Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

Patrik Berger[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make improvements in advance of a GA nomination.

Thanks, C679 18:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Lemonade51 – Having a glance at the GA criteria this article isn't far off passing, but I think it could be more broad and comprehensive. It is generally well-written – the Liverpool section summarises Berger's time there OK, but prose and referencing needs work. My issues/suggestions are as followed:

  • Have a look at other football articles which are of GA standard. Compare the style and structure, look at its reviewing process and take some ideas on board.
  • The lead needs to be bigger. It should act as summary for the entire article, but in this case it just states Berger's nationality and the leagues he played. Be sure to include his early life, summarise his club career and in a separate paragraph his time with the Czech Republic national team.
  • "The success of the Czech Republic's national team in the Euro 1996 raised the profile of many players – including that of Berger, Pavel Nedvěd, and Karel Poborský — and convinced some of Europe's most prestigious clubs to purchase them." Focus on Berger solely here. Then go on to discuss his move to Liverpool.
  • Under 'Club career', why is Berger's birth place included? Consider creating an 'Early life and career' section, which includes that bit of info.
  • "His uncle is the Czech footballer Jan Berger — He began his career as a youth player at Sparta Prague in 1989", dash can lead to confusion. Readers may think the BIB (bit in bold) refers to Jan instead of Patrik.
  • Do you have any information about his parents?
  • "Unable to reproduce earlier performances, Berger was often confined to the bench in a season punctuated by a hat-trick against Chelsea", maybe rephrase to "Although he scored a hat-trick against Chelsea in October 1997, Berger often found himself named as a substitute."
  • "Berger's dissatisfaction and discord between the midfielder and manager Roy Evans placed his Liverpool career in jeopardy" → "His dissatisfaction at manager Roy Evans placed his Liverpool career in jeopardy"
  • "His agent reported to the media that Benfica, Roma and unidentified Spanish clubs were interested in arranging a transfer from Liverpool.", where's the reference for this?
  • "The appointment of Gérard Houllier as co-manager before the 1998–99 season and subsequent departure of Roy Evans proved" Roy Evans has been introduced earlier, so it's fine to use his surname thereafter.
  • "Newly promoted to the Premier League, Berger was signed on a free-transfer by Harry Redknapp as the south coast side prepared for the campaign by seeking experienced players." this sentence is not cited. Unhyphenate 'free transfer' and possibly link it.
  • Avoid clichés, sports journalse terms like "a return to his best form might be on the cards", "show flashes of what he was capable of"
  • "Berger scored again on 5 May in the penultimate", given you have included the year in the previous sentence, you may as well include it here.
  • "he was told he had played his last game for Aston Villa after urging Villa captain Gareth Barry to move to Liverpool", avoid repetition.
  • Ref 6 and 13 redirects to a search engine.

That's as far as I went with the review. I do think it can be expanded and it wouldn't hurt to have it copyedited before a GA nom. Feel free to get back to me if you have any queries or once you have done my suggested steps and need someone to have another look. I'll be more than happy to dig around and find sources if requested. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the detailed feedback Lemonade51, I cannot find any WP:RS on his parents, but everything else has been addressed. Please take another read through when you have time and raise any outstanding issues here. Thanks, C679 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to improve the article and submit it for FA.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Cirt[edit]

(Having stumbled here from my Peer Review.)

  1. Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. I noticed I remarked on the talk page on the size of the lede back in 2011. The intro still is of meager size, needs to be expanded to adequately function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.
  3. Images:
  4. Redlinks: Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation = not necessary of course, but would be nice to see this article created at least as a nice little informative sourced piece for the readers.
  5. Organization: Good structure throughout. Suggest creating final section, Commentary, for brief discussion of analysis about the case from secondary sources, law journals, legal scholars and academics, etc.
  6. Portals: Consider using {{Portal bar}} to add relevant portals below the External links section.
  7. See also: Think about adding a See also section with 3-5 links or so to other interesting relevant articles.
  8. Further reading: Consider adding a Further reading section with recommendations to the reader for books/articles for more info on related topics.
  9. Image ALT text: Image ALT text checks out okay.
  10. Footer template: Is there a relevant footer template that could be used to link together related caselaw, something like {{US1stAmendment}}, and if not, could one be created maybe?
  11. Referencing: Good job with sourcing so far, but it leaves the impression that maybe there are more sources out there covering the topic, as mentioned above perhaps secondary source commentary and analysis in law journals.
  12. Primary sources: It appears that seven (7) of the twenty (20) sources are primary sources. Perhaps with expansion from secondary sources, this could be mitigated, even if it's just adding secondary source commentary and analysis, as suggested, above.
  13. Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Overall: High quality article with good potential and promise. Keep up the good work, — Cirt (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addressing:

  1. I noticed I remarked on the talk page on the size of the lede back in 2011. The intro still is of meager size, needs to be expanded to adequately function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.
  2. Images:
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 07:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Redlinks: Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation = not necessary of course, but would be nice to see this article created at least as a nice little informative sourced piece for the readers.
  3. Organization: Good structure throughout. Suggest creating final section, Commentary, for brief discussion of analysis about the case from secondary sources, law journals, legal scholars and academics, etc.
  4. Portals: Consider using {{Portal bar}} to add relevant portals below the External links section.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 07:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. See also: Think about adding a See also section with 3-5 links or so to other interesting relevant articles.
  2. Further reading: Consider adding a Further reading section with recommendations to the reader for books/articles for more info on related topics.
  3. Image ALT text: Image ALT text checks out okay.
OK. GregJackP Boomer! 07:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Footer template: Is there a relevant footer template that could be used to link together related caselaw, something like {{US1stAmendment}}, and if not, could one be created maybe?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 07:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Referencing: Good job with sourcing so far, but it leaves the impression that maybe there are more sources out there covering the topic, as mentioned above perhaps secondary source commentary and analysis in law journals.
  2. Primary sources: It appears that seven (7) of the twenty (20) sources are primary sources. Perhaps with expansion from secondary sources, this could be mitigated, even if it's just adding secondary source commentary and analysis, as suggested, above.

Haemaphysalis leporispalustris[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want my article to improve substantially. I believe some of the sections may be lacking and I am unsure if the opening at the top is correct. Please give me instruction on how I may improve this and what I need to improve other sections or if there is any section that needs to be added.

Thanks, EmilyAnneWood1995 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there; interesting choice of topic. Here are some things you may want to look into improving:

  • "H. leporispalustris is known to have one of the largest distributions for a New World." What does this mean? A New World tick?
  • wood tick is a disambiguation link. Which wood tick do you mean?
  • The article currently lacks a description section. We really need to see a description of the morphology of the species.
  • We also lack a taxonomy section. This would include details about the species's original description, any change of name/taxonomic controversies, an etymology of the name if possible, any synonyms and any information about its taxonomic placement.
  • Could you be more specific than "jackrabbit"? That just links back to hare.
  • I'd recommend referring to the species as Haemaphysalis leporispalustris rather than as a "rabbit tick".
  • "Strains of Rickettsia rickettsii, the disease aften of Rocky Mountain spotted fever have been found in the rabbit tick." I do not understand this.
  • A distribution section, detailing the kind of habitats in which the species is found as well as its range, would be an excellent addition.
  • Try to stick to the academic sources where possible!
  • As you asked about the lead section: the lead should accurately summarise the rest of the article. As such, it should not contain any information not found in the rest of the article, and so does not normally need any references.

I've made a few edits to the article, and hopefully my suggestions will give you an indication of what you need to do next. You've done some excellent work on the article so far, and, with a bit more work, this could become a good article- even better, I think it would be Wikipedia's first ever good article on a species of tick (though we do have one on a mite.) If I can be of any help, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or reply to me here. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check kiting[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like a potential GA, but I'd like to seek some additional input before submitting a nomination. It's completely referenced, reads well, and has no concern tags.

Thanks, C(u)w(t)C(c) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

I gave this article a quick scan. Despite the intro above, this article is not completely referenced—the section dubbed "Retail-based kiting" has no cites whatsoever. It also has a "dead link" tag posted as a concern tag. Additionally, it partially overlaps in subject matter with Cheque fraud; a merge should be considered.

I do not believe this article is anywhere near GA Status; it lacks the citations to even clear B Class standards.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not in agreement with the idea of a merge. Check Kiting is a form of Check Fraud, but it's much more appropriate for it to have its own article. C(u)w(t)C(c) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not expect that you would be in favor of a merge. However, the fact that I suggest it points out the lack of demarcation between the two articles.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your edits to this article. I agree that this article would need to be improved before it could be promoted to GA. Some improvements you might want to consider include:

  • References for all paragraphs
  • Rewriting the lead to make it less technical
  • Summarising the examples given, and providing more information on analysis / use in famous crimes / history / current prevalence etc.

I would advise you to find and consult an additional 3-4 sources, such as news articles, books, or journal articles, that detail the use and history of this crime, expand the article with these sources, and then consider nomination. I think that the input of an extra 3-4 good sources would probably help you renovate the article and would make a big difference. I hope this input is helpful! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! C(u)w(t)C(c) 19:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

  • Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 13 links on 19 November 2013 at 06:15. (View results)

-(t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarence Chesterfield Howerton[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominated this again at GA, as I feel that I have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review. I previously listed this for peer review; but got only one response from a plea at the Teahouse, but I would like a more thorough review this time, so that I can pass when I nominate this as a GAN again. =

Thanks, Matty.007 12:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from LT910001[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I think this article is sufficiently well-written to be considered for GA, and has been expanded since the nomination. The verifiability issue is still notable, especially the reference to the two blogs. I would suggest to rectify this, which in my mind would be the major issue preventing nomination, you could directly cite the original article in "The White Tops" Sept./Oct. 1992, as noted on both blog posts (and provided in photocopy form on one). You can provide a link in that citation to the photocopied variant, but unfortunately a blog can't be considered a reliable source. Other than that, I would say that this is a well-written article for which GA is certainly achievable. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done this. Do you think it would pass a GA review now LT910001? Thanks for the review, Matty.007 08:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will respond on or after the 14th (sorry). LT910001 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back! Thanks for waiting. I agree that this is very close to GA standard, and has definitely improved. I am not too sure about the citation standards for photographs. I feel that the citation standards for the images may have to improve. This would be a citation for a website and then the original source. For example "Orig '34 Texas Giant Jack Earle Major Mite Midget Photo". Worth Point. Retrieved 14 November 2013 citing New York Daily News Archive (1932), "Major Mite with Jack Earle"." Other than this, I think this would be ready for GA status, and would encourage you to sort out other issues during the nomination. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, attempted fix. Matty.007 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes from Mr. V[edit]

  • The hatnote is a redlink.
  • Can the lead be expanded at all?
  • Some of the sections are so short that they could probably be put into other sections.
    • Attempted merge of one that could be, the last section I think should remain independent. Matty.007
  • Along those lines, perhaps we should get rid of the one-sentence paragraphs if possible.
    • There is only one, which I think can't really be merged. Matty.007
  • You might want to put an access date in your sources.

Otherwise looks pretty good. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c) 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Vantine84: do you think that this would pass a GA? Thanks, Matty.007 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matty.007: It's looking better. I do agree with the comments in the last GAN - it's a bit brief. A few hundred more words would really help, I think. Is there anything else in the sources? — Mr. V (t – c) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had a thorough look when creating the article, and put in as much as I could, adding 175 words, but that was as much as I could add. I have seen shorter GAs, so would this be an issue? Thanks, Matty.007 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matty.007: I think your chances are good; you've done pretty well with what you have. All depends on the reviewer, I suppose. Good luck!— Mr. V (t – c) 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Matty.007 19:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steam (software)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as not only one of the chief contributors and organizers for the Valve task force and a prominent contributor to the video game task force, I feel like the subject matter of this article requires enhanced quality. I recently called for this article to receive a B-Class rating and upon receiving it, I was encouraged by Vantine84 to look to improve it so that it could be ready for a GAN. Upon looking through the article, I do see room for improvement, but also recognize that the touch-ups required are not beyond comprehension. Therefore, I would like some thorough feedback of the kind that could help achieve this feat. DarthBotto talk•cont 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. V's thoughts:

  • The article is very sectiony, and some of the sections are rather small (overlay, big picture mode, etc.). Can we condense some of the smaller sections? A more bold edit would be to have only three subsections of Client functionality: one for software delivery and maintenance, another for the user interface including the store, matchmaking etc., and another for other functions.
  • History should probably be the first section in the article, per other software GAs like OS X and Windows RT. This will give the reader some context right off the bat.
  • The software delivery and maintenance section is quite detailed, especially the first paragraph. Perhaps it is a bit too technical for the average reader, who has little interest in filename extensions and such. Keep that in mind for the whole article — your average reader is a tech/software layperson.
  • The steam translation server subsection could be moved up into client functionality and perhaps does not need to be a subsection.
  • Most or all of the history subsections could be removed and condensed into the larger History section. The profitability, November 2011 hack, and vulnerabilities subsections only have a few sentences each.
  • The infobox should have one picture. The store picture can be moved or removed.
  • References could use some cleanup. Some of them have not been accessed for a long time and should be checked for link rot. Others are in a raw form.
  • The prose is pretty good but if you want to take this guy all the way to FAC you'll want a copyedit; you can request one from the Guild.

The main issues are ease of reading, i.e. the section/formatting and overly detailed sections. Work on those and GAN should be fine. It has the potential for FAC and between this peer review, GAN, and possibly an A-class review and copyedit you should get the help you need. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001

Agree with what has been said, the quality of this article is very good, it is very readable. Needs references as stated. One additional thing is that the GA review will require images to not have any issues with copyright. There appears to be one or two flags on the images that may need addressing. I wish you well on your wiki-travels and look forward to this article's GA promotion. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

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

  • Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 140 links on 23 November 2013 at 05:55.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, none of those suggestions are applicable to this article. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's undergone major revisions, and I'd be interested in another editor's suggestions for further improvements.

Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - great, solid article, but for me the lead is a little heavy ... hard to read and a little off-putting. I think it may be too biographically detailed about some not very notable things? - it is a little longer for example than the Abe Lincoln lead, and these two Presidents don't have equal historical interest. Could it be trimmed down to highlight the important elements of his political contribution and be much briefer on his career and personal achievements and struggles etc? The interested reader can then go into the article for more detail. Good luck and good job though overall! Depthdiver (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for undertaking the peer review of such a massive article. As to the lead: I agree! Way too long. I'll work on some condensing and trimming today. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, doing a closer read now ... caught and fixed a few typos - and have some minor points ... Early life and family: this phrase which needs some tweaking -'Grant later recalled that his departure from West Point was of the happiest of his times,'

Military career - ' At the latter battle, Grant dragged a howitzer' - what is that? Sentence needs tweaking - "In his memoirs, indicating he had learned extensively by closely observing the decisions and actions of his commanding officers, particularly admiring Taylor's methods, and in retrospect identified himself with Taylor's style.'

Civilian life: Logic of this sentence is unclear: 'Although unopposed to slavery at the time, Grant kept his political opinions private and never endorsed any candidate running for public office before the Civil War.' Depthdiver (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These should be fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beyond those sentences, is there anything else that you think needs improvement? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there - sorry got caught up in other stuff - will get back and review the rest Depthdiver (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to say quickly, the lead reads well now to me - strong and interesting. Depthdiver (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article is looking good I'm not finding anymore typos or expression lapses - so just a couple of thoughts - 1. Is there a main article about Lincoln's assassination, and if so can it be linked?

2. I would love each main section not to assume that the reader is reading sequentially - for me, main sections need some intro sentences for the reader who has jumped straight there from the contents box E.g.

Section 1868 presidential campaign begins with 'Grant's abandonment of Johnson in the Stanton matter increased his popularity with the Radical Republicans.' - it needs something like 'The 1868 presidential campaign for Grant was shaped by his abandonment of etc etc
And Section: Presidency 1869–1877 begins with 'Breaking a long tradition, Johnson declined to ride in Grant's carriage or attend Grant's inauguration at the Capitol' instead perhaps something like: 'Grant's presidency began with the former president Johnson breaking a long tradition etc etc' ...

