of his correspondence and a couple of the biographers made a bit of a deal out of him letting Johnson handle this particular element of it - probably because becoming a member of the Royal Society was such an honor and it meant a lot to Priestley. Nothing very interesting, there, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. We should trust the sources, but in cases like this, where the source apparently doesn't give us sufficient information for at least a plausibility check how the interpretation came about, we should be careful. Which, here, could mean just attributing the interpretation explicitly – including it as a quote. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events" – how come we're talking about events now? What events?
The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. - I think the whole sentence makes it clearer - the John Wilkes election fiasco and the beginning of the American revolution. It is important to make sure that readers know what is going on at each point in history, I think, and what the person's relation to it is. In this case, it is even more important, since Johnson becomes more active politically later. Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "in any of the events taking place"? I just don't think (small point, admittedly) that the reader can be expected to know that the "growing radicalism" was tied to specific events. It could have been a trend in publishing, in the way laws were introduced in parliament, etc. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a redundancy to be inserted - events always "take place". We don't need to tell readers that. I think that we can safely say that readers will assume that the events are the ones listed and will tie "events" to "radicalism". Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite redundancy, but possibly not the best way of putting this. The proper way of doing this would be to say that it was a time of radicalism, indicate that this radicalism can be tied to specific events, and then take J didn't take part in those events. "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, crystallizing in events such as the John Wilkes election fiasco and <please insert another event here>. Although Johnson did not actively participate..." --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really quite comfortable with this sentence as it stands. I think it is quite clear; it defines the growing radicalism through the events that Johnson didn't participate in but published works about, a fair and accurate statement: The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies.Awadewit | talk06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." – again, somehow "where he would remain" sounds better to my ear, may be because it fits better with the preceding tenses.
"Starting in the 1770s, Johnson published fewer generalized religious tracts" – "generalized"? From what? "Fewer tracts on the subject of religion in general"?
Changed to: Johnson published more specifically Unitarian works, as well as texts advocating religious toleration; he also became personally involved in the Unitarian cause.Awadewit | talk03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnson actively participated in efforts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts" – I keep trying to think of a way you can "participate in efforts" other than "actively". But may be it's just me.
"Although Johnson became known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews." – I know what you mean, but it sounds a bit off. The "Although" refers only to the fact that most people know him as a publisher of X (while he was also a publisher of Y), but as it is written, it sounds as if being known for publishing X would somehow restrict the publishing of Y. Either "it is a fact that he also" or something about his other activities being less well-known?
Now in the present tense: Although Johnson is known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews.Awadewit | talk03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a political risk as the American colonies were in rebellion" – an additional "by that time" would be good, seeing that we're tracing developments starting at a time before the revolution.
"because Dr. James's Fever Powder was quite popular and his fellow bookseller John Newbery made his fortune from it." – "had made his fortune", probably. And how? Did the bookseller sell medicine, as well? Had he sold books about it? A brief explanation would be welcome.
Changed to "had made his fortune from selling it". I don't want to go into a big tangent here on Newbery's fortune. I plan on writing the Newbery article someday - all will be explained in more detail there. (Hopefully the reader remembers the quote about publishers selling medicines in particular from earlier in the article!) Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnson also contributed significantly to the development of children's literature in the eighteenth century, a genre that was just then emerging." – reads a bit strange. The genre is "children's literature in the eighteenth century"? Or "children's literature"? May be this should be two sentences. Or a different construction ("the newly emerging genre of...").
"become the center of a radical and stimulating intellectual milieu" – can something become the "center" of a "milieu"? Or is that a mildly mixed metaphor (literally, I suppose a "milieu" is itself the "center of the place")?
Oh, it can't? Hm. The definition is just "the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops", so I think there can be a center. I've always had the feeling that "milieu" is pretty diffuse. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know – but in cases like this, where the exact attributes of some vague term like milieu are not universally known (as I conclude from our small sample-of-two), one should probably refrain from using the term
Well, the exact attributes of all abstract words in historical and literary articles are not universally known. Definitions are notoriously tricky things in language. This one doesn't strike me as very odd. I asked a few other people and they didn't think this was a strange formulation, but they were literary types like myself. Let's see if it gives anyone else pause. Awadewit | talk18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"he usually had only one assistant and never hired an apprentice" – were apprentices "hired" at that time? Weren't they indentured or something? "never took on an apprentice" probably covers everything.
"Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk" – isn't that the norm rather than the exception, publishers publishing at their own risk? I assume that this is not what you intend to stress here; it's more about the risk, in this case, being larger than usual, right?