Hope that's helpful - Cheers, Depthdiver (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good point, I hadn't considered someone reading it non-sequentially. I've fixed the specific examples you gave, and I'll keep an eye out for others. I linked Lincoln's assassination, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "as military commander in": as commander of the Union Army in (and then you can make do without "Under Grant, the Union Army defeated the Confederate military", if you move "Confederate military")
  • "the war, and secession": chronological order would be better
  • "vestiges of Confederate nationalism and slavery": Neither of those institutions were "vestigial" after the war, except in an unfortunate figurative sense ... some say that we continue to re-fight the Civil War every 4 years at the ballot box :)
  • "During his second term the country's economy was devastated by the Panic of 1873 while investigations exposed corruption scandals in the administration." The two most common meanings for "while" are "during which time" and "whereas", and my guess is that neither meaning is precisely what you want here, so I'd go with "and".
  • "The conservative white Southerners": Not awful, but stylists generally express this preference: avoid "the" if you haven't mentioned the noun (or noun phrase) before, and it's not a proper noun or a noun that usually requires a "the". - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choregos[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am currently working on it as part of a graduate course in Theatre History at Brooklyn College. I would value input on both the content of the article, including any information that appears inaccurate, irrelevant or that veers toward opinion rather than fact, as well as feedback on the overall structure of the article. I would also like feedback on any deviation from Wikipedia style guidelines, particularly in the case of the reference list. I will be working on this article through early December, so any comments or suggested would not only be greatly appreciated, but also very helpful toward earning a high mark on my assignment

Thanks for your help and insight!, Kfurano1129 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • I was surprised at the spelling choregos. According to Liddell and Scott (p. 1668) the Attic and Doric form was "χορᾱγός", rather than the more usual "χορηγός". As the thrust of the article is about the Athenian functionary you need to include this, I think. It might be better as an explanatory footnote rather than in the main text.
    • Anglicised forms – the Oxford English Dictionary gives the main entry as choragus, with the alternative choregus; Chambers does likewise; Collins gives only "choregus". The prevalence of "choragus" is probably because that is the classical Latin form of the word. At all events, you need to mention these two spelling variants.
    • It is also worth giving the English plurals: the OED allows choragi and choregi. For my own part, I'd rename the article and use the English forms throughout. Using the original Greek form of the word in an English article is like referring to Louis XIV as Roi of France or Tarquinius as Rex of Rome; others may disagree with me. (I notice that a JSTOR search gives 333 hits for "Choragus", 311 for "Choregos", and 191 for "Choregus", showing that there is no scholarly consensus on this point.)
    • WP:OVERLINK – I doubt if anyone who reads this article will require any enlightenment as to the import of the words "dramatic" and "playwright". As the Manual of Style rightly says, "Ask yourself, 'How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?'"
  • Duties of the Chorêgoi
    • Sentence case for headers, please, – lower case for "choregoi"
    • How is it that "choregoi" in the lead has become "chorêgoi" here? The circumflex is unnecessary in an English encyclopaedia article, me judice. Be consistent, at all events. The circumflex comes and goes at present.
  • Notable Chorêgoi
    • Titles of plays – some are italicised (Phoenicians) and others are not (The Persians, and Prometheus Bound in the next section.) Consistency, please.
  • Philanthropic context
    • "Though some scholars theorize…" – there are sixty-five words in this sentence. I'd chop it in two, breaking after "impulse" and tweaking the prose accordingly.
    • "subsidization of" – rather a long-winded way of saying "subsidy of"
    • "Aeschylus's" – you've already given him a blue link two paragraphs earlier; no need for another here.
    • "It should be noted, however, that" – see WP:EDITORIAL and blitz forthwith.
    • "liturgical" – I was taken aback by this use of the word, which I think of only in a Christian context. Still, if you're sure it's what you mean, then fine. I just mention it. Please ignore that: I was forgetting classical Greek usage, where "liturgy" has its own recognised meaning. Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have mightily improved this article, and I hope my few comments, above, are of some help in further improving it. Meanwhile I congratulate you on a most interesting and readable piece of work. Did you know, by the way, that Alexis wrote a play about a female choragus, called "χορηγίς"? – Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ssilvers[edit]

  • [1] OK, the article seems pretty clear now that it's all about Athens.
  • Tim's comments above are excellent. Please do pursue his suggestion about looking into Alexis's play Choregi, a comedy about a woman choregos. If you have any questions about how to execute any of Tim's comments, I can help you. I agree that the article should move to either "Choregus" or "Choragus", but I think a more experienced Wikipedian should make the move, as it is rather a technical matter. In any case, we should state the alternate spellings in the WP:LEAD section. Do your sources indicate that the scholars use a preferred spelling in English? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think you need to indicate that the choregos did not direct the play - in Greek theatre, I believe that the playwright directed his own plays. If your sources agree with this, would you kindly note it? Done.
  • Here is more information that might go in the Choregos article (prepared offline by Tim riley):
    • Originally the choregos acted on behalf of his tribe, which collectively won the kudos of a successful performance. Gradually the sponsoring choregoi asserted more personal responsibility, and by the fourth century BC the prize for the choregos was a personal award. The winner was expected to display his trophy in a place of honour [cf. the Lysikrates monument mentioned in the article]. Also, the choregos would normally appoint someone (often the playwright) as Χοροδιδάσκαλος (chorodidaskalos), often shortened to διδάσκαλος, to train the chorus. ref Buck, Carl D. "Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria 1888. III. The Choregia in Athens and at Ikaria. Inscriptions from Ikaria Nos. 5-7", The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts, Vol. 5, No. 1 (March 1889), pp. 18–33 ref Done.
    • Quote: "The sums spent on choregiai show that the duty could elicit vast expenditure. One extremely enthusiastic choregos catalogues a list which represents an outlay of nearly two and a half talents. This includes a dithyrambic choregia at the Little Panathenaea for 300 drachmae, and a tragic choregia for 3,000 dr. The latter figure is roughly ten times what a skilled worker might have earned annually." "chorēgia", Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World
    • The reorganisation of the choregia in 406 BC spread the cost among the wider community – the synchoregia – with the choregos paying only part of the expense. See Capps, Edward. "The Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1896), pp. 319–328 Done.
    • At the turn of the 17th century AD, when the first operas were being written in an attempt to recreate the old Greek dramatic tradition, the position of choregos was revived for a time. It was known in Italian as "corago", and combined the roles of impresario and director. The title fell into disuse. See Savage, Roger and Matteo Sansone. "Il Corago and the Staging of Early Opera: Four Chapters from an Anonymous Treatise circa 1630", Early Music, Vol. 17, No. 4, The Baroque Stage I (November 1989), pp. 494–511 Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:LEAD

I moved the substantial, referenced information out of the Lead and into the body of the article, leaving summary information in the Lead, and I also added summary/overview information to the Lead to introduce the more complete material in the body of the article, all per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ashleybirdsell[edit]

1. LEAD: I like that you included the etymology of the word; I think it’s important to the definition and understanding of choregos. I’m not sure how I feel about the sentence explaining the modern rendering of the term for “grantor,” it felt a bit out of place. Perhaps it could be included in the “philanthropic context” section, maybe as the choregos relates to similar administrative roles today? (Or, it could go in the note at the bottom of the article.)

2. BODY: I think the text is very thorough and answered the questions I had about choregos. I’m not sure if an explanation about the playwright is necessary on a page detailing with the choregos, but I did find it interesting.

3. IN-TEXT LINKS AND SEE ALSO: The in-text links are numerous and add to the overall experience. I felt that links for anything that needed to be explained were right there if I needed it – great job! There is no See Also section, although I’m not sure if it’s even needed, anyway.

Note to students - the "See also" section is not a required section. It is an opportunity to present links to somewhat related Wikipedia articles that are not otherwise mentioned in the article, to enable readers to explore these tangentially related topics. It's kind of like the section at the bottom of Amazon pages that says "If you liked this book, you'll also like ...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. EXTERNAL LINKS: This section links to several relevant and useful articles. I’m not sure how these differ from “further reading,” though.

Good eye, Ashley. The "Further reading" section should be an alphabetical list of major sources that are not used as references in the article and are not available online. The "External links" section should be a list of important sources that are available online, usually in order of importance/general usefulness/prestige. So the online links should be moved down to External links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content and Sources 1. HISTORY AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I really like the “Notable choregoi” section and think it adds to the general understanding of what it means to be a choregos.

2. COMPREHENSIVENESS: I appreciate that the “philanthropic context” section brings the choregoi within a larger realm of philanthropy. I liked that differing viewpoints regarding the philanthropic motivations were discussed.

3. ACCURACY: There are a number of references that are comprehensive and viable by Wiki standards.

4. CLARITY: The article is generally clear and very well written throughout. It feels comprehensive without getting bogged down in extraneous information. The writing style/grammar is great.

5. CITATIONS: There are numerous citations that are appropriate to the article and Wikipedia standards. I am confused as to why there are both “references” and “sources” sections – shouldn’t these be connected to reduce redundancy?

Well, this can be done in lots of ways that are acceptable on Wikipedia. There are several different types of footnotes, and the headings are somewhat interchangeable, but here's what often happens: We have one or more lists of sources that are actually used in the article. These are often divided into (1) book sources and listed alphabetically under a heading called "Sources" and (2) web, news, magazine and other short sources which, together with shortform page references to the "sources", are listed in the order in which they are used in the articele, and are often put under the heading "References". Then we have footnotes that are often longer explanatory notes, and these are often put under the heading "Notes". One could combine two or more of these various kinds of end notes, but the way it is set up in this article is the way that Tim riley (see above), my favorite Wikipedian, prefers to organize them, and if you read some of our longer articles, it makes the most sense to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GENERAL THOUGHTS: The article feels a little short and could use another image. Otherwise, I think it fits well into the context of ancient Greek theatre and philanthropy in general. Really great job! Definitely enhanced my knowledge of the choregos.

Comments from CataVillamarin111[edit]

Wow, Kim… from two sentences to an article. Great job! I love to see how it’s taking shape.

  • LEAD SECTION AND DUTIES SECTION:

I like the explanation about the word’s origin and current meaning. Although I would move its current meaning to the beginning, where you talk about the word’s origin. That way it will probably feel more connected, following a bit on Ashley’s feedback.
Question: Shouldn’t there be a sentence or two about duties? I know you talk about it in the next section, but I feel that you haven’t actually read about what choragi do until you get here.
In the sentence “Such victories…” the word choregos is not italicized. This is just a reminder for consistency purposes 

  • OTHER COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I really like how you write and structure your ideas. However, for clarity purposes I would recommend shorted sentences, because at times you tend to include ideas within ideas making the point difficult to follow.

I would love to read more information on the process by which choregoi are elected. Really Interesting.

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Werner Voss[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want it to undergo a going-over before submitting it for Featured Article Review. As the previous passive Peer Review just completed rendered no constructive feedback, I intend to go proactive and invite known expert editors to participate this time.

My special concern is the Last Stand section. I may have become too detailed there, and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Use of abbreviations: You used KG 4 to denote Kampfgeschwader IV or FEA 7 for Fliegerersatz-Abteilung 7. It is better to introduce the abbreviations such as Kampfgeschwader IV (KG 4—4th Tactical Bomber Wing) or Fliegerersatz-Abteilung 7 (FEA 7—Training Detachment 7). This way the readers have a better understanding what the abbreviation refers to.
  • I am a bit confused by this comment. I currently introduce these two terms, complete with bracketed English translation, before abbreviation is used. Is your objection to the form of my introductions? Or simply to my usage of the abbreviations? Please clarify.
  • Sorry, what I mean is in the article it states "Kampfgeschwader (Tactical Bomber Wing) IV", I believe it is good practice that the reader understands that the abbreviation KG 4 refers to Kampfgeschwader IV. Therefore it is better to write Kampfgeschwader IV (KG 4—4th Tactical Bomber Wing). Now the reader knows that KG 4 is linked to Kampfgeschwader IV.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I can't say I have ever seen your format in use. Generally, after the first full iteration of the unit name, the reader is deemed mindful enough to pick up the abbreviation. However, I have standardized the unit names and eliminated any abbreviations, which should answer.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link Staffelführer to Staffelkapitän. It currently links to the SS rank which is not correct.
  • As the Staffelführer article clearly states in its second sentence, the SS rank was copied from previous World War I usage. The rank of Staffelkapitan did not exist during World War I.
  • Düsseldorf not Dusseldorf
  • Corrected.
  • "His leave chit also cleared him for ..." Sorry but what is a chit?
  • More formal term "authorization" subbed for informal "chit".
  • Please carry on, Mister Bee.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more ideas by Halibutt:
  • the List of aerial victories section lists dates and times of each major engagement, which is fine. However, it cites time of each engagement in the "American army" way (1320 hrs), while per WP:TIME a better format is 13:20. Throughout the article both systems are used.
    • Sharp eyes! I have converted all times in victory list to civilian usage; also, such times as I could find in text. Please point out any others.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "drawn towards patriotic service" - I'd rather reword that. Why not military service?
    • Because he acted as a civilian volunteer driver as well as a militia member.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "he joined the Krefeld Militia" - what unit was that? Was it a Freikorps? Just asking out of curiosity, it doesn't really have to be clarified.
  • "he finished his schooling at Krefeld's Moltke Gymnasium" - I believe de:Gymnasium am Moltkeplatz deserves its' own article (and link) rather than a link to Gymnasium (Germany). If not, why not link the word "Gymnasium" alone?
    • Gymnasium is a disambiguation page. If some other editor should care to write an English language article about the school, I would link.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "disregarding conscription laws, underaged Werner Voss joined Ersatz Eskadron 2" - this Ersatz Eskadron 2 (2nd Reserve Squadron) was part of a pretty notable unit. There were hundreds of Reserve Squadrons in 1914, but only one 11th Hussar Regiment (Germany) (de:2. Westfälisches Husaren-Regiment Nr. 11), why not link it?
  • "Voss enthusiastically recommended the Fokker's adoption while never progressing to testing the Pfalz Dr.I." - unclear. Was he tasked with testing both planes?
    • The source is not specific as to which aircraft he was tasked to test. However, given that he was there to test fly aircraft, it is probable he was assigned to test at least all new fighters, if not heavier craft.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is an "out of control" victory? The term is used at least twice in the text, but it's not explained.
    • I have linked first usage. I also added a See also just under Aerial combat header.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Throughout the article imperial units are being used, even if the pilot was German and Germany uses metric system. Per WP:UNIT the "main" quantity (in this case metres) should be followed by a conversion in parentheses (in this case feet).
    • Corrected. Conversions are approximate, but then so were the estimates of height that were reported.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "he turned to help what he believed to be a Nieuport threatened by German Albatri" - why Albatri and not, say, Albatrosses?
    • In German, "Albatros" is spelled with one "s". British Commonwealth pilots, being grounded in Latin, latinicized the plural to "Albatri" to avoid the awkwardness of "Albatrosses". Because of that, "Albatri" is generally used in the source texts for World War I aviation.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Other than that - great article, it was a pleasure to read.
  • "when German aces fattened their victory lists on the disproportionate British losses" seems a bit opaque, how about "when German fighter pilots shot down the largest number of British aircraft in a month, since the war began."?Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree that I wrote a problematic sentence there. However, the suggested change also has at least one major problem–German observers and bomber pilots also shot down British aircraft. Also, the change is itself rather opague, as it was not a case of a great number of British losses occurring as it was a high percentage of personnel involved becoming casualties. So, yes, a better sentence is needed. But what?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some comments by MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From cavalry to the clouds - mentioned he passed out of officer training but later says he was promoted to an senior NCO, this implies he was not an officer at the point.
    • And indeed he was not yet. I added an explanatory note to his commissioning date, in the next Aerial combat section.Georgejdorner (talk)
    • On second thought, added explanation that officer candidates progressed through the noncommissioned ranks before becoming officers.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aerial combat He received his pilot's badge on 28 May 1916 but he had already passed flying school and become an instructor?
    • Added a note that pilot's badge was not awarded until actual combat patrols were flown.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aerial combat - suddenly introduces 'Jasta Boelcke without making it clear it is the same as Jagdstaffel2 mentioned earlier.
  • Aerial combat - The friendship would continue even after Voss's death doesnt make sense and is followed by with Richthofen scheduled to spend leave at the Voss hunting lodge at the time of the Red Baron's last flight its not clear but does this imply he didnt make it perhaps needs a tweak to make sense.
    • You are indeed correct that this garble needs correction, and not least because it is too early in chronology. I deleted it, only to add Richthofen's use of the Voss family hunting lodge in the Last Stand section.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an 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.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 meters, use 900 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900 meters.[?]
  • Mended.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
    • Devolved the victory list into an ancillary list a la Richthofen. Parent article size reduced by 15,310 bytes, about one-fourth.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), moustache (B) (American: mustache), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), gray (A) (British: grey), grey (B) (American: gray), molt (A) (British: moult).
    • Article written in American usage. Nominator is unaware of any British usage outside of quotations.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 03:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • Just re-read this down to Voss in command; the prose is really good.
  • "Voss had scored 24 victories and awarded": ... been awarded
  • I agree with the commenter above that "Albatri" wouldn't be my choice; people following your link will search for that word in vain, and if they don't know Latin or WWI banter, they may be confused. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Warsaw (1831)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article received plenty of love in the last couple of months, it rose from this sub-stub to its' present state as GA. I believe it is reasonably well-sourced and definitely detailed. It also received plenty of copy-editing from some native speakers. However, I'm wondering what else could be improved before I nominate it for FA status.

Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance, //Halibutt 01:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd encourage you to list the article at milhist A-class review page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

A few comments, not a complete review:

  • "Russian tsar Nicholas I, who has been deposed of Polish throne in January 1831 by the Sejm (Polish parliament).": "had been". "deposed" usually means that a person no longer rules anywhere. If "Polish throne" is right (I'm not sure), it would be "the Polish throne".
  • "Russian forces surprised the Poles in that the main aim of their attack was the strongest Polish position in the suburb of Wola, while the Poles expected": Russian forces surprised the Poles by attacking the strongest Polish position in the suburb of Wola; the Poles were expecting
  • "In 19th century": In the 19th century
  • "incited a wave of sympathy towards the Poles and the Polish question": garnered [or inspired] sympathy for the Poles and their quest for independence. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Congress of Vienna obliged Emperor Alexander I of Russia, in his role as King of Poland, to issue a constitution to the newly recreated Polish state under Russian domination. While the resulting Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was among the most liberal constitutions in the world at the time": Congress Poland agrees: "political autonomy guaranteed by a liberal constitution". But the first sentence doesn't seem quite right; was the Russian government free to put whatever it wanted in the constitution? Was it obligated to grant Poland a form of political autonomy? If the language of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna seems vague on this point, then we might want to quote it so we can see the vagueness.
  • "freedom of press": freedom of the press - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beck v. Eiland-Hall[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Beck v. Eiland-Hall is a fascinating legal case about freedom of speech and a challenge to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which was struck down by a decision relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.

The article has been through three stages of review so far: A deletion debate at WP:AFD, subsequently promoted to WP:GA quality, and then had a copy edit through the Guild of Copy Editors.

Looking for further input to advance the quality improvement process.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notified: User talk:Miniapolis, User talk:Hunter Kahn, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Comments by GregJackP[edit]

*No alt text on most images.

  • Ref 44 doesn't link to the indicated article.
  • No dab links.