Many times in the eighteenth century, authors published at their own risk (Jane Austen did this, for example). In this case, Johnson took the risk (which was also riskier for him) - both meanings are intended. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. That is an important information that should definitely be in there for the non-18th-century-savvy reader. How about "at his own risk; a remarkable step in an age where most authors published at their own risk" or similar (it can certainly be put more elegantly). -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk (a generous action at a time when most authors published at their own risk), and was rewarded with handsome sales of both volumes.Awadewit | talk
"where they would be sure to see his wares and this helped establish him" – comma after wares?
"James Edward Smith, "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England".[57]" – any reason why this should be a direct quotation? To me, that's suspiciously close to overdoing it.
I just couldn't think of another wording at the time; I was also worried if I just replaced the verb, it would still be plagiarizing in spirit. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is credited with bringing the Linnaean system? Introduced the Linnaean system? Remembered for bringing the Linnaean system? Whose claim to fame is to have brought the Linnaean system? Was instrumental in bringing the Linnaean system? Was responsible for bringing/introducing? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it - simply replacing the verb can still be considered plagiarism. I'm just changing one or two words. Until the entire phrase can be changed, the quotation remains. Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess that, for small sentences like this, you cannot define plagiarism that strictly. "credited with introducing the Linnaean system of taxonomy to English scholars"? I just think that making it a quotation introduces an emphasis that is confusing. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a stickler about this. Plagiarism in the humanities is taken quite seriously and I cannot afford to write anything that has even the whiff of plagiarism about it nor am I interested in doing so. Awadewit | talk06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"book on lithotomy was illustrated by William Blake as well" – comma before "as well". Assuming that whoever wrote this has run out of commas, here's a free sample: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
"notions of the element and the compound" – I'm a bit bothered by the definite article (but again, may be that's just me). "of an element and of a compound"?
Can you leave out the articles altogether? The notions of element and compound? I'm not sure about how to handle this, but "the" sounds off somehow. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"By bringing inventive, thoughtful people together, he "stood at the very heart of British intellectual life" for over twenty years." – this sounds, once more, odd. How can you stand by bringing people together? I think this links one too directly to the other. Especially since the first is true of many people, the last of very few.
I don't really sense the oddness - he's not "standing by" - he's "standing" metaphorically (also meaning "representing"). I also don't think very many people bring together "circles" like Johnson did. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit uneasiness about bringing metaphors too close together. The very heart is metaphoric, and he's standing metaphorically. How about "secured for himself a position at the very heart of"? I won't push this, it was just something that struck me as slightly oddish. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did he do this "securing"? That has whole different connotations for me and in an eighteenth-century context, it sounds like he influenced people to get his position, which he didn't exactly. One usually "secures" positions at court or employment, if you see what I mean. Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"and is believed to have written some 200 articles for his periodical, the Analytical Review" – why the uncertainty? Few copies survive? Articles written under an assumed name, or anonymously?
"Johnson offered Wollstonecraft work as a translator, prompting her to learn French and German." – what's the order here? Did he offer her work despite her not knowing any foreign languages? That sounds a bit odd. Or did he offer her work for some languages she already knew, encouraging her later to widen her linguistic range?
"Johnson encouraged Wollstonecraft to work as a translator, prompting her"? Not exactly the same (doesn't say that he actually offered her concrete projects – I didn't want to repeat "work"), but, in my view, less confusing. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did offer her translation projects, though, so that has to made clear. How about: Johnson provided Wollstonecraft with translation opportunities, prompting her to learn French and German.Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Society for Constitutional Information" – please add a half-sentence explanations. Readers shouldn't have to click.
Added "which was attempting to reform Parliament". I usually only add these when I think they will be helpful. I'm not sure this one explains anything. Sometimes people just have to read more if they really want to know, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"his willingness to publish works that reflected the "challenging new historicist versions of the scriptures"" – is "reflected" the right word here? Can works reflect a version?
It's a common word in literary criticism, but I'll change it as I don't think it is common for other people. New word: "expressed". Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"bestselling poetical works of Cowper and Darwin" – I think most readers will not remember the single earlier mention of Darwin, namely that this is Erasmus Darwin. Somehow, Darwin falls from the sky here, without introduction. I think this should change, including a more explicit statement that we're talking with nature-inspired poetry here. Cowper and his work are properly introduced in earlier parts of the article; why not Darwin?
Are you saying there should be more on Darwin and Johnson overall? One reason for the most extensive Cowper information is that Johnson and Cowper had more of a personal relationship than Darwin and Johnson. (I've added "Erasmus Darwin" to avoid the confusion.) Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"They were apparently close enough friends for Coleridge to leave his books at Johnson's shop when he toured Europe." – how does this indicate close friendship?
According to the sources it does. I suppose you have to think of how expensive books were at the time. They were not easy to replace. Johnson was like Coleridge's safety-deposit box. Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnson also asked that his portrait of Priestley be given "to an American College or Institution for promoting knowledge"." – so where did it end up?