I'll try and look at it in more detail, but I can't do a full, thorough peer review. GregJackP Boomer! 05:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to comments by GregJackP
Okay, thank you very much, I'll get on those points and then update back here. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I added alt text for all images, and also asked Rejectwater to have a look at alt text. Ref 44 now has a correct link. That looks like all, for now. — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I updated the alts for the two images slightly. Not sure what to do about the others as they are documents, not images. I highly doubt alts are required for pdf files. However, if they are required, the alt texts would have to be the entire text of each document, which I have no desire to transcribe in any case. As I said, I don't believe alt texts are required for documents. It wouldn't make sense. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that sounds great for now, thanks for those helpful improvements! — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would look at the balance between the amount of text spent on Beck's initial complaint (section WIPO complaint), which was about 300 words, and the Eiland-Hall response, which was about 1275 words. I would try to expand the text on Beck's complaint.
  • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is wikilinked several times, as well as discussed several times.
  • "See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)" should be removed, the wikilink is adequate.
  • "[Beck’s] got good lawyers. I’m very impressed with his attorneys. He’s got to know if he tried to file it in U.S. courts he would have gotten creamed," -- the brackets indicate that the original quote was edited. Since the edit was in the original article, there needs to be a parenthetical notice of the original edit, such as "(edit in original)".
  • "The meme is a parody of from [sic] Glenn Beck’s own argumentation style...." -- same for this quote - the sic is in the original an needs to be identified as such.

I hope this is helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I'll get on addressing these straightaway. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response to 2nd set of comments by GregJackP
  1. This is as reflected of the coverage given to these two events from secondary sources. Beck and his lawyers gave no comments during the entire procedure to media, whereas Eiland-Hall and his representation did comment to media. Therefore, there was much less able to find in research from secondary sources about the initial complaint itself from Beck.
  2. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is wikilinked several times, because it is so crucial to the very crux of the legal argument and final determination in the case, and was even cited by the final decision of the WIPO court itself.
  3. Done. Changed to add "(edit in original)" directly after the edit.
  4. Done. Changed to add "(edit in original)" directly after the edit.

Thanks again for your helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Update: I've done a significant amount of copy editing, in particular trimming down amount of quotations in the article. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

If this article were a penny, it would land tails side every time. I think you need to do something about that. I doubt you can balance the arguments completely, since pro-Beck sources were few, but you need to make the old college try here. I read your comment that well, Beck didn't say anything whereas the other side did. There's still an issue.


  • Lede
  • In the first paragraph, the website is described as "satirical". Was and is this a term accepted by both sides to the litigation?
  • " Randazza asserted Beck's action (going to the WIPO to get the website taken down) contradicted his previous statements that he preferred U.S. law over international law." Does this legally make a difference? Or is it a "gotcha" moment (same with stipulating to the 1st Amendent a little later). It strikes me that the lede is too focused on the case as a bellwether of free speech (and possibly as something in Glen Beck's face) and needs more dispassion.
  • Why is it not POV to mention only one side's counsel?
  • "stipulate to the … " To its authenticity? Or do you mean its applicability in the proceeding? suggest a slight edit.
  • The last paragraph needs balance. It is all one side of the issue. Please do not use Beck to balance it, use those who supported him.
  • The giving of the website sounds very odd. It has been a while since I dealt with such things, but giving him the username and password doesn't change ownership, only filling out the proper forms and so forth with the internet registrar. I looked ahead to how you described it in the body.
  • Background
  • I think you need to separate out better the original "joke" with the Beck incident.
  • You need to properly introduce who Beck is for non-American readers. This can be an opportunity for balance, for example by mentioning the size of his audience, estimated annual income, awards, that sort of thing. Pretend he's a First Amendment attorney. :)
  • I would add "intending it as" before your statement that it was a parody.
  • Every quote or cite I see is approving of Eiland-Hall's actions. If it is so obvious as to be unanimous, then most of it can be safely deleted for running up the score. If it is not so obvious as to meet that standard, then perhaps some disapproving views can be cited.
  • "a way to focus exasperation around Beck's style of commentary into action." I cannot say I've ever listened to him much, but I don't think he spends three hours a day five days a week asking people to prove negatives. Is there anything else, other than his style of how he asks people stuff like that, for which he might come under criticism and that Eiland-Hall and his supporters might disagree with him on? (warning: it's loaded)
  • Litigation
  • If Eiland-Hall chose not to be identified with WHOIS, that should probably be mentioned in the previous section, somewhere around the time you stress that it was just a parody.
  • eNom or NameCheap?
  • The third paragraph of this section seems to be matters that that should just be rolled (if you are rolling, and not having a bong hit 4 Jesus) into the chronology. Possibly if there are materials there not supported by a non-party, then possibly cite to Eiland-Hall inline. But the whole repeated calls to Gawker are inelegant. I do have my doubts Gawker is reliable, and I gather that is why you are repeatedly mentioning it, but I'm not sure that's the best way to handle it. You are still heavily relying on an opiniony, dubiously reliable source. Is there any better source available for any of these points?
  • For what reason did Eiland-Hall register additional domain names? If it was to ensure his page would remain, I think that should be made clearer given that much is made of his turning over the domain name later.
  • The mention of the connection of "Anonymous" with this, including the YouTube and so forth seems very brief and generic. In fact, I overlooked it until I started pulling up the sources.
Litigation
  • I see not only is Eiland-Hall's counsel named and repeatedly quoted in the body, but that Beck's counsel is not, and that for each round of briefing, the amount of space given to Eiland-Hall is larger, in one case considerably so. The analysis of Eiland-Hall's briefs seems considerably more detailed. You also allow one of the sections devoted to Beck's argument to be ended with a quote from Eiland-Hall. I do not see you end any of the sections devoted to Eiland-Hall's argument with a rebutting quote from Beck or a representative. In fact, one of them ends with Eiland-Hall's lawyer allowed to set forth his personal views at length in an interview. So, to summarize, both "merits" sections end with a quote setting forth Eiland-Hall's position or denigrating Beck's.
  • Since Eiland-Hall hired counsel when Beck's counsel made requests on him, presumably this happened earlier? Accordingly it should say "had hired" or similar And how was this possible when they didn't know who he was? Ditto on them mentioning Eiland-Hall in the complaint, as you say they did.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't take any of this the wrong way by the way. It's a fine article, and this is why you have peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No no no, very helpful comments all! I've begun implementing your recommendations and noting it in the edit summary of the edits. I'm going to trim a lot more emphasis on the Eiland-Hall/Randazza side of things, but really I've look in all the secondary source material and there's just not much out there describing the Beck position. There's zero commentary about his lawyers specifically, and none from secondary sources supporting the rationale of his position in the legal case. Not sure what can be done about that. It's just that the article reflects the preponderance of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were some secondary sources that looked neutral on a hasty glance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which ones Wehwalt? I'll go back over them and see if I can add more from them. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response to comments by Wehwalt
  • Lede
  1. Done. Moved "satirical" to later section of lede, good point.
  2. Done. Removed this info from lede.
  3. Done. Removed all mention of anyone's counsel from lede.
  4. Done. Removed this from the lede, per above.
  5. Done. Added more info about Beck to last paragraph of lede. But really this is only to note that in repeated requests by multiple different respected media organizations including for example PC Magazine and National Public Radio, his representatives refused to provide comment.
  6. Done. Removed this from the lede, as not directly relevant to the case itself.
  • Background
  1. Done. Separated background on joke to its own sect.
  2. Note: In process of doing some more research on best way to go about this one. I won't object if someone else wanted to add this info themselves in a new sub sect of the Background sect.
  3. Done. Added "intending it as", makes sense, thanks.
  4. Done. Removed a whole slew of quotes throughout the article.
  5. Note: No, I don't think secondary sources focused much on anything other than this particular aspect of his commentary style. However, if you come across something different in secondary sources about this specific point, please let me know and I'll add it in.
  • Litigation
  1. Done. Added note about WHOIS to earlier sect in article where you suggested.
  2. Done. NameCheap. Fixed the ambiguity here, thanks.
  3. Done. Greatly trimmed this paragraph. "Rolled" it, as you say, into an earlier paragraph. Trimmed out multiple quotations.
  4. Done. Removed this bit, not directly relevant to the legal case itself.
  5. Done. Removed this part, not necessary to mention this for reader comprehension of chain of events.
  6. Done. Removed lots of quotations. Removed multiple mentions of counsel. Note that there are really not many if any mentions of Beck's counsel by name in secondary sources.
  7. Done. Removed this bit. Anyways I think their initial complaint named "Whois" as a party essentially like a John Doe; they probably modified this when he went public with his identity.

Thanks very much, Wehwalt, I tried to address the vast bulk of these point-by-point and the article looks much better and tighter for it. — Cirt (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josve05a (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much, will get on addressing above, point-by-point, soon, but will be traveling out of town with limited Internet access shortly so will be slower than usual to respond to above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think we're all good with respect to all of these points, thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book of Potions[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to know if the time I've put into improving the article has paid off.

Thanks, Yellow Mage (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diggs Nightcrawler[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having created this page and put a lot of my time into it, I just want to see if it's paid off.

Thanks, Yellow Mage (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malaysia–Vietnam relations[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article did not pass the GA criteria according to one reviewer. I think the article meets the Wikipedia:Good article criteria after an energetic effort to expand the article, complete with detailed Bibliography and in-line citations according to Wikipedia's Citation guidelines. There was only one reviewer for the article while the article was nominated, and he had suggested a restructuring of the article which I felt, would break the content flow of the article based on the new structure, but welcomed the reviewer to make edits accordingly if he/she so wishes. It was pretty disappointing as the reviewer was adamant about not making significant edits as the reviewer claimed "a conflict of interest", and the article ended up not promoted at all. I felt that insufficient attention was given to improve the article, and the reviewer seem to "wash up the case" with minimal effort. Feel free to read or go through Talk:Malaysia–Vietnam relations/GA1 for understanding or reference. My perception maybe wrong, too, and I am therefore listing Peer Review for this article. Reviewers are strong welcomed to make any modifications/edits to improve the article, as well as provide additional opinion if the article is suitable for GA status.

Thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an 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.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phaedra (Seneca)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to improve the article as an assignment for the Brooklyn College, History of Theater through 1642 course.

Thanks, Gdirado (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is very good stuff, and I have only the most minor comments, viz:

  • There are stray double quote marks at the very end of the last sentence of "Source material"
  • Wikipedia house style is sentence case, not title case, for section headings. So you have "Plot summary" right but you need to take out the capitals within "Source Material" and "Historical Context and Reception"
  • Your wiki-link to Antiope doesn't point to the page you want it to point to. in the edit screen you should replace it with [[Antiope (Amazon)|Antiope]], which will look the same to the reader, but will point to the right page.
  • words and phrases in quotes: sometimes, I think, you use quotes unnecessarily: "guilty" (Lines 424–834); "brazen", "forward", "correct" and "chaste" (Source material); and "fashionable" and "acted" (Historical context and reception).
  • In addition to the above, may I suggest that you consider switching the Plot summary and Characters sections round? To me, it makes more sense to introduce us to the characters first and then tell us what they did.

I hope these few points are useful. I have just glanced at how the article looked in June before you began working on it, and one cannot fail to be impressed at the improvement. A fine piece of work, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Peer Review by Kfurano1129 (talk)[edit]

14 November 2013 (UTC)

STRUCTURE, FORMAT & APPEARANCE: This article has a strong lead section. It provides a good overview of the topic of the play without going into details covered in the later sections. I particularly enjoy how it not only provides details about Seneca, but also includes reference to other notable versions of the story. My only critique is that the phrase “portraying the title character as sensual and shameless,” borders on opinion, reading a little more like an interpretation than a fact. I think this problem could be easily solved by citing a scholarly work that backs up this character interpretation.

This article has a particularly strong structure. The sections are well organized and build nicely on the topic of the article. I find the plot synopsis particularly useful, as it is divided by line number. All of the sections provide relevant information to the topic of the play, as well as helping create both a context and critical understanding of the text. The “source material” section is particularly relevant in the context of examining a Roman play, and feels very relevant to the overall quality of the article. I don’t believe the article structure requires any addition, elimination, or merging of sections.

In terms of links, this article contains a large number of relevant in-text links that a particularly useful in increasing a reader’s understanding of the topic. I especially appreciate the linking of the character names to articles about their mythical counterparts. The article also contains an external link section. While all the links are relevant, it might be worth exploring the addition of one or two additional links to provide additional context, if reliable web sources can be found. For example, is there further reading on Seneca that could be helpful to the understanding of his version of Phaedra?

Both images contained in the article are works of art representing the characters, and are not only excellent choices for the article, but also compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. My only suggestion would be to move one of the images closer to the top of the article to make it more visually grabbing.

My only overall suggestion in terms of structure is the addition of an “info box” that appears in many Wikipedia play entries.

Note - I disagree about adding an infobox. This is a hotly contested issue on Wikipedia. Those of us who discourage infoboxes reason that the infobox is redundant - summary/overview information should be clearly described in the LEAD section and then expanded upon in the body of the article, so the information in the box is a third iteration; the limits of the box interfere with the lead image; the box tends to accumulate errors and cruft. There are other reasons that I could point you to if you are considering it. For some kinds of articles, like sports or politics, the boxes make more sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CONTENT& SOURCES: Overall, the article provides thorough coverage of the history and historical develop of the play. It provides relevant dates in terms of placing the play in the context of the Roman Theater. It, in facts, contains an entire section devoted to the historical context of this particular version of the play. My only suggestion would be to include the dates of Euripides version of the play in the “source material” section, to more firmly place Seneca’s version in overall historical context.

The information presented in the article is both clear and comprehensive. The writing style is clear, readable, and presents a logical flow of information. To put it simply, the article is well-written and thorough, without being cluttered with irrelevant detail.

Overall, the article complies with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. There is a balance of secondary and tertiary sources that are both scholarly and reliable. The references are also, to my knowledge, formatted according to guidelines. I am particularly appreciative of the “further reading” section. My only suggestion would be to perhaps find one or two additional sources to cite existing information, if possible. This would only increase the strength of the article.

Overall, this article is a strong article and, with a few additions, is on its way to becoming an exemplarily Wikipedia entry thanks to the work of the editor.

Peer Review by Yona M. Corn (talk)[edit]

18 November 2013 (UTC)

Great work Gina! I have but a few comments ....

First of all, you have a great opening, and I am not sure why Wikipedia has it flagged as incomplete ... I'm not sure what I'd do here except maybe tie in the later parts of your article? Again, it looks pretty good to me ...

Please, students, read WP:LEAD. The Lead section should give an overview of the most important points from the entire article below. It should stand alone so that if a reader reads only the Lead section, he or she will get a basic understanding of the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update - Gina has now added some good material to the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLOT SYNOPSIS Very thorough. I am totally unfamiliar with this version of the play, and you summarized it very well for me. My only comment is that your language, while beautiful, might be a bit cumbersome in places for plot synopsis purposes. Example, "emotional frenzy" might be too strong (emphasis on might) ... and the sentence that ends in "for love can be terribly destructive" could lose the adjective. You write extremely well, I am just unsure of some of your use of adjectives when describing a plot summary, which is generally more objective. Hope that makes sense.

I loved how many links you had to related articles! I need to work on that in my article, and I really appreciated this attention to detail that you put into it. You clearly had the needs of the reader in mind, which is so appreciated!

SOURCE MATERIAL I’m having a little bit of difficulty following you in this section. You present a lot of really valuable information, but I feel as if there perhaps needs to be another paragraph? My relative lack of familiarity with theatre history and this play in particular makes me a good test reader for this! It is simply a lot of good information tightly compacted. You might be able to make it more understandable simply by making structural changes as opposed to written one. Also, the sentences get a bit repetitive (“In _____’s version” gets repeated a couple of times) -- that might also help make the section clearer.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND RECEPTION Another great section with some great points. This is probably your strongest and most interesting section. A specific Shakespeare reference would be a good addition, as this is an excellent point. This is the section that can probably be expanded the most because there is a lot of good material here that can be extracted and explored in further detail, should you wish to. You could actually further divide this into subsections: one on Shakespeare, one on other playwrights. All up to you!

Overall, excellent work, Gina! Very enjoyable!

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walking with Dinosaurs (game)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having created the page and put a lot of my time into it, I just want to see if it's paid off.

Thanks, Yellow Mage (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits, Yellow Mage! I'm not sure if there was a reason why this was closed, so I'm going to respond as I see there have been no responses. This article is looking good! It could be improved by adding some additional sources, and adding some information on how it was received and developed. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fort Drum (El Fraile Island)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really want to bring it to GA. It's a C-Class due to ref issues, which I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • "Counter-battery fire from Fort Drum's 14-inch guns and Fort Frank's 12-inch mortars was ineffective. With the collapse of American and Filipino resistance on Bataan on 10 April, only Fort Drum and the other harbor forts remained in U.S. hands." - source?
  • "In 1945, as part of the offensive to recapture Manila, Fort Drum was assaulted by US forces. After a heavy aerial and naval bombardment, US troops gained access to the deck of the fort on 13 April, and were able to confine the garrison below. Rather than attempting to break in, the troops and engineers adapted the solution first used some days earlier in the assault of mortar forts on Fort Hughes." - source?
  • Any more information on what has happened with the fort since 1945? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an 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.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 240mm, use 240 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 240 mm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 15 cm.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Nick-D
  • " is a heavily fortified island fortress" - "was" seems more accurate!
  • The lead should note when the instillation was established, and be fleshed out to a couple of paragraphs
  • Background is needed on why the fort was established (eg, who was it meant to guard against, why was it judged necessary, etc)
  • Who manned the fort in the period 1916-1941? (and can anything be said about the fort in this period? - presumably it was upgraded or at least refitted at some point)
  • Some background on how the system of forts in Manila Bay fitted together and were intended to operate (including how this changed over time) would be good
  • "on 13 January 1942—before the concrete emplacement was fully dry or the gun had been bore-sighted or checked for assurance level—became the first American battery of seacoast artillery to open fire on the enemy in World War II" - is this accurate? The defenders of Wake Island successfully used their coastal artillery during the Battle of Wake Island
  • How did the Japanese use the fort? (eg, what was the Garrison doing there?)
  • What's the history of this facility since 1945? Was any attempt made to use the island after the war, and has it been turned into a protected historical site? Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Just some copyediting notes - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Fort Drum (El Fraile Island), also known": That seems ambiguous to me: it could mean Fort Drum is El Fraile Island, or that it's on or near El Fraile Island. You find out later on, of course, but it should be clear from the start.
  • "after igniting oil and gasoline": after oil and gasoline were ignited
  • "recommended that key harbors ... Consequently El Fraile Island was fortified": This doesn't tell us the time frame. If Manila Bay was one of the harbors selected by the board, then say "recommended that Manila Bay and other key harbors ...". If they made a general recommendation, and El Fraile Island was selected later, then say that.
  • "the harbor defenses, Manila and Subic Bays": I don't follow ... the harbor defenses in Manila and Subic Bays?
  • "the top deck, which was 9 feet below the top deck": How is that possible? - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life Is a Dream[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been working on major changes and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks, CataVillamarin111 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Peer Review by Kfurano1129[edit]

STRUCTURE, FORMAT & APPEARANCE: This article has an exemplary lead section. It concisely and articulately introduces and summarizes the article, and sets the reader up for the details that are to come in the following sections. My only suggestion would be to add a citation to the last sentence about designating the play as one of Calderon’s best known works.

Note - Lead sections should not have references. All of the information in the lead should be expanded upon in the body below (or, the other way of saying this is that the Lead should just give an overview of what's in the body - see WP:LEAD), and the reference should go with the information in the body. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The structure of the article is both helpful and particularly relevant to the topic of the article. I enjoy how the subheadings in each section make it easy to skim and digest, as seen in both the plot synopsis and the themes/motifs sections. The sections that are dedicated to particular issues of interest with the play, including subplots and specific soliloquies are particularly genius, in my opinion, displaying a very keen understanding of what the reader needs to know about the play overall. I also particularly appreciate the “info box.” It provides a quick “at-a-glance” summary of the play. Finally, I really like the bulleted structure of the adaptation section; again, it enhances the article’s readability. I don’t believe that there are any sections that need to be eliminated or merged. I actually think this articles structure is one of the stronger and most logical that I’ve seen in a Wikipedia article about a play. However, I do agree with Catalina that a character list with brief descriptions would help enhance the quality of the article. I would also recommend the addition of a section adding historical context and/or performance history.

While this article contains a thorough and reliable external link section, I think that there are more opportunities for relevant “in text” links within the article. I would suggest reexamining the article with this in mind.

The article contains many images, all of which appear to conform to Wikipedia copyright guidelines. However, there are two images whose relevance isn’t immediately clear: the royal palace and the Oedipus Sphinx vase. I would suggest either adding context through captions (including a possible in-text link) or considering removing one or both of them.

CONTENT & SOURCES: While there is some historical context presented in the article’s introduction, I think this article could be improved by the addition of further history of the play, or perhaps placing the play in the historical context of Calderon’s work, or the greater context of Spanish theater during this time.

The article is written very clearly and, in terms of the more literary elements of the topic, is comprehensive in its breadth. I am particularly fond of the plot synopsis section; it is both clear and very well written. Again, the only thing that I think the article is missing in terms of a comprehensive treatment of the topic is the addition of historical context of some kind beyond the introduction.

In terms of references, the article contains a extensive list of references that are correctly cited throughout the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. The list of references is a well-balanced combination of secondary and tertiary sources. However, there are many sections of the article that require additional citation. I would recommend a reexamination of the existing sources to fulfill these needs or seeking additional sources to support the information presented in these sections. If such sources cannot be found, I recommend the removal of some of this information to increase the strength of the article.

Overall, with the addition of citations, I believe this article is well on its way to becoming a strong Wikipedia entry, thanks to the work of the editor thus far.

Peer Review by Gdirado[edit]

Structure, Format, and Appearance

1. Lead: This section concisely summarizes the content of the article without going into too much detail. It also succinctly highlights the historical relevance and significance of the play. I’m not sure the in-text links to “free-will” and “fate” are needed, but I would defer to a Wikipedia expert on this point.

2. Body: This article is very well structured. It is organized in a clear and readable format with logical headings and sub-headings throughout. I particularly appreciate the clear and illuminating sub-headings in the “Themes and motifs” section, and bulleted “Adaptations” section.

3. In-text links and See also: While the article includes many helpful and relevant in-text links, I think it could benefit from even more additions. A couple of examples I found in the “Themes and motifs” section include: Hinduism, Platonism, and Oedipus. The “See also” section could also benefit from a few additions.

4. External links: This section is comprehensive and links to relevant articles with the exception of the first link. It looks like Repertorio Español took down the information on their 2008 Life is a Dream production.

Content and Sources

1. History and Historical Development: While this is currently a strong article, I think it could benefit from a section that discusses more of the historical context of the play and its reception.

2. Comprehensiveness: This is a very thorough and judiciously researched article. The “Plot” section conveys a very complex story without being too dense or overly detailed. The “Themes and motifs” section is clear and concise, while providing comprehensive analysis. I appreciate the article’s exploration of different interpretations of and criticisms of the play. Overall, I think that the article is thorough in its treatment of the topic.

3. Accuracy: While there are some missing citations, the reference list is lengthy and includes many reliable secondary and tertiary sources.

4. Clarity: This article is very clear and well written. The only critique I have echoes Kim’s comment that the relevance of some of the images is not immediately clear.

5. Citations: With the exception of the few that are missing, this article has an exhaustive reference list and comprehensive citations throughout in appropriate wiki format.

Overall, I think the editor has done fantastic work in improving this article. Great job!

Peer Review Yona M. Corn[edit]

I think you have done an excellent job thus far -- I can't believe there was so little out there about this work! Here are my comments, broken down by section.

OPENING I'm still a little unclear as to what constitutes a good opening on Wikipedia, but I like yours! If anything, it could probably provide less detail, as you start to go into a bit of a plot synopsis.

Please read WP:LEAD. For an example of a good Lead section, see Hamlet. The Lead section must, in addition to introducing the article, give an overview/summary of all the most important points covered in more detail in the article below, including, of course, a brief statement of the plot of the subject play. WP:LEAD says, in part: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [as reflected in the sources cited below, and] significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The ... lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs...." See, in particular, WP:LEAD#Introductory text. See also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SYNOPSIS Really good work here. There are some minor English corrections ... for example “He tells them that his only crime was being born. Clotaldo, Segismundo's old warden and tutor, arrives and orders his guards to disarm and kill the intruders. But he recognizes Rosaura's sword as his own that he had left behind in Muskovy years ago for his child to bear” should be one sentence (comma after intruders). If anything, you could probably cut down the plot synopsis a little bit since it is so in depth, but that is really up to the readers discretion .... meaning, you are very thorough and detailed and some plot synopses tend to be a little more vague. I like the level of description here, though. It gives the reader an unquestionably strong understanding of the story.

Overall, this section just needs some minor grammatical tweaking, which I'd be happy to help you with. Emphasis on MINOR.

Sentences in Wikipedia tend to be on the short side, and our Manual of Style suggests using Plain English style. We are really doing a kind of technical writing, here, unlike essay writing, where sentences tend to be longer. Long, complex sentences are usually broken up here when articles progress to consideration for promotion. I disagree that it would be helpful to combine the sentences as Yona suggests above. I agree, however, that anything we can do to streamline the plot synopsis would be helpful, as it is a bit long. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THEMES AND MOTIFS I like the idea of having a section like this in here. I got a little confused at the second paragraph of "Fate vs. Free Will". I know you are making a connection here, but you lost me! A little more explanation and elaboration would be helpful here.

ROSAURA SUBPLOT Very interesting, especially the information on how Rosaura's character has been viewed by critics. However, I would write with the assumption that your reader is completely ignorant about the subject at hand. I am and so I got a little lost with the complexity of the facts you are presenting. Present the same facts, just expand upon them. You might even get to the point that you are able to create subsections, but you already have a ton of information -- I don't know how easy it would be to get MORE. I think it's just a question of how you are presenting your information.

SEGiSMUNDO'S SOLILOQUY I'm not sure that you need much of the first paragraph here. It could be broken down. Also, I think portions of the second paragraph could go up with Themes and Motifs. Lastly, remind us of what Segismundo's soliloquy is and why it is important (the reader is not going to remember from your plot synopsis)

SEGISMUNDO'S CONCLUSION I feel like this section could use a different title. Also, explain how he is a Machiavellian prince. Once again, complicated concept and your readers might not remember everything. I think there is a balance between being too repetitive and simply reiterating key moments in the plot.

In closing, you have done excellent work on this. Aside from a few grammatical errors that are easily corrected, I would just say to assume a lack of knowledge on behalf of the reader when you are making your more complicated arguments. You have some excellent points, and this is clearly well researched. You just need to expand out in the areas I mentioned. Overall, brava! Job well done!

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

Love's Labour's Lost[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an educational assignment. Feedback regarding any production history info needed (not sure where to find such research), readability of synopsis, and anything else would be much appreciated! I still have a handful of changes to make, including a lead section, but am certainly open to suggestion.

Thanks, Ashleybirdsell (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Peer Review Gdirado (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure, Format, and Appearance

1. Lead: This section needs to be expanded a bit. I would suggest a brief summary of the plot and a sentence or two that highlight the play’s historical relevance.

2. Body: This article is logically structured in appearance, with appropriate use of headings and subheadings throughout. I would suggest the following: 1) Adding Act subheadings to your “Plot” section would provide helpful context on the play’s structure. 2) I think moving the “Editions of Love’s Labors Lost” section between “Film, television and radio” and “See also” would make more sense structurally.

Question – That last point raises a question in my mind – Why are we listing so many editions? Are they all important, or do they all add to the understanding of a general encyclopedia reader? Is there a better way to organize them than alphabetically? Do you have sources that discuss which editions are the "standard" or best-accepted ones? If so, we could have a "selected" list of the most important ones, explaining why the critics/academics see them as the most important ones. See WP:IINFO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to look into this. The list that currently exists was there before I started working on it, so I'm not sure in what context it was created. I like the idea of a "selected" list; I'll see what I can find! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. In-text links and See also: The in-text links are numerous and comprehensive. The “See also” section could benefit from additional links, although I really enjoy the one that is there currently.

4. External links: This section links to several relevant and useful articles.

Content and Sources

1. History and Historical Development: The “Date and text,” “Analysis and criticism,” and “Performance” sections all provide historical context on the play. I would suggest perhaps grouping them together, and maybe finding a way to consolidate them under a historical information heading, especially since some of these sections are so short.

2. Comprehensiveness: This article is quite thorough and detailed. I am especially appreciative of the comprehensive “Themes,” “Music,” and “Adaptations” sections.

3. Accuracy: This article is judiciously cited and includes an expansive list of references from reliable secondary and tertiary sources.

4. Clarity: The article is generally clear and very well written throughout. Most sections are very comprehensive without getting bogged down in extraneous information.

5. Citations: The article includes extensive citations in appropriate wiki-format.

While there are a couple of areas that could use improvement, I think the editor has made some really effective and well-written improvements. Fantastic job!

Thanks, Gina! I appreciate it. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I concur that an info-box is unhelpful clutter for such an article as this. Info-boxes are for the benefit of people who can't read, and this page is unlikely to attract many such. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is good stuff. There has been much excellent (and well-sourced and cited) material added over the past few weeks. It is impossible to disagree that the lead needs fleshing out. What your readers want from the lead (which, alas, is all some of them will read) is a summary of everything in the main text.

I was interested to read that more than 200 years went by without a production. I browsed in the old newspaper archives, and I see that in 1839 The Times was unimpressed: "The play moved very heavily. The whole dialogue is but a string of brilliant conceits, which, if not delivered well, are tedious and unintelligible. The manner in which it was played last night destroyed the brilliancy completely, and left a residuum of insipidity which was encumbered rather than relieved by the scenery and decorations".("Covent-Garden Theatre", The Times, 1 October 1839, p. 5). This production was the first of very few in England in the 19th century. Who's Who in the Theatre lists only two more: at Sadler's Wells in 1857 and the St James's Theatre in 1886. (Parker, John (1925). Who's Who in the Theatre (fifth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 10013159., p. 1126)

Later British productions that might be worth mentioning are a 1965 staging by the Royal Shakespeare Company, with a cast including Glenda Jackson, Janet Suzman and Timothy West, ("More Intelligent Than Theatrical", The Times 8 April 1965, p. 6); and, in 1968, Olivier's production for the National Theatre, with Derek Jacobi as the Duke and Jeremy Brett as Berowne. ("Gentle enchantment of Olivier production", The Times, 20 December 1968, p. 12). Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm going to be working on the lead section this week. Thanks as well for the information, it is incredibly helpful. I'm going to work on shaping these references into a cohesive Performance History section; looking forward to any further thoughts over the next few weeks! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pleasure. From Gaye, Freda (ed.) (1967). Who's Who in the Theatre (fourteenth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 5997224. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) – I see a couple of other 20th century revivals in London that may or may not be worth mentioning, namely: Old Vic, 1936, with Michael Redgrave as Ferdinand and Alec Clunes as Berowne, and 1949 at the New Theatre with Redgrave as Berowne. Whether it is of any interest I don't know, but Who's Who in the Theatre, presumably following archive playbills, press reports and programmes, calls the main character "Biron" in all productions from 1839 until the 1936 production mentioned above, after which the character is given the alternative spelling. Can follow this up in the archives if wanted. The only production I have seen was by the RSC in 1994, of which the critic Michael Billington wrote, "The more I see Love's Labour's Lost, the more I think it Shakespeare's most beguiling comedy. It both celebrates and satisfies linguistic exuberance, explores the often painful transition from youth to maturity and reminds us of our common mortality." ("Love's Labour's Lost, Barbican, London", The Guardian 4 May 1994, p. A5.) Takes all sorts. It bored the pants off me, and, if memory serves, we crept away at the intermission. I must give the piece another try. – Tim riley (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA-class for almost four years and I would like to know how to improve it so it can be ready for an FA nomination.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm doing a quick copy edit now. The article seems well written and comprehensive to me, and I don't believe it needs significant changes to pass FA, which is probably the next step to go through. Let me know when you nominate it so I can add my vote there. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wade's Causeway[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that I have taken it about as far as I can take it without a detailed review by someone familiar with ancient/scheduled monuments or archaeology. I have no particular concerns about the article's structure, copy-editing etc, but I think it would do with a peer review by a subject expert. I have done my best to seek out all manner of published information on the structure, but I am not a historian or archaeologist. I think the article could be A/FA quality if it is given a serious review by a subject expert and reviewed particularly for anything that sticks out as questionable or which I have misinterpreted from the sources. I think this is true of several sections in particular that might require different experts/knowledge to really benefit:

  • Sections on the interpretation of the structure and the history of thought on Roman roads etc in Britain reviewed by an expert on such
  • Sections on Norse mythology and etymology reviewed by an expert on such

Thanks, PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on non-free images by J Milburn[edit]

I'm afraid I'm an expert on either of the things you mentioned- I think your best bet would be to seek out an editor specifically.J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you. I have contacted one editor from the volunteers page directly, who said they may be able to review the article sometime over Christmas, so that may or may not come through, depending on whether they can free up any time. I also have been exchanging a couple of comments with a wikimedian in residence at a trust relevant to the article, and have asked if they would have time to review it too. I'll see if either of those pan out before directly approaching anyone else yet I think - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, I am a little worried about the two non-free images you use in the article- we certainly shouldn't be using a non-free image to lead the article when we have so many free images. We have images which seem to be free from 1918 and 1912; I'm not clear why we need two non-free images from the 1930s. I appreciate that it may seem ridiculous to pick up on such old images, but if they're non-free, they must be treated like any other non-free image. (It's clear that you've put an awful lot of work into this- I'd hate to see it shot down at FAC because of problems with non-free content.) J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright and the various rules around it are something I find very deeply confusing and struggle with. I'm happy to take your steer here on what the best approach to the use of images is within the article. I do think not being able to use images from the 1930s on an obscure monument and in a way that clearly does not deprive anyone of revenue is deeply ridiculous, but as they say "the law is an ass". Please feel free to be bold relating to the images, and perform whatever corrections you think are needed to bring the article's image use into line. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see this has now been done, thank you - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Nev1[edit]