"one of the women writers Johnson promoted and assisted, who also thought of him as a brother and a father" – where does the "also" come from? What else are we told she thought? Or who else thought of J. as a brother and a father?
"this was expected at the time" – "this did not surprise his contemporaries" – or did they come to expect, which always carries a bit of its other meaning of claiming something as ones right, shoddy quality?
It was expected of ephemeral literature at the time, whether printed by Johnson or not. Changed to "this was expected by his contemporaries". Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA status and I would like to someday see it become a featured article. I'm a bit unsure as to what needs to be done to this artice before it can reach this status, and I was hoping that a peer review could help to improve the overall quality of the article.
I'll see if I can review the article to help improve it, though I don't have the time today. A few points, though: 1) Remove the YouTube video external links -- they are both potential copyright violations and inappropriately embedded in the article body. 2) Reduce the length of the Cast section to only the major roles. This is an encyclopedia, so we should not indiscriminately list every actor in the film. We have the the film's end credits and IMDb's electronic copy for that. 3) For critical reviews, can you specify more about what film critics liked or disliked about the film? I think that the reviews could elaborate more on the pros and cons rather than their general opinion, such as "well-paced story" or "badly developed characters". I've put the peer review on my watchlist, so feel free to respond (which will help remind me to review the content more closely). Hope you can make these changes! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the YouTube links from the Deleted Scenes subsection, but I'm tempted to remove the section entirely, seeing as it doesn't significantly contribute to the article and really only serves to take up space. What do you think? Also, I believe that the Council Members portion of the cast list could be removed, seeing as they're mostly non-notable actors who's only line in the film was to say the name of their character, but what are your views on the Cameos section? I personally find this section to be interesting (I certainly wouldn't have picked up on a lot of it on my own), but I can also see where it might need to be removed. I'll try to work on the critical reviews section as time permits, but I do have a few real world obligations to deal with at the moment (the term is coming to an end and quite a few papers are due), so it may be a bit before I'm really able to sit down and sift through them. Still, I'll see what I can do. —Mears man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to go ahead and remove the Council members subsection, but I've left the Cameos part up for the moment until I hear what others thoughts on that are. —Mears man (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested by the script, I went ahead and expanded the lead section to comply with the guidelines set by Wikipedia:Lead section. I tried my best to cover the remaining portions of the article in what I added, but would you mind taking a look at it to see if you have any suggestions for improvement? —Mears man (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody posted a comment on the article's talk page, suggesting that the Cast section be removed, seeing as it's somewhat redundant. They argued that, because the actors are covered in the infobox, plot section, and pre-production and casting section, having a separate section to only list the actors and their roles seemed a bit unnecessary. While they do make a good point, it seems to me that most film articles include a cast section, so I'm still a bit unsure. Any thoughts or suggestions? Also, if the cast section were to be removed, would the cameos section be removed along with it, or is there another part of the article that that could fit in with? —Mears man (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, a straightforward Cast section does not add a whole lot to a film article. There are other sources that compile the entire cast, such as IMDb. My approach is to write real-world context about the cast in the film. I've done a "Casting" subsection under the "Production" subsection (see Fight Club (film)#Casting) and a "Cast" section in which there is prose and a list of bulleted entries that contain some real-world context for each character (see Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast). I consider it a more unique and encyclopedic approach. That's my $0.02. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through most of the reviews and tried to add more information about their specific likes/dislikes (I think there may have been one that I didn't expand on because I couldn't find much else worth mentioning). Any thoughts, suggestions? Did I add too much, not enough, or just the right amount? Was this the kind of stuff you were looking for? (Sorry about all the questions, I guess I'm just trying to get some feedback) —Mears man (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After editing and editing and more editing of "The Carpenters", I feel that this is ready for another peer review. I'm pleased to say that "The Carpenters" looks very professional now, and thanks to the public, is very much better than the original product. Any constructive comments are appreciated! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently created, copyedited and improved the article and believe that the article may be ready for WP:GAN. Before nominating the article for Good Article status, I have listed the article for a peer review. Please review the article thoroughly and inform me of any errors, typos, and guidelines I had not followed in the article.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BOLD about that. It takes you more time to write the sentence of the whole suggestion down here, than it does to add a bracket in the article. Feedback☎04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You rely too much on one source wwe.com, it's made worse by the fact that it's a primary source as well it would help it's chances of becoming GA if you get more varied sources than you have right now.
I sourced everything with WWE.com, because nothing in the article was objective. The article is completely subjective, and mostly about feud-growths, and match results. How can any of this be sourced outside wwe.com? Feedback☎03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reveals the result of the Cena/Umaga match but not the other matches - consistency please, either all results or no result in the lead.