I'm in the process of reading through this article and drafting some comments offline. In the meantime, I wanted to say that what I have read so far is outstanding, and that looking at the overall referencing and structure this is an excellent piece. Some of what I have been preparing was made redundant by parts further along in the article. For example when I read about a possible extension being suggested on the basis of aerial photographs, my next question was has LIDAR been used yet? That is of course covered in the future archaeological work section. Getting off topic, geomatics-group.co.uk allow free access to their LIDAR data for non-commercial uses, though republication is strictly licensed; still a very useful resource, though I've not checked what the coverage is like for North Yorkshire. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Nev. Thank you for the complimentary comments on the article. I have put a lot of effort into it, especially into the research and into the subsequent article restructuring requested at the GA review. Its somewhat of a relief to here that you do believe it is now well structured. With regard to the geomatics group, this is not a site/service that I was aware of, I'll certainly take a look at that resource this evening and see what coverage they do have available, although it might be considered Original Research to provide much commentary/interpretation on any identifiable features evident in it? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using the LIDAR yourself would be original research, so you're right. I shouldn't be complicating matters. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, yes I thought it might be the case. If you do get time to complete the readthrough and draw up some comments, I will be happy to work through the list and try and address any concerns that you have - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the issue about non-free images, I think a reasonably strong fair use case could be made for File:Wade's Causeway on Wheeldale Moor, c. 1931, believed to be photographed by Oliver Butler of Judges Ltd, Sussex.jpg. The image is much clearer than anything on Commons and shows the sandstone paving mentioned in the article. I'm not sure the free alternatives are as informative. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per my comments to the earlier reviewer, I find the entire issue of photography copyright deeply confusing and often contradcitory, so I will have to leave this to other editors. You sound like you agree that the image is reasonable and disagreement with the request for deletion - if this is the case, would you mind commenting on this as per the normal deletion request process please? I don't feel confident enough in my understanding of the issues around image copyright to properly comment. Thanks! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will happily join the discussion. It may be consensus is against including the image, but either way the article is still in good condition. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like that early on the distinction between the scheduled monument and postulated course of the causeway is established. This makes things very clear. The article is excellent, so most of my suggestions are enhancements rather than major changes. I've split them into two groups, the second of which is merely areas which might be interesting to look into but which might ultimately be difficult to work into the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback and suggestions for improvements. I'll start working through these now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor changes

  • "… most commonly attributing its construction to the Roman military in the first or fourth centuries AD.": this extract is from the lead and I think adding "either" so that it reads "in either the first or fourth centuries AD" would make it clearer that it is one century or the other rather than a date range. Using "either" is an approach used later in the article when discussing the date of the structure which I think works well.- Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done No objections here, done now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I've wikilinked this now, cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is mentioned, with reference to Heritage Gateway, that aerial photos have been used to suggest a possible continuation of the causeway. Could it be clarified whether these photos were vertical or oblique? Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heritage Gateway links to PastScape which states that the 2009 aerial photography was vertical [1], do you want me to add this information into the article or is this just for your own interest? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's worth including in the article (apologies for the slow reply). Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done OK, added this now as per discussion - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further information

  • Has anyone suggested where the limestone flags were quarried from? Was it a single site or multiple locations? Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this confuses me too because all sources seem to indicate that the underlying rock is limestone, but yet all but one source says the rocks are sandstone. Combined with several sources stating that epecially Roman roadbuilders made do with whatever material was to hand, I'm not clear where the rock comes from. I'm not a geologist but it just seems very odd if the rock used in the causeway was not quarried locally. I will continue to investigate and try and resolve this - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done As much as I would like to resolve this, I can find no mention in the sources of where the material was definitely or probably quarried from. If I do ever stumble upon a cite for this, I will add it - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The name Wade appears as one of the most common surnames in a 1381 poll tax register from Suffolk,[57] and the names Wade or Wada were common in pre-medieval English history[20]": I can see why the tax register was mentioned, but is there something closer to Yorkshire than Suffolk which can be included? Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This bothers me too, but I can't find anything from Yorkshire yet. I'll keep looking - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statistical analysis appears to have been carried out on the published data from Fenwick's The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379, and 1381, which is published in 3 parts. Frustratingly, the Wiltshire->Yorkshire section (part 3) does not appear to be freely available online, nor can I seem to source it from my library. Since the statistical analysis in the secondary cited source was only carried out for Suffolk, statistical analysis of the Yorkshire data is not available, and carrying out such an analysis myself might classify as Original Research perhaps even if we could get hold of the source. Thoughts? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're right about it perhaps bordering on original research, so given your explanation I would leave it as it is. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done OK, as discussed then, will leave this as-is - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With regards to the Roman dating of the causeway, the 1st-century option is explained well with reference to Agricola and his campaigns in northern England. It might be interesting to include a sentence about what other structures in the region are attributed to him but this isn't a necessity.
I'll see what I can do but there is little or no primary source on this, the dates are really inferences from whether he walloped the Brigantes on his way North to Scotland or bypassed them and left them weakened but unmolested til later. As far as I am aware there is no firm evidence on this. There will therefore almost certainly be no primary sources on any structures definitively linked to Agricola at all. I can perhaps see what the dating evidence for the Cawthorne and Lease Rigg camps is? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I simply can't find anything definite in the sources that I have access to in terms of definitive attributions of structures. With regard to Lease Rigg, Hartley states that there is "meagre dating evidence" and links it with probable construction under Agricola but is far from certain (Hartley, p162). This is probably a bit meagre to try and tie any causal link in between the causeway and Agricola in terms of construction. I'll pop a brief mention in the article that Lease Rigg was probably constructed around 80s AD, as per Hartley. I'm not sure I can state anything more fixed than this - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think including a bit more about the military threats of the 4th century would be instructive if it can be done briefly. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I didn't want to drift too far off topic in the article, but I'll take a quick look at this - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Done now, just padding out the cites for added statements now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do the sources mention whether the clearing of vegetation and heather in the early 20th century accelerated the processes of erosion and this may be part of the reason the gravel surface no longer remains? Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty certain that the clearing of the vegetation is thought to have accelerated the process of erosion since there is mention of this in the same source that mentions a brief campaign to re-cover the causeway to save further erosion. But I'm not sure that any source that I have seen has attempted to link this to the absence of an earlier layer of gravel on the causeway. That would be a lot of gravel to have washed off in a short space of time I think but I'll take a look in relevant sources - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done It is of course hard to prove a negative but I can find no explicitly cited statement to this effect in the sources to which I have been able to get access to, so I am unable to add a statement to this affect at this time - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is strongly referenced, and well written throughout. The sections which stand out to me are and theories on structure's origins and purpose. I think you can be really pleased with this article, and it is clearly an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge about the structure. It will be interesting to see the results of future research. Anyway, I'll keep this article on my watchlist in case it goes to WP:FAC, but if it looks like I've missed it feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for the review and some very pertinent and interesting questions that I will try and resolve. I too can't wait for some body to get sufficient time, funding and interest to revisit the site with modern technology and try and address some of the outstanding questions. Mind you, the mystery and not knowing is half the attraction :-) - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program (Josve05a)[edit]

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

Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I've added a few more wikilinks to some proper nouns and more obscure or regional concepts such as "Welsh borders" and "dry-stone walls". I think any much more than this would be overkill - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done I don't think there is an issue here. I have read that particular policy, and there is no blanket polocy against includion of galleries in articles. Specifically, the article 1750–75 in Western fashion is given as a good exemplar of how to use galleries within articles and it places the gallery near the foot of the article and in order to show off a chronological progression of images. This is exactly what I have done in the gallery, to show the changing face of the causeway over time, particularly relating to its overgrowth. I will change the name of this subsection to bring it more in line with the good exemplar of this policy, by including the date range the gallery covers, but I don't see that anything else needs to be done here - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?] -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at this- PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question: There is no trivia section in the article, which section are you referring to please? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Thanks, I'll take a look at this - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I have used the TOC template to limit the TOC to a depth of 2 to reduce the TOC comment and fix this concern. Your comment on daughter pages is addressed in your later point below and responsed to there by myself and Nev1 - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Excluding notes and footnotes the article i 7,200 words long. That's hefty, but I think is a case of being comprehensive rather than not summarizing things properly, so this needn't be a concern. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done I don't agree that the article needs splitting, for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think the article is long enough to need splitting on grounds of article length alone, because it is 51kb of readable prose (the guideline says this puts it just 1kb above "Length alone does not justify division") so it is borderline only. 7200 words does not seem excessive and is (at less than 10,000 words) within the noted "boredom threshold" for reading. Secondly, the article is on a very specific and cohesive topic. Unlike an example article such as United States, it is hard to envisage a sensible way of splitting the article, or that a reader might be looking for something more specific in content than the article's current topic as-is - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Where I have encountered them in the article, they are used by necessity. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The example you state is "it has been" (ie "it has been stated" as opposed to the preferred non-weasel-word form of eg "Davis states that"with cite. I can find 3 instances of the phrase "it has been":
"English Heritage state that It has been assumed that the road is Roman, being carefully built and well-engineered. THis is a direct quote, so no weasel words
" Its original form is somewhat uncertain since it has been greatly weathered by nature and subjected to extensive damage by man". This is not weasel words.
"Beyond Julian Park, it has been conjectured that the structure originally continued to the Roman garrison fort at Lease Rigg". This is a summary sentence and the following sentence lists the names of several authorities who state specific courses for the structure towards Lease Rigg, so again no weasel words
 Done I therefore think this is done/nothing to do - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends. -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at this - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find nothing in the wikipedia policy docs on a preference for this cite system over the one used. Can you clarify please? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2]c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes ([2]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

— Under 2c. on Wikipedia:WIAFA
-(t) Josve05a (c) 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question: OK, but this mentions that cite templates are not necessary, not that they may not be used or that using them is bad practice. Do you not agree that the cite system used in the article meets the main criterion in the quoted policy for "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes([3])"? This form is exactly what is used, albeit within the cite template system - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I've given the article a thorough proofread and I can find no instances of footnotes being given before punctuation marks. I'm not sure if perhaps the javascript tool you are using is buggy or if this finding is outdated? Marking as done - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done The article has been copyedited several times now during GA review and peer review, and I have had several readthroughs of it myself to iron out any awkwardness in the prose. I'll mark this as done, but if you have any specific concerns over any sentences or paragraphs, please point them out specifically, or just Be Bold and dive in and edit them - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I'm not sure when the javascript tool to generate these was run, but these links lookt o have been disambiguated already, I think based on edits from the earlier GA review of the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting Comments by Dank[edit]

Just some copyediting suggestions: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "which concluded that the structure was a Roman road": which also concluded ...
  • "but some examples reaching": "some examples reaching", or "but some examples reach"
  • "for the reason that": stylists generally recommend tightening this, for instance to "since"
  • "north-north-easterly": north-northeasterly, usually. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at these - PocklingtonDan (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done All done now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mladen Stojanović[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is comprehensive on its subject and I want it to be copy-edited for smooth running, summary style, etc. (I'm not a native speaker of English). After that, I think it could be nominated for GA or FA status.

Thanks, Vladimir (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. The names of the ranks of the Yugoslav Partisans were mainly descriptive by May 1943, not like captain, colonel, etc. Vladimir (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Good effort so far:Reply[reply]

  • the description of Young Bosnia in the lead is not consistent with reliable sources that state it was a term used to refer to a wide range of student organisations. See Robert Donia's Sarajevo: A Biography.
  • the idea that the Partisans under S controlled 2,500 sq km is not reliably sourced
  • In general, more sources are needed.
  • the article needs a thorough c/e for grammar, suggest GOCE.
Thanks for the comments.
    • As for Young Bosnia, I used a major work by Vladimir Dedijer. I don't have Donia's work. In the lede, YB is described as "a youth revolutionary movement whose goal was to destroy Austria-Hungary", which was, according to Dedijer, the common goal of all groups in this movement. Would it be better to describe it as "a youth revolutionary movement composed of a wide range of student organisations whose common goal was to destroy Austria-Hungary"? Though I'd prefer to keep it as short as possible.
      • I don't believe that was their aim, perhaps getting A-H out of Bosnia, but destroy A-H seems far-fetched. I know they were students, but... Donia is available in Google Books preview, I suggest you have a look, he is very well respected on this topic, and he has the advantage of not being a former Partisan.
    • By the end of 1941, most of the area of Kozara, covering about 2,500 square kilometres, was controlled by Stojanović's detachment. The "2,500 square kilometres" in this sentence refers to the whole area of Kozara, not to the territory controlled by the Partisans. The size of the area (2500 km2) and the fact that the Partisans controlled most of it, are sourced in the article. The term "most of it" is a bit imprecise, but there are no data on exactly how many square kilometres were controlled by the Kozara Partisans at that time. Their enemies were mostly restricted to the towns of the area (Prijedor, Gradiska, Dubica, Novi), though they (the enemies) could also move relative freely in most of the Lijevče Plain. The hilly and mountainous parts of the area were mostly controlled by the Partisans.
      • It needs rewording then, at the moment it reads as if the Partisans controlled 2500 sq km.
    • I used relevant sources that are available to me (currently 20). If that is not enough, then we'll have to wait until someone adds other sources. Stojanović is mentioned in English-language sources, but, as far as I know, not sufficiently to write a comprehensive biography.
      • There are quite a few reasonable length paragraphs where the article relies on the memoirs of one or two former Partisans, this is what I am referring to.
    • Yes, copy-editing by a native speaker would be welcome, for a smoother running of the text.
      • I suggest you submit it for GOCE copy editing after it is done here. You won't necessarily get a copy edit here, although someone may do if the urge takes them.
Cheers, Vladimir (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made some changes as you suggested. Regarding "quite a few reasonable length paragraphs where the article relies on the memoirs of one or two former Partisans", could you be somewhat more specific or provide an example of that? And is there something specifically controversial in those paragraphs, or you just object to the very fact that the paragraphs are sourced with works by former Partisans? Vladimir (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article leans too heavily on what are essentially memoirs of senior Partisans, and in the case of Basic at least, Partisans that were close friends/colleagues of S. Some of whom were writing during Tito's reign when there were limitations and expectations on what could be published. I appreciate he is not a household name (except perhaps in Prijedor), but I am just flagging an issue that any reviewer at MILHIST ACR who is familiar with Yugoslavia in WWII will no doubt raise. Heavy reliance on Basic is an obvious one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all its shortcomings, Doktor Mladen by Rade Bašić is the only biographical book on Stojanović. Vladimir (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I understand, nevertheless I would suggest that background or contextual material (like the Young Bosnia example that has now been addressed using Donia) needs to be carefully sourced from non-Partisan academic texts where possible. I strongly suggest you ask GOCE to do a c/e before nominating for GA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 800 metres, use 800 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 800 metres.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favourite (B) (American: favorite), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Overall, a very good article with a lot of potential. I agree with Peacemaker that you ought to have GOCE give it a copy edit before taking any steps towards GAN, MILHIST A-Class Review or FAC. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing: "...was a Bosnian Serb physician who led the Yugoslav Partisans in the area of Kozara, north-western Bosnia, at the beginning of World War II." While 1941 certainly was the beginning of the war for Yugoslavia, WWII itself began in September 1939. Therefore, it isn't correct to say "at the beginning of World War II." Please reword this. 23 editor (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, 23 editor. I'll submit it to GOCE. Made a change as you suggested. Vladimir (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Just some copyediting notes. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "In July 1914, Stojanović was arrested by the Austrian police and later sentenced": "Stojanović was arrested by the Austrian police in July 1914, and sentenced the following year"
  • "He reportedly became a member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia": "reportedly" isn't consistent with the text, which says that he did become a member.
  • "who rose to arms, took control": no comma between subject and verb
  • "arrived to": arrived in
  • "the night between 31 March and 1 April": the night of 31 March
  • "murdered": I think we're generally going with "killed". - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Dank. Fixed as per your comments. Vladimir (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've contributed heavily to this article along with another user. We've been cleaning it up and adding the numerous references it was lacking. Require a fresh pair of eyes to help improve the lead and history sections especially. Working towards an eventual GA nom. BillyBatty (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an 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.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, Don't, haven't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of public art in the City of Westminster[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to submit this list to FLC in the near future, so your comments would be appreciated. In particular I'd like feedback on the opening paragraphs of each section, most of which are not by me (though the longer ones are). Ham 21:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 210 metres, use 210 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 210 metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 26 ft.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • 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] 1978”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

I apologise that you haven't had any comments in over a month. Having had a quick skim of the article, this article is very thorough, well-written, sourced, and would make an excellent travel companion ( :) ). I would encourage you to resolve any minor issues remaining within the context of an FL nomination. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! :) Ham 16:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norwich School (independent school)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has been more or less completely rewritten. At the moment the article is rated start class. The aim is to bump it up to GA status. Any suggestions to achieve this would be much appreciated!

Cheers, Duffit5 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Alack! First comments were not submitted so this is a re-write. This article is very thorough, well-written, and well-sourced. I would therefore encourage you to resolve any issues within the context of a GA nomination. As a note, a GA nomination will require the images not to have any copyright flags, of which I found one or two. Good luck! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments, LT910001. Apologies if this is a basic question, but could you elaborate what you mean by copyright flags, and what would need to be done in order to fulfill the requirement? I also have a question about list incorporation. I know that prose is generally preferred, but I'm not really sure what to do about the Notable Staff section at the end of the article. Do you have any thoughts? Currently it's just a list. Seeing as it has been a month since I submitted this article for peer review I'm going ahead and nominating it for GA. Warm regards, Duffit5 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! When you click on the images, they open in a separate window, one or two may have a little red triangle that states some information is missing with regards to copyright. If that's the case, I'm not actually sure how to go about fixing it, but presumably you can either update the information yourself (if you uploaded it), contact the uploader and request them to change it, or not include the picture in the article. I'm not sure if you can change the details of another user's images, but that may also be possible. I don't see any problem with the list: it's small and appropriately placed, perhaps you could create a List of even older Norvicensians? (I jest: there is no need!) Be sure to run through the article and ensure all text is properly sourced, there are some areas that lack citations and that's necessary for GA promotion. --LT910001 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I will leave the list as it is and hope the image requirements can be resolved in a GA review. In the meantime I'll check for any remaining missing citations. Thanks for the advice. Duffit5 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KFC[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prep it for FA status.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed to pass at FA. It has previously undergone a major peer review but there are still minor issues that need to be addressed. In particular, this article needs a full source check and possibly a copyedit.

Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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


Greek chorus[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to get feedback on how my article is progressing!

Thanks, Yona M. Corn (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ashley[edit]

1. LEAD: The lead section needs to be expanded to give a more general overview of the Greek Chorus and its role in ancient Greek theatre and society.

Actually, that is more for a "Background" or "history" section. The WP:LEAD section is supposed to be an overview/summary of the whole article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. BODY: This is really picky, but I would swap the order of the sentences “The chorus stood in the orchestra” and “There were twenty-four members in comedies”… that would help the flow, since you had been talking about the size previously. (But, not sure if where the chorus stands is relevant to the “Size” section… maybe the section could be “Size and onstage placement” or something similar, if you expand upon that fact.)

I would put the “Sophocles vs Euripdes” section up by dramatic context… I think that makes more sense in terms of flow.

3. IN-TEXT LINKS AND SEE ALSO: There are a thorough number of in-text links to relevant articles, which definitely enhance my understanding of the topic!

4. EXTERNAL LINKS: Is your further reading section the same as your sources? I couldn’t tell. Great sources, though!

Note - "further reading" should be a list of major sources that are not actually used in the article. The Sources section should include the book sources that are used in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content and Sources 1. HISTORY AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I like the idea of utilizing the Etymology section; I would love to see another critical opinion as to its origin (if one exists).

2. COMPREHENSIVENESS: Is there information available as to the first appearance of the Greek chorus in ancient Greek theatre? Or, any outlying Greek plays that were unique in that they did not use a chorus? I think it could be fun to also provide more of a sense of when choral odes occurred in the context of the play.

3. ACCURACY: There are a number of references that are comprehensive and viable by Wiki standards. I’m not sure if it’s correct to call the “stage management” section by that name – maybe “techniques” is a better heading? (Actually, maybe this would be a great spot for the “where the chorus stands” fact to go!)

4. CLARITY: I’m not sure if the “Richard Wagner” section makes sense with the rest of the article. But, if you decide to keep it, I would include it with “Modern choruses.” It’s definitely interesting, just not sure if it’s relevant. The article is generally clear throughout. The writing style is in line with Wiki standards, great job!

5. CITATIONS: The citations that exist are great; there are a few that have been marked as “citation needed” and should be addressed appropriately. Otherwise, the research is great!

GENERAL THOUGHTS: I think the article feels really comprehensive. Are there any more images you could use? You’ve done a great job and I can’t wait to see where it ends up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleybirdsell (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by CataVillamarin:[edit]

I like how this article has progressed. I know this is a hard topic, as most of the information is based on assumptions. However, I like how the different points of view of historians and academics are shown and confronted in the article.

LEAD SECTION: This section could be expanded more. Maybe, I would suggest adding an approximate time frame for when it was used, and the playwrights who made an outstanding use of it.

ETYMOLOGY: I like this idea! Love to see where words come form. Maybe this could be expanded by talking about similar terms from that time (i.e. Choregos) and explain their relation to this term? That could be a great opportunity to link to other wiki articles.

MODERN CHORUSES: I like how it explains how the chorus evolved and is now used is opera. I would like to see maybe more information about the use of the chorus has evolved in the opera as well, as this process can possibly relate or parallel the evolution process in ancient Greece.

Overall, congratulations! I like how everything is clear and easy to understand. Lots of great things can be built upon this organized structure!CataVillamarin111 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ssilvers[edit]

Great job so far. Some thoughts:

  • The Lead section should act as an introduction and overview of the article and should summarize very briefly, all of the major points made in the body of the article below. See WP:LEAD for more information.
  • Etymology - You should also refer to a standard Greek lexicon, probably Liddell and Scott.
  • Stubby sections – The article contained several very short sections. Wikipedia's style guidelines say "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." I tried to combine the short sections with related sections, but if you feel that it doesn't work, feel free to undo it.
  • Dramatic function - More citations are needed. If the material is from the same reference, the reference can be repeated.
  • Modern choruses - The article says: "Opera as we know it today evolved directly out of the Greek style." This is a pretty controversial statement (indeed, I think the Opera project folks would dispute it). It certainly needs a strong reference that specifically says this.
  • Wagner - Your examples show that he made use of Greek drama, but can you be more specific in how he used or paid homage to the Greek chorus, specifically?
  • The Rodgers and Hammerstein and Aristotle references are incomplete. Please add publisher and date information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical note to reviewers: Please do not subdivide using level-2 headings, because they muck up the WP:PR page. Level-4, please (as instructed at the top of the edit window for this page). Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -- (t) Josve05a (c) 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charlie Chaplin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

After 18 months in the making, we think the article is almost ready for a shot at FAC. It recently had a very thorough GA review, but it would be great to get some more eyes before we take that step. Comments on all aspects relating to the FA criteria are very welcome. Thanks -- Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Here are some comments on the first few sections. I have also been copyediting as I've gone along – check the edit history.

Thanks for everything so far. To avoid making this page extremely long, I will only repsond to your points if I have a query or uncertainty - otherwise, assume your suggestion has been implemented. --Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Argh, I'm such an idiot for not noticing this – I've edited a couple of things which I thought hadn't been edited yet, hopefully they were not those which you had already corrected! Also, seconding the thank you to Brian!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
General point

My biggest area of concern is the frequent embellishments of short citations with explanatory comments. One example is ref 6: "Robinson, p. 4 for marriage, p. 3. for Sydney's birth, p. 19 for Charles Chaplin Sr.'s legal responsibility over Sydney." The proper short citation would be "Robinson, pp. 3–4 and 19". Another is ref 45: "Robinson, p. 68; Marriot, pp. 81–84. Chaplin attempted to be a "Jewish comedian", but the act was poorly received and he performed it only once." This kind of commentary, if it is thought necessary, belongs either in the text or in a proper footnote. It should not be included within the citation.

Lead
  • "...continued to hone his craft as he moved to the Essanay, Mutual, and First National corporations." Unnecessary to list the names at this stage, as it is not obvious to the reader that they are studios. I'd omit this detail, thus: "Chaplin directed his films from an early stage, and by 1918 he was one of the best known figures in the world".
    • I rather think the studios should be named in the lead. They are each important aspects of his career (he showed notable progression at each studio) and have their own sections in the article. --Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...his financial independence meant he often spent years on the development and production of a picture". I would replace "meant he often spent" with "enabled him to spend".
  • "His films are characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, and often feature the Tramp struggling against adversity." The latter part of the sentence only applies to his pre-WW2 films, so I'm uneasy with the general "often". A possible rewording: "...pathos, typified in the Tramp's struggles against adversity".
    • The vast majority of his films are with the Tramp (especially for those of us who consider The Great Dictator to essentially feature the Tramp), but I guess that's reasonable. I adopted your suggestion. --Loeba (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Say from whom Chaplin received his honorary Oscar. The quote "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century" is attributed and cited in the main text, so in the lead a brief paraphrase, rather than the actual wording, is preferable, e.g. "his outstanding contribution to the film industry".
  • "often ranked among the greatest films of all time" Briefly indicate whose rankings, e.g. critics, public surveys etc (don't go into detail, though)
    • Has this already been done by you, Loeba, as it now says 'industry lists'? Or should we replace it with 'filmmakers, academics and critics' etc.?
      • Yes I added "industry lists", which I think covers it sufficiently? --Loeba (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background and childhood hardship
  • I'd name the brother, e.g. "Chaplin and his brother Sydney"
  • Perhaps in a few words indicate when Sydney joined the navy, rather than merely mentioning his return from it?
Young performer
  • Note that at the start of the second paragraph I have restored a footnoted sentence to the text; I believe this is necessary for prose continuity.
Stage comedy and vaudeville
  • Ref 45 (at the end of first para), et al. It is generally not good practice to include commentary within citations. If it's significant, it should be in the text, or at least in a footnote. Otherwise it should not be there; short citations should be just that. (Note: this is a recurring issue)
  • "By 1908, Sydney Chaplin had become a star of Fred Karno's prestigious comedy company." This seems rather a sudden elevation to stardom; would it not be better to introduce this information more gradually, e.g. "Meanwhile, Sydney Chaplin had been pursuing his stage career rather more successfully, and by 1908 had become..." etc
  • "a fraction of the company" – is there a better word than "fraction" to use here?
    • It's been ages since I wrote this, but I remember struggling for some time over the best way to phrase it! Any suggestions? There was basically a group from the company that Karno sent to tour America. --Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will continue soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copy edits are great, but there's one potential issue - you tweaked an opening sentence to: "His career spanned more than 75 years, from childhood in the Victorian era until his death at the age of 88", whereas actually his last piece of work was done in 1976, the year before his death. So should we change it back or do you think that's close enough that we can say "until his death"? --Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could make it "until a year before his death". Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Next instalment)

Keystone
  • The opening of the section: "Chaplin was six months into the second American tour when his manager received a telegram..." etc is magazine journalism rather than encyclopedic style. Also I am puzzled by the word "members" – who are "members"of a Motion Picture Company? The interjection "(accounts of whom and where vary)" is unnecessary. I suggest the paragraph be rewritten in an unadorned style. e.g. "Six months into the second American tour, Chaplin was invited to join the New York Motion Picture Company. A representative who had seen his performances thought he could replace Fred Mace, star of their Keystone Studios, who intended to leave"...etc
  • I think "rationalised", rather than "justified"
  • It would be useful, at the start of Chaplin's film career, for readers to be aware of the kinds of film he was initially involved in. I assume short comedies of one or two reels, rather than full-length feature films.
  • The Chaplin quote refers to him introducing the Tramp character by walking on "the stage": did he mean the film set?
    • Must be, he liked to make his writing as dramatic/romantic as possible though! --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a request arrived for more Chaplin films." From whom?
    • Robinson doesn't say outright, but it must have been from movie exhibitors. He says that the orders came from the east of the country, but I don't think we need that detail do we? I've reworded it to "he received orders for more Chaplin films", is that okay? --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "With an insurance of $1,500 promised in case of failure, Sennett also allowed Chaplin to direct his own film." I assume you mean next film. The first part of the sentence is unclear; I assume it means: "After taking out insurance of $1,500 in the event of failure..." etc, and suggest you reword accordingly.
    • I'd appreciate some help with wording this so it's clear: the facts are that Chaplin promised to pay Sennett $1,500 if the film was unsuccessful. --Loeba (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have reworded to "Sennett also allowed Chaplin to direct his next film himself, after Chaplin promised to pay hin $1,500 if the film was unsuccessful." Please feel free to tweak if you don't like this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "highly successful occurs twice in the final paragraph. Try to find an alternative expression for the second.
  • The final words "and so Chaplin waited to receive an offer from another studio" can be assumed from the context.
Essanay
  • Is there any relevance in "In San Francisco..."? It may, however, be appropriate to mention that Purviance was a 19-year-old secretary with no previous film acting experience.
    • I haven't said this outright (several of CC's leading ladies had no, or very minimal, acting experience) but have indicated it ("..who Chaplin met in a cafe and hired on account of her beauty"). --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We should have some date indication for the end of Chaplin's Essanay contract and his move to Mutual.
Mutual
  • Were the "elaborate productions" of shorts or feature films, or both?
  • "Later in life, Chaplin referred to his Mutual years as "the happiest period of my career".
  • "registered for the draft" – I assume that you mean in the USA; the expression does not apply in the UK, and he wasn't there anyway, but this should be made clear. But as a UK citizen, would he have been eligible for the draft?
  • "Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action,[17] and it was reported that nine out of ten men attended costume parties dressed as the Tramp." Two unrelated facts should not joined by an "and" conjunction in the same sentence.
    • Well everything mentioned at this stage is evidence of his extreme popularity...it pretty much a listing of facts to prove this, so I think it's fair to link them? --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • OK, but I would still reword slightly, and consider a split along the lines: "In 1917, professional Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action to prevent tham. It was reported that nine out of ten men who attended costume parties dressed as the Tramp." (The "professional" in the first part is important, and the "who" in the final part is essential). Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First National (1918–1922)
  • "Chaplin paid yet more concern to story construction, and began treating the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot." If this comment relates to the film under discussion, it needs to be reworded, along the lines: "In it, Chaplin demonstrated his increasing concern with story construction, and his treatment of the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot".
Founding United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid
  • Poor choice of section name – these portmanteau combinations rarely work; in this case it reads as though Chaplin founded United Artists, Mildred Harris and The Kid. I think we need to think of another.
    • Heh. Is "United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid" alright? I am quite keen to make clear exactly what is covered in each section, since there's so many different things that happen in his life and I'd like information to be as easy to locate as possible. --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In what sense was the arrangment with Fairbanks, Pickford and Griffith "revolutionary" – what did it revolutionise?
    • Is this okay: "The arrangement was revolutionary, as it enabled the four partners to personally fund their pictures and have complete control." --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, though I would add the words "in the film industry" after "revolutionary". Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the first film to combine comedy and drama" – really? Or do you mean the first of Chaplin's films? As the cited source is Chaplin himself, I'm inclined to think the latter.
    • I'm sure it must have been, at least in Hollywood (films were rigid in the 1910s - it was either a comedy or a drama, and I'm sure I've read that somewhere..) but looking through my books, no-one but Chaplin makes this claim outright. I've tweaked it to "one of the first films" for now, but will continue to look for a source. --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final paragraph is a bit confusing. Was Pay Day or The Pilgrim Chaplin's final film for First National?
    • Yeah that was confusing - I thought I may as well mention that Pay Day was his final two reeler, but that doesn't really need to be mentioned and it just confuses matters. --Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Next chunk: I will reply as necessary to your responses when I am through the review - probably by Friday):

A Woman of Paris and The Gold Rush
  • "revolutionarily" – a bit over the top, perhaps, and seven syllables! Other words: "unique" may also be too strong, but perhaps "atypical"?
  • Recommend delete "amid the historic event". It's not necessary, and introduces confusion about which "event" you're referring to.
  • The slang word "gags" jars a bit, and has too broad a meaning. How about "visual jokes"?
Lita Grey and The Circus
  • There's a problem with "he permanently associated with the film with the stress of its production" – I think the first "with" needs to go
  • Final sentence: "Chaplin omitted The Circus from his autobiography, and struggled to work on it in his later years." Why was he working on The Circus in his later years?
City Lights
  • "proceeded to develop a silent film" is somewhat ambiguous and unclear. "began work on a new silent film, City Lights"?
  • "opportunity", rather than "ability" to record a musical score, I think. Incidentally, is there any information in the sources that explains how Chaplin was able to compose and score orchestral music (a formidable accomplishment) without ant formal musical training?
    • You'll learn all about this in the "Composer" section ;) --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For whom was the "surprise preview" in Los Angeles held, if not for the press?
    • A group of the public (who didn't know what they were about to see). Not sure how/if it's necessary to slip this in? --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Travels, Paulette Goddard, and Modern Times
  • Another awkward section title
    • Really? I thought it was fairly clear that it's just listing the three topics that the section covers... --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK, maybe its just me... Don't worry. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A date indicator in the first the first paragraph would be useful, e.g. we should know when the 16 months' travelling were. You should also indicate where he travelled to, rather than burying this information in a footnote.
    • I've put the dates in the footnote - to be honest, I feel like the information is fine there. Do you definitely think it's important enough to go in the main text? --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • When reading through, I found myself wondering "when was this, and where did he go?" I'd be more than happy with "early in 1931" after "In this state of uncertainty", and the rest left in the footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "writing a serial about his travels" – I think you mean "a series of articles" rather than a "serial"
    • It was a series of articles, but that's often referred to as a serial, no? I've pipelinked it to serial (literature), if that helps? --Loeba (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • A serial and a series are different things. A "serial" is a single narrative in which each episode leads directly to and/or from another. A "series" is a group of articles/TV episodes etc around a common theme. I don't think the link is helpful, as it seems to discuss a quite different form of writing. What Chaplin wrote looks quite definitely like a series of articles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "endurers" isn't really a word. "Victims" would do.
      • Heh, yeah I always knew it sounded a bit awkward but this is another one I remember spending ages trying to word properly, and nothing worked! "Endurer" is included on Merriam-Webster [2] so I decided to go with that...I don't want to describe them as "victims" because they remain cheerful and optimistic throughout the film. They "endure" the difficulties of the depression. Any suggestions? --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • With due respect to the Merriam-Webster compilers, their's isn't in the front rank of dictionaries. I can't find "endurer" in the OED or other principal dictionaries; moreover, the word sounds wrong. I can understand you not wanting to use "victims". The alternative is to reword the phrase, e.g. "Featuring the Tramp and Goddard as they endure the Great Depression..." Or you could use "experience", as a more neutral word. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Great Dictator
  • Link the secion via a hatnote to the article on the film ("Main article: The Great Dictator")
    • Would this not be a bit redundant when it's linked to in the first paragraph and the caption? --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is normally done in such instances. Readers only interested in this film can then pick up the hatnote link immediately. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is probably worth noting – I'm sure some source does – that filming began in the month that the Second World War broke out. Otherwise no comment or ce in this section.
Legal troubles and Oona O'Neill
  • "after their separation" – as they weren't married, better to say "after they separated" - and a date for the separation would be helpful.
    • The period in which they were involved is given in the preceding sentence (we have nothing more definite than "autumn 1942" - even Maland says it isn't clear exactly when things ended). --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the transportation of women" – isn't it "the transportation of women across state boundaries"?
  • You need to explain that by the time the paternity suit was heard the child, Carol Ann, had been born. She is named without explanation in the accompanying footnote, but her existence needs to be made explicit in the text.
    • Ah, this information used to be included but another user removed it because he said the section was too detailed and it was difficult to read. It is important though, I agree. --Loeba (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monsieur Verdoux and communist accusations
  • "In the paranoid climate of 1940s America..." I would avoid the loaded adjective (however appropriate it might be)
  • "campaign to drive him out of the country" – this doesn't warrant quotes, it's plain speech.
  • Per "paranoid", above, "and Cold War paranoia grew"; I'd go for something more neutral, e.g. "Cold War fears"
Limelight and expulsion
  • Was he actually expelled? The text suggest that his return to the US was to be made conditional on an interview, which is not "expulsion" as such. Otherwise, no issues with this section apart from very light ce Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's a difficult thing to name, and a user on the talk page (same one as mentioned above) wanted it to be expulsion. I said "that makes it sound like he was actively chucked out" and suggested "banning from US", but he didn't like that and I didn't want to argue any more. I've gone with "banning from US" for now, do you think that's okay? Chaplin was banned from entering so I think it's a good option. --Loeba (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Perhaps Limelight and US ban would be tidier, although it might be argued that he wasn't actually "banned", merely deprived of the automatic right of re-entry. I won't split hairs, though. "Expulsion" was definitely wrong, and I see that it has gone. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Would "Limelight and leaving the US" be ok? I know it doesn't immediately convey to the reader the fact that his re-entry permit was cancelled, but it is pretty neutral. Or maybe "Last years in the US and Limelight"?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Penultimate chunk: I will finish tomorrow:

Move to Switzerland and A King in New York
  • I'm not sure that "collect his fortune" is the best wording. I doubt that his assets were all readily transportable, and bank balances, even in 1953, could be transferred rather than physically collected. Maybe something more general, like "settle his affairs", would be more appropriate.
    • Yep, only "settle his affairs" is the exact wording used by Robinson! But perhaps it is commonplace enough that we can use it without accusations? --Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "References were made to his arrest and expulsion, while his son, Michael, was cast as a boy whose parents are targeted by the FBI". To what does "his arrest" refer? Also, I have already expressed reservations about "expulsion"
Final works and renewed appreciation
  • The words "on their second release" are a bit confusing, and I think unnecessary.
  • "Commander of the national order of the Legion of Honour" – needs more formal capitalisation: "Commander of the National Order..." etc
    • Done. - Susie
  • "He experienced several strokes..." In view of the previous reference in this section to strokes, perhaps "He experienced several further strokes..."
    • Done. -Susie
Death
  • I am not altogether sure about this source Although it bears the BBC name, it is not necessarily a BBC-acknowledged site - see the disclaimer at the foot of the source page. The facts about Chaplin's illegal exhumation and subsequent reburial are pretty well recorded and shouldn't need a marginal site like this. A possible alternative would be Chaplin's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, which reads as follows (I can supply the necessary citation data):

Ironically the corporeal Chaplin continued to make news, and compete with his famous shadow for the public's attention, when his remains were stolen and held for ransom on 1 March 1978. The kidnappers were caught and confessed to the authorities that they had buried the body in a cornfield about 20 kilometres from the site of original interment. The farmer who owned the field erected a wooden cross supporting a cane and a pair of old shoes to commemorate the spot after Chaplin's body was returned to Vevey cemetery.