I was told to only reveal the result of the main event in the lead. I personally don't like spoiling the result until the Event section, but that's what I was advised to do as other PPV articles. So, I am going to need more opinions on this particular point. Feedback☎03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenses, it switches between past and present tense in places you should go through it and check it for consistency.
The "Event" section contains a lot of very short paragraphs, ít doesn't look good - either expand the paragraphs or consider putting a couple of the low card matches in the same paragraph. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations should not go in the middle of a sentence. Also, there are a couple of places where the citations are located before the punctuation. These should be moved behind the punctuation, including periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, etc.
If there is more than one citation for a sentence, they should be placed in numerical order. Also, there should not be a space between them or between the source and punctuation mark.
Most of the sources are from WWE.com, which isn't going to fly if you want the article to be a GA or FA. You need to find some non-primary sources to add to the article.
There is an internal link to WWE.com that should be removed. Websites should not be linked in the text.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but you might want to try and combine some of the paragraphs in both the Event and Aftermath sections. A paragraph that is two or three sentences long is a no-no.
Make sure the titles for SmackDown! and Raw are in italics. Pay-per-view names are not supposed to be in italics, but television shows are.
Done All mentions to the TV Show have been put in italics. The only one not italicized is the mention of Raw in the lead, which is about the brand.
You missed a couple, so I tried to go in and fix it. Check over one more time to make sure I didn't miss any that you missed. lol. Nikki31123:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, copyedit the article. There are a couple of instances where a word or punctuation mark is missing. For example, "Regardless these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall" should be "Regardless of these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall." Also, "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair wearing one of Flair's common robes" should be "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair by wearing one of Flair's common robes." Fix these two sentences (I would have done it, but then I wouldn't have examples to give) and check to make sure this doesn't happen elsewhere in the article.
Done
I know it is hard to copy-edit your own article since you've been looking at it for so long. I went in and fixed a lot of stuff you missed. The difference is here. Things to avoid 1) Don't start sentences with "and" or "however" 2) Avoid contractions such as "can't" or "doesn't" 3) You formatted some of the citations improperly. I fixed them. Make sure you look to see how I did it and understand the correct format 4) There were a few misspelled words
Back to the picture issue, there is a free-use picture of Flair in one of the robes that might be good to use here. A non-wrestling fan wouldn't know what one looked like.
Sorry that I forgot, but I've been so busy with other things. In case you missed where I said it above, I have copy-edited the article for you. The difference is here. It is in your best interest to look over the changes I made so you don't make the same mistakes in the future. The article is looking much better, by the way. Nikki31123:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this a Feautred Article, yet I know I have a ways to go with it yet. Any help is appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Wizardman, you've got your wish. :) I read the whole article. Its rating as a Good Article is well-earned. I learned some things about Nathan that I didn't know from just reading the baseball pages in the Boston Globe or New York Times. I especially enjoyed the trivia that he replaced Barry Bonds on the Giants roster. In all seriousness, there's no serious flaw with the article. It's not missing any information that needs to be there. The only issue I might have is that it's a little more prosaic and boring than your typical featured article. If you could track down one of those Sunday-morning type long interviews to shine a light onto this guy's personality, that might make for a more interesting reading experience. Otherwise, the best way to evaluate its readiness for FA is to try FA and see why people say no. Oh, and for guidance, you can look at Lee Smith (baseball player), which is featured. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:CITE and improve the references - each should give the source, publication date, and author. (by Jimmy The Greek, Sports Illustrated, May 1996.)
wikilink Division III to explain it to people who don't know why it's a big deal that "only div iii colleges showed interest"
Similarly wikilink, rephrase, or explain (probably wikilink, because that allows readers who don't know to look it up, while doesn't get in the way of readers who do know): Academic All-American, Bellingham Giants, what it means to have your number retired, shutout inning, major-league decision, reliever, closer, American League Co-Player of the Week, Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Month, MVP, ERA, and similar baseball jargon
"This transition came with marriage as well" - eww. You're implying his marriage was strongly tied to his promotion; either back that up with a source that specifically says that, or rephrase. In fact, I'd break the family life into a separate section, unless, again you can show that his family life is strongly tied to his career. "With the end of the first season came the birth of his first son, Cole," ... eww. I can just imagine it now: "And you, son, came at the end of my first season. I value you just almost as much as that third trophy on the left there - don't get smudges on it!"
Give some text feedback: words rather than just numbers. What do sports writers say about him? What makes him impressive besides just stats? Does he throw fastballs, curves, sliders, spitters? Does he know when to walk, when to try for strikeout? Is he particularly good at shutting down power hitters, or does he tend to serve them up homers occasionally? You've got some terms there that could use more verbiage - what makes him a "saves leader", a "delivery man"? Is he consistent, erratic, flamboyant, conservative, reliable? What does he do outside the game, does he have any interests in activism, politics, charities, hobbies? --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