    • I think the source is there to specifically reference the fact that he was re-burried in concrete (not mentioned by Robinson or the ODNB). It looks to me like it's a proper BBC source? The disclaimer at the bottom is included on all of their webpages. --Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, that's part of the trouble with BBC sites – trying to establish which are valid and which are not. However, I won't press the point, if you are satisfied that this website is genuine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Only two tributes from the film industry (Hope's scarcely fulsome)?
    • Hmm Robinson doesn't give many, and I think most of the others are mentioned under "Legacy" instead. He singles out the Hope one as particularly touching in its simplicity, and I think it's a nice quote too...erm, I dunno, maybe we can rummage around a bit. I don't have access to any newspaper archives though, perhaps we could recruit someone to look... --Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Not something I'd insist on, but if it gets raised at FAC I'll see what I can do. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Influences
  • "In 1921, he called the comic actor Dan Leno a boyhood "idol of mine"." Awkward palcement for this sentence, with hardly justifiable quotes around a commonplace expression. As the year is irrelevant, I'd simplify to: "The comic actor Dan Leno was his boyhood idol."
  • "Chaplin learnt to vary the pace of his comedy, and not depend on a hectic speed." I'm not sure the last seven words are necessary.
  • "was likely learnt" is closely followed by "was likely inspired". Maybe vary the latter phrase
Method
  • "Until he began making spoken dialogue films with The Great Dictator, Chaplin never shot from a completed script,[340] instead starting with only a vague premise..." The latter part of this statement is somewhat contradicted, later, by "From A Woman of Paris onwards Chaplin began the filming process with a pre-prepared plot".
  • "53 takes per finished take" is correct, but reads oddly. I would prefer "for every finished intake".
  • "Chaplin asserted complete control..." → "Chaplin exercised complete control..."
  • I am not too keen on the "however" in the final sentence, which is placed a long way from the information it qualifies. A possible alternative would be: "In fact, Chaplin often relied on help from collaborators, such as his long-time cinematographer Roland Totheroh, his brother Sydney Chaplin, and various assistant directors such as Harry Crocker and Charles Reisner."
Style and themes
  • Presentation point: one quotebox too many (particularly with an image in the section). At present there is extensive squeezing of text between the boxes.
    • I believe this does need attention. What is the particular justification for so much illustrative material in the section? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "going back to the 1940s" → "since the 1940s"

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And finally...

Composing
  • "Chaplin immediately adopted the use of a synchronised soundtrack..." - "immediately" is unnecessary, and "adopted the use of" is verbose. I suggest: "Chaplin began using...", and perhaps insert "orchestral" before "soundtrack".
  • "he re-scored all of his silent features and some of his short films." What sort of "scores" did the silents and the short films have originally? Are you sure that "re-scored" is right, here?
  • "between the composer(s) and Chaplin" - "between" means two people; if more than two, "among".
  • I would add the words "on the film's re-release", or similar, so that readers don't need to consult the note to find out why a 1952 film received an award in 1973.
Legacy
  • Nitpicking, I know, but you don't "wear" a bamboo cane.
    • Changed to "in 2006 a bowler hat and a bamboo cane that were part of the Tramp's costume were bought". TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
  • "He is often credited as one of the medium's first artists." A more or less redundant sentence, considering what has been written in the first paragraph of this section.
  • "claims" is not a good word to use unless you are asserting something against a denial. Better to use "maintains" or "suggests".
  • "Chaplin was similarly influential on future comedians". I suggest "later" rather than "future" (they're all past, now). Also, "influential on" is a clumsy construction. Personally I'd rewrite the whole sentence to say: "Chaplin strongly influenced the work of later comedians".
  • Although the noun does exist and is properly used here, I'd say "mime artist" rather than "mime"
  • "Chaplin's comedic style has also been detected in ..." Better to reword along the lines: "X has detected Chaplin's comedic style in..."
  • "The 2012 Sight & Sound poll, which compiles "top ten" ballots from film critics and directors to determine the most acclaimed films of all time, saw City Lights rank among the top 50 with critics;" The poll was among critics and directors, so does "among the top 50 with critics" mean that the directors thought otherwise? Or should the words "with critics" simply be deleted? Ah, I now understand that Sight and Sound polled critics and directors separately. This needs to be clearer in the sentence introducing the polls.
  • The sentence concerning Buster Keaton is a real dying fall, having just been reading how honoured Chaplin is in the film industry and beyond. I'd seriously consider dropping this sentence; the article is not, after all, about the comparative reputations of film comedians. Or, at any rate, I'd rewrite it in a different vein, e.g. "In the 21st century, while Chaplin's reputation and popularity remain intact, some writers have expressed a view that Buster Keaton's films resonate more with modern audiences". If Chaplin's reputation and popularity have genuinely declined in recent years, there ought to be more than one sentence reflecting this, and the matter is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead.
    • Well...Chaplin is still highly regarded (as his success in the recent Sight & Sound poll shows), and his name is certainly better known than Keaton's (surely? I grew up knowing the name Charlie Chaplin, but didn't hear of Keaton until my early 20s when I got seriously into film). But film buffs do tend to favour Keaton these days, and his films seem to be revived more often. This fact is mentioned by most Chaplin scholars, so it definitely should be mentioned. But I don't think it's serious enough that it deserves more attention..? Maybe, I don't know. Susie, any thoughts? --Loeba (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Afterthought: just read this again, and Brian your comment "the article is not, after all, about the comparative reputations of film comedians" is starting to sound pertinent. As long as Chaplin is still highly regarded (which he is on the whole), I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not Keaton has overtaken him... Like, I wouldn't really expect to see a comparison between the statuses of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on one of their articles. The comparison is made all the time, and people often chose a favourite, but when it comes down to it they are both very popular and considered extremely influential, and that's all that needs to be said. I guess it's the same with Chaplin and Keaton. I'm just so used to seeing the comparisons between them that it felt necessary to include it in the article! I really don't mind either way, to be honest. --Loeba (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't think it will hurt the article to remove it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
        • I think that would be wisest. I recently got into an argument at FAC when in my article on Michael Tippett I included comparisons with Benjamin Britten. The circumstances were a bit different from here, because "Tippett v. Britten" is the subject of much scholarly writing and is important in an understanding of Tippett's current status as a composer – or lack of it. In the end I prevailed; but in general, it is best to avoid such comparisons unless they are highly pertinent, which is not the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commemoration and tributes
  • "Chaplin has also been remembered in several other ways." A sort of unnecessary introduction, could be deleted. (End the follwing sentence "is named after Chaplin").
Characterisations
  • Minor ce only
Awards and recognition
  • "Chaplin received several awards..." I'd say "several", meaning by definition a small number, is probably inadequate.
    • You want to keep "several"? It indicates not more than four or five; how many awards did Chaplin receive in his career?
  • Knighthood: "awarded" a few sections earlier, "appointed" here. The latter is the more correct.
  • "a joint Erasmus Prize"? I'd say they were joint winners of the Erasmus Prize.
  • I may be wrong, but I think members of the Légion d'honneur are "appointed", too.
  • "It has since been presented annually to filmmakers as The Chaplin Award" To what does "It" refer?
    • It refers to the Lincoln Center award – I hope it makes sense now? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I will try to go through your responses over the weekend, but for the moment I'm done. I have not checked out the images or the sources, and have barely looked at the footnotes – some of which appear rather long, and may be reducible. The article is, I think, a tremendous achievement that will make a splendid FA after a bit more polishing. It may not be an easy ride, however, as this is one of WP's most popular articles, and lots of people will have opinions and will want to express them (not always helpfully). I hope that others will contribute to the review, and I'll be happy to help where I can to prepare the article for its FAC and to look after it there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the compliments, it's great to know you were impressed. I'm aware that FAC is likely to be tough, but it's worth taking a go I think. February 2014 will be 100 years since Chaplin's film debut, and it would be nice to get him on the main page for that... We'll see! Whatever happens, this review has been extremely helpful and the article is better off for all your help. --Loeba (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Glad to have been of assistance. You will see from my acknowledgements, above, to your responses, that I have a few outstanding niggles which, to save you the trouble of going through the long review again, I will list here:
    • Date indication requested in first para of the "Travel, Paulette Goddard..." section (I have suggested wording)
    • "Series" not "serial"
    • Rephrase the "endurers" sentence
    • Add the requested hatnote
    • Use of "several" in the final section when a rather larger number is evident.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Late added comment: The duplicate links checker highlights quite a number of these. Some may be justified but you should check them out. They include: Best Picture; Best Actor; Honoray Award; Venice Film Festival; Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour; University of Durham; University of Oxford; Doctor of Letters; René Clair; Andrew Sarris; Donner Party; Fred Karno; British Film Institute; music hall. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - hopefully all fixed now apart from 1) I'm still not crazy about adding a hatnote, will wait and see if anyone else requests it, and 2) I checked Robinson, and feel pretty sure that "serial" is the right term. Chaplin wrote 50,000 words about his trip (a chronological recount, I'm pretty sure), which was then published as a series in the magazine. Robinson refers to it as a "serialization of his travels". Sorry for not making this clearer before. --Loeba (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indopug comments[edit]

Since you want to take this to FAC, I'll say something I've found myself saying a lot over there of late—if you can trim down the details, you can increase readability significantly. The easiest way to do this is to cut down on lists of items in the prose. Examples:

  • You don't need to name every film in the third para of the lead. "which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess From Hong Kong (1967)" is especially extraneous (if I wanted the names of his films, I'd go to his filmography article, if not Imdb; I'm here for a more subjective understanding). Other name checks can go too perhaps; restrict yourself to naming and writing about a film in a way that moves the story forward. "Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler. " is a good example of how I think we should speak of his films in the lead.
  • im pretty sure everybody is going to skip reading the names of the eight children. If you don't want to excise it, relegate to a footnote.
  • Sections from Commemoration onwards—basically lists of statues, streets, tributes and awards. They don't really add to the readers understanding of chaplin's greatness, because he's already learned this much more powerfully from Legacy. (It's not very engaging subject matter either ("and then he won this"). I wonder if you should transfer it all to a subarticle? By ending with Legacy, you also give yourself a chance to end on a high note—a killer quote summarising his life, work and impact maybe? (As it stands, it ends, like the lead does, with a list of films, all of which feature again in the subsequent filmography section)

Having said all this, this is excellent work. I suggest the above excisions so as to not distract from the highly engaging narrative core of the article.122.164.176.105 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC) (locked-out User:Indopug)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping in and for the compliments! I cam kind of see why you say the names of his films aren't necessary in the lead, but since Chaplin didn't make many features I feel like we may as well name them all? But yes, it can be done in a more interesting way. Something to work on. I don't know, maybe you're right that they don't need to be there. Orson Welles made a similar amount of films, and I'm wondering if I'd expect all the films to be named in the lead or not...I don't know, I don't think I'd make a strong argument either way. It is useful to name them, no? They all form a key part of his career (except his last, I guess), they're all named within the contents, and all get a fair amount of attention in the article. So not mentioning them at all in the lead seems wrong.
I'm afraid I definitely don't agree with removing his children's names. That's an important part of an individual's biography; if someone isn't interested they can easily not read the paragraph, but a lot of people do like learning about the personal lives of celebrities (especially us females, it must be said) and the information should be available. I would however be on board with creating an "Awards and tributes for Charlie Chaplin" article, or something similar, and linking to it as a "See also" in the Legacy section. TrueHeartSusie3, what do you think? --Loeba (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks for the feedback :) I see what you mean about listing the films in the lead... I agree that we should rework it so that it's less list-like.
I'm on the fence when it comes to the children's names. I can see how having a list like that might not look very elegant. But then, if we remove it, I fear that people might leave the article completely ignorant that some of the Chaplin children are famous on their own right (ok, two). I don't think it's necessarily a huge problem if we remove it, but I do find it useful, especially since I think it would look even more clumsy to list all ten in the infobox.
I think a separate 'Awards and tributes' article could be a good idea. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I've thought about these comments a bit more, and wrote this on the subject of possibly creating an awards/commemorations sub-article on the talk page: "At first I thought it sounded like a good idea, but now that I've had more time to think of it, I'm not sure anymore. I don't think those small sections make the article look too 'cluttered' because they are located at the very end, and therefore don't 'mess up' the actual biography / style & themes section. Also, I'm not sure if they would make an extensive enough 'sub-article'. Chaplin did not win that many awards during his career, and there haven't been that many important memorials dedicated to him either." I've also tried to think about ways to reformulate the lead, but I've not been very successful and have started to think that maybe in Chaplin's case we need to make an exception. He only made a handful of features and it is not easy to select the most important of them without giving a biased view.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), harbour (B) (American: harbor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), moustache (B) (American: mustache), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

(t) Josve05a (c) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mylohyoid muscle[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to elevate this to GA status, but am unsure what else could be done to improve it. Would value some feedback (particularly from Anatomy-minded Wikipedians)

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some initial comments[edit]

There appears to be contradictory advice as to how anatomy articles should be standardized. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Anatomy:

  • Location and structure, including size, whether it's a paired structure, attachments/insertions/"parents", subclinical variation
  • Development for discussing developmental biology, i.e. embryological/fetal, associated with structure
  • Function
  • Clinical relevance for discussing diseases and other medical associations with the structure
  • Society and culture (may include Etymology)
  • Other animals (may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-human anatomy in articles that are predominantly human-based)
  • Additional images in a gallery format

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Guidelines#Subsections:

  • Comparative anatomy (for discussing non-human anatomy in articles that are predominantly human-based).
  • Clinical relevance (for discussing diseases and other medical associations with the structure).
  • Etymology (see 'Etymology' below)
  • Development (for discussing developmental biology, i.e. embryological/fetal, associated with structure).

Not sure which we should follow. Best ask a member of Wikiproject anatomy.

  • Embryology- a term needs explaining.
  • Vasculature? Lymphatics?
  • Attachments. There are 2 terms here: origin and insertion. The origin is usually the more fixed structure. Both mandible and hyoid are not very fixed, so I am not sure which is which in this case... need a source.
  • Note that "inferior mandible" is very dated anatomical wording. Mandible and maxilla, not inferior mandible and superior mandible, or indeed superior maxilla and inferior maxilla. These terms might still be used in non human anatomy, but not in modern human anatomy to my knowledge.
  • I have added some info on clinical relevance and spread of odontogenic infection, but need a source. I do not have any textbooks with me unfortunately. Lesion (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggest some content about plunging ranula if you need something more to talk about in clinical relevance section: [3], [4]. Lesion (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Lesion. There are in fact 0 (zero) good articles under the scope of WP:Anatomy that use the recommended guidelines, which leads me to conclude that they may need some slight alterations, and additionally I do not feel they are suited to articles about smaller anatomical structures, as they may produce very sort sections, so I have been trialling a different structure and am attempting to get at least 5 articles to GA status with that structure. Thanks for your comments and edits and I'll get working on them when I come off my break. --LT910001 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puthiya Paravai[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer reviewing, because I want it to become as good as it can. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Josve05a[edit]

  • Use standarized dates. The aricle has 1 date with ISO 8601-format (e.g. 2013-03-03), 46 dates with International-format (e.g. 3 March 2013) and 1 date with American-format (e.g. March 3, 2010). -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 02:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank u for the suggestions. I'll start work soon. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has recently been overhauled. I am looking for feedback before progressing towards getting the article promoted. Currently there are no dab links, all images have alt text, and all external links are working. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hattie Jacques[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Oooh Matron! The inimitable Hattie Jacques was a much-loved figure in British comedy from her work with the Players' Theatre in 1946 through to her appearances in 14 Carry On films and many appearances with Eric Sykes on television and stage. A woman who was conscious of her weight problems , she spent much of her career typecast into roles that played on laughs at her expense, from Sophie Tuckshop in Tommy Handley's It's That Man Again, to Griselda Pugh, Tony Hancock's secretary in Hancock's Half Hour. We hope to go forward to FAC once the PR is closed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "her radio appearances on three hugely popular radio series" – I'd lose the first of the two "radio"s.
    • "fourteen Carry On films" – in the main text you tend to use figures rather than words for numbers over ten: fee for 17 days … 16 episodes between November … a further 20 episodes etc. I prefer them as words, but consistency is wanted one way or t'other.
      • I've gone with numbers over words: although I also prefer words, numbers are preferred in the MOS, and someone will comment on it later... - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early life: 1922–44
    • "Jacques commenced her schooling" – I offer you this quotation from Noël Coward: "I just can't abide the word 'testicles'. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt turn to the good old honest Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!"
    • "the Dean Sisters Academy" – no possessive apostrophe?
      • Somewhat surprisingly, not according to the source. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early post-war work: 1944–50
    • "the play received favourable reviews with the Gloucestershire Echo describing the production as "a noble play", and thought that Jacques was "very solidly in step"" – the syntax has gone off the rails here, and there is some confusion between the work and its production. I suggest: "the play received favourable reviews; the Gloucestershire Echo described the piece as "a noble play", and thought that Jacques was "very solidly in step""
      • Done as suggested
    • "the Alberto Cavalcanti-directed film" – "Alberto Cavalcanti's film"?
    • "despite Le Mesurier being married, albeit estranged from his wife" – you need a gerund here – "despite Le Mesurier's being married" – and this is your second "albeit" in one paragraph, which is at least one too many. I'd lose the first (in "albeit briefly and uncredited") completely, and turn the second into "though"
    • "the "Three Cripples" tavern" – quotes really needed here?
    • "the David Lean-directed film" – as above, suggest "David Lean's film"
  • Increasing fame: 1950–58
    • "copied it out long-hand from the British Museum" – at the BM. Not a prayer of getting anything from it. Or is this "from so-and-so's original at the BM"?
  • Starting on the Carry On series: 1958–63
    • "fourteen films over a sixteen year period" – again (see comment above about the lead) be consistent with figures-v-words
    • "Wilfrid Hyde-White's bottom which was put there" – to avoid ambiguity I'd lose "which was" and replace it with a comma.
    • "no-nonsense Maths mistress" – two points here. It's the second "no-nonsense" in successive paragraphs (perhaps replace the first with "formidable"?) and I don't think Maths needs a capital letter
  • Private turmoil; new acting ventures: 1963–67
    • "as well as recording four episodes of Housewife's Choice, Jacques starred in her own series, Miss Adventure" – as the former was a radio series perhaps clarify whether the latter was also radio or was on TV.
    • "wasn't overshadowed by Margaret Rutherford, who had played the role in the 1945 film version" – Rutherford not only played the role in the film but created it on the stage and played it for ages. [Obiter dicta: I saw the ITV production at the time, and Jacques absolutely ran away with it. Superb!]
  • Return to Carry On: 1967–74
    • "Having received this rejection" – I'd be inclined to lose these four words.
    • "aside from an episode of Catweazle" – aside from? A bit transatlantic, surely? What about "apart from"?
    • "a six-episode series of Charley's Grants" – itals for the title?
    • "where she played Sophie Bliss" – in which she played Sophie Bliss
    • "Although Loving was one of the cheapest Carry On films …" – not sure that this is all that relevant to the Hattie biography
    • "house-bound wife" – the OED has "housebound" as a single unhyphenated word.
  • Life after Carry On: 1974–80
    • "In May 1980" – two points here. I think you might be better to end the sentence where the semicolon now is and make the rest a new sentence. Secondly, who is Bruce Copp? He appears unexpectedly here with no clear context.
      • Done on both points - referring to Copp as "friend" - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "her former residence" – "house", perhaps? (see "testicles")
      • "her former testicles" didn't read well, so I've gone with house... - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reputation
    • "Alan Simpson, the writer of Hancock" – heresy! Co-writer, I beg you.
  • Notes
    • Note l: I watched Titipu at the time and memory tells me that the title was not hyphenated. Memory, for once, is quite right: I've checked the Times and Guardian archives for Dec 1967, and it is Titipu rather than Titi-Pu. (It was, by the way, rather an insipid rehash of the original, but Hattie was excellent in the Katisha role ("Katie Shaw"). I remember her extracting Ko-Ko from prison by matter-of-factly dragging the window bars apart with her bare hands.)
  • Bibliography
    • Two points. First, the MoS is wary of the term "bibliography", because to some people it means books written by the subject of the article and to others it means books about him/her. If all the books at present are cited in the text, then "Sources" seems to be the preferred header. Secondly, if there are any books listed that aren't cited in the text (and I admit I have been too lazy to check), then they would be better listed separately as "Further reading".
      • I've gone with Sources: they are all included in the text (I have a script with flashes up any unused ones). - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's my lot. I was rather shocked to read that by the time Hattie was my age she'd been dead for three years, but, for all that, hers is on the whole a happier biography than some of your tragic previous subjects. This article is well up to standard in all regards and I look forward to rereading when FAC comes along. – Tim riley (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Tim, I have arrived a bit late for this and it looks as though my colleague has beaten me to it. Many thanks for your helpful comments. CassiantoTalk 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary! SchroCat appears to be working backwards, and the first half of my suggestions are still virgin territory, at date of going to press. Do wander in, if you are so inclined. Tim riley (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry - I switched ends at half-time and started working downwards! Many, many thanks Tim: all hugely constructive and helpful and I hope I've done justice to them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Here are some comments on the first few sections. I have also been doing some copyedits as I've read through, so check the edit history.

  • I notice she was "on ITMA"; "on Educating Archie"; "on Hancock's Half Hour". I'm not sure; I know programmes are on the radio, as indeed they are on TV. But surely, people are in the programmes, rather than on them?
  • I wonder if the snippets from Francis Gray, at the end of the lead, can be reorganised to avoid slight repetitions, e.g. "talent", "comic-comedy-comic"?
    • Now done: there's only a comedy-comic overlap, but I think there sufficiently different (and space out) that the result doesn't jar. Let me know if you think it needs further work and I'll see what else I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know at what point Hattie adopted the "C" into her surname, but I found the lack of knowledge niggled as I read the article. This should be noted as early as possible, I believe.
  • "Upon his death, Mary, Jacques and her elder brother Robin moved from Newton in Lincolnshire to London,[8] and Jacques started her schooling at the Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith." This sentence suggests some immediate continuity of events. Yet Jacques was 18 months old when her father dies, and Godolphin and Latimer (which should be linked) is a secondary school. So something like 10 years separate the first and second parts of the sentence. I think we need to acknowledge this somehow; e.g. can we at least give the year in which Jacques started at the school?
    • Now added and re-worked, with mention of the primary school too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do we know how old she was when she attended the dance academy?
    • Sadly not: the sources are rather vague on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "On her return to the Players' in June 1947, the actor John Le Mesurier went with fellow thespian Geoffrey Hibbert to see a Late Joys revue..." I can't help thinking that mentioning Hibbert is unnecessary. Also I'm uncomfortable with "on her return"; I assume it was some time after her return.
  • "...the two began to see each other regularly despite Le Mesurier's being married, although estranged from his wife." The situation does not warrant a "despite", if Le M was separated. Suggest reword.
  • "she also found time during the spring to record No, No, Nanette" – what, the whole show? Can you identify the role she recorded?
    • a little digging, but yes, Asa Briggs shows her as Flora. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tenses proplem: Chance of a Lifetime is a social and industrial relations drama..." – but naming the long-dead Basil Radford in the "is" sentence creates a problem. Unless the play is in the current repertory (which I doubt), I'd say it was a social and industrial drama. And maybe consider whether you need to mention Radford.
    • I've removed the wording "Dickinson (Basil Radford),", which I think was the gist of your second part - it still reads well enough. I thought we put films etc as "is", as copies of them exist, and therefore they still "are"? Happy to tweak as you see fit now that the extra wrinkle of Radford has been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Jacques was broadcast..." – are people "broadcast"? I'd say she was "cast".
  • "As well as recording in series five of Educating Archie between February and April 1955—where she was cast as Mrs Leathers for 18 episodes of Mrs Dale's Diary..." Sorry? This does not make sense. I think you mean she was performing in the two shows concurrently.
    • Sorry for the utter gibberish, mea culpa. I've reworked the last few lines accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "She finished the year with seven episodes of The Granville Melodramas on ITV between October and December." Can you explicate "with"? Was she apppearing, writing, directing?

I'll be back as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit more...

  • I don't like the first "on" in the section title: "Starting on the Carry On series: 1958–63
  • "From 1958 to 1974 Jacques was part of the original Carry On team". I think in this prose format the "original" is unnecessary—she was part of the original cast in 1958, and part of the cast from 1958 to 1974.
  • "a warm, kind-hearted and endearing lady" – such tributes require specific attribution.
    • I'm not seeing enough supporting evidence from the source either, so I've removed the wording. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Other formidable characterisations followed, including the formidable maths mistress" – repetition.
  • Two successive sentences beginning "Later that year..."
  • ""it would be very lonely and far too quiet on the island for someone of her extrovert nature." This is presented in quotes as something that Jacques said – but she can't have said "her".
  • "She appeared in her sixth Carry On, Carry On Cabby in 1963, in which she appeared... – repetition
  • "Jacques continued with her charitable works" – this is the first mention of them in the article. Also, I am not convinced that this short end-of-section paragraph is the best way of introducing Schofield into the story. It should, I think, be appropriately revised and reposition at the opening of the next section.
    • I've had a stab at this. I think it reads OK, but let me know if you think it needs a further tweak. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and tried to repair the marriage". These words are covered by the next sentence and are unnecessary.
  • "Although Le Mesurier did not mention the marital situation..." – clarify whether this refers to Le M's appearance on This Is Your Life
    • Blast, I can't remember and I only watched Hattie two weeks ago! SchroCat, any ideas? CassiantoTalk 01:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, it was on TiYL (some good clips on YouTube show Le Mez trying to phrase things appropriately, but stuggling a little to get the words right). I've tweaked to show it is in response to Sheamus Android's questioning. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the 1963 Tony Hancock vehicle" – specify "film"
  • "five stone": needs a metric equivalent. Do we know what her weight was, after the dieting? That would help us to understand how much she put on when her weight ballooned up to 20 stone.
    • Sadly not: Lewis (the cited source) refers to it and Merriman also has it as part of a large quote from Jacques, but she fails to give a starting point. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more should do it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, it'll be more than one. Here is a bit more:

  • Was "Howerd's Hour" a radio or TV show?
  • "Additionally she also..." I have corrrected this (deleting the "additionally") but there may be other occurrences - check it out
    • Oops, thanks! Checked the rest and no other "Additionally"s are there. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "at the film's half-finished hotel." A weird way of putting it – I'd just say "at a half-finished hotel."
  • I think the information "Jacques also felt the strain of performing for the Carry On series." can be implied from the preceding text. It looks odd, added as an afterthought.
  • "During the course of 1972 Jacques co-starred in the first series of Sykes, in which she played Hattie Sykes in 16 episodes between September and December;[d] the series was an extension to Sykes and a and she again played Hattie Sykes, "the wide-eyed, less-knowing but remarkably patient sister-cum-mother-figure". This is awfully repetitive, and needs quite a bit of sorting out.
    • I've done some heavy cutting and moved some to the note. I think what's left in the main text is much clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "At its height..." when was this?
  • Can you be a bit more precise than "During the year...", in relation to the date of Le Mesurier's award?
  • The quote includes: "she lost John or there was now no-one with whom to spend her life". Does it really say "or", when "and" would make much more sense.

Sorry it's just a snippet, but I used a few spare minutes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the final tranche:

  • "she received a letter offering her an OBE": this is too casual, and gives the wrong impression of how the honours system works. I recommend you change to something like: "she received official notification of the intention to appoint her as an OBE". Also I'd place a full stop after "OBE" otherwise the sentence is too long.
  • "During the course of the different tours Sykes altered the act several times to ensure he received more acclaim than Jacques." It's odd to find this sentence before any indication is given of strained relations between the two. I would insert something along the lines: "During the course of the different tours relations between the two stars became increasingly strained; Sykes altered the act several times to ensure he received more acclaim than Jacques."
  • "she looked "a little unsteady on her feet". – I would attribute this.
  • I am assuming that she died at home, so I would alter the account to read: "She took a weekend break from hospital and returned home, where on 6 October she died from a heart attack and kidney failure, at the age of 58."
  • It's a bit odd to find, in a section headed "Life after Carry On", that the subject dies halfway through the section. I suggest you amend the title to "After Carry On: 1974–80" and then subdivide between "Final appearances" and "Death and tributes", the latter beginning at the paragraph "In May 1980..."
  • "in her series of early Dickens adaptations (Nicholas Nickleby, Oliver Twist, Scrooge and Pickwick)...": this wording gives the wrong impression – "her series of early Dickens adaptations"? I assume you are referring to her roles in these Dickens-based films, and you should reword accordingly.
  • ""could make an innocous old Victorian or Edwardian ballad and with just a few intonations and expressions give it another meaning entirely".[9] This is a quote, but it doesn't quite make sense. Are you sure the second word isn't "take", rather than "make"? That would make sense.
  • repetition of "complained" in the final sentence.
  • "Filmography and performances": I don't like seeing a whole section with only a link as its content. In similar circumstances I usually construct a brief summary paragraph below the link, and I recommend you do this.
    • Funnily enough Cass and I were discussing this very point a day or so ago, but without conclusion. A brief para now in place on this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment: A lovely subject, told with plenty of revealing detail – I had no idea her career was so varied. I am sure the article will be very popular among readers. I have made quite a few prose edits/corrections in addition to the points raised here, and I recommend that you go through the entire article with some care, before taking it to FAC, as I can't be certain that I've picked everything up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As always Brian, a huge thank you for all the time and effort you have spent improving this. I think we've done justice to all your points, but we'll take a couple of days to go over the whole thing again closely to try and iron out any other wrinkles. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All closed: thanks very much for all those who took part. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) & CassiantoTalk 09:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Blind Leading the Blind[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get more eyes on it in the hopes of bringing it up to Featured Article quality. There are some areas where I feel it could be filled in more, as well—in particular the "Legacy" section, where there's a two-century gap; and I'm sure there's more that could be added to the "Analysis" section as well. Of course, any other help would also be ... uh ... helpful.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll review this, but start with a copyedit. Will do this in short edits so that anything you disagree with can be easly reversed. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General things;
  • tüchlein...a light, fragile type of painting usually meant for hanging in the home. I'm not sure about 'for hanging in the home specifically', but we have two articles on these, Tüchlein and Glue-size if you want to follow the refs to see if this work is moentioned. Certainly the painterly technique behind this work is worth expanding on.
    • When I first wrote that, tüchlein was a redlink, so I threw in a short description from the source. I've dropped "for hanging in the home". Could you help me with the difference between "glue-size" and "distemper"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Blind Leading the Blind is in good condition and has suffered no more than some abrasions. We need more on this, these works are fragile more because the colours fade. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've replaced "abrasion" with "erosion", and added a bit about the faded herdsman. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The centered images are leading to a lot of white space, wich acute as the article is at present relatively short. I'd left align File:Der Blindensturz (Ausschnitt 2).jpg and File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind (detail) - WGA3516.jpg, reducing their size only a little.

More later. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I centred them because images with set sizes override user settings, and can cause problems when the images are floated (different screen sizes, etc). I'd rather drop the blow-ups than have them floated and blown up. It'd be nice if the software behind displaying the images were more sophisticated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • He does not dress them in the peasant garb he was known to paint.[7] This seems to contradict what was claimed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from LT910001[edit]

As a lay reader of this article, the prose is wonderful, it is well-sourced, and very readable. I wish you all the best on what is sure to be a successful good article nomination, and just wanted to leave a note appreciating such a well written article. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Marshall (journalist)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wrote it, and I have a conflict of interests, in that I am a friend of Alex Marshall's, so I want reviewers to make sure it is unbiased. This is the procedure I was advised to follow after requesting guidance on the Tea House forum, so I hope it's acceptable to the community.

Sincerely, J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 03:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I've received some guidance from helpful editors, but would appreciate some reviews here. I've tried to improve the article in response to the "multiple issues", "BLP sources", and "notability" tags placed on the page, but don't know whether or not I've satisfied the editors who placed those tags. I'd be grateful for some updated feedback. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elon Ganor[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Elon Ganor is a friend of mine so I would like feedback to make sure it meets wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, Jeffpulver (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your edits to this article. It's very interesting to read. I have a few comments that you may take or leave at your behest:

  • Early life could be fleshed out a bit more
  • This article would benefit from a general copy-edit from a second pair of eyes. WP:ISRAEL or WP:COMPANIES may have a willing participant for this.
  • A source is missing for the early life section.
  • This article contains a lot of bracketed content, which is impacting on readability. If content is notable enough, it should be included in prose - if not, then deleted or put in as a footnote.
  • This article is an orphan article, so consider finding another appropriate article and linking to the page from there.

I wish you well on your wiki-travels, and hope this advice is useful (although it is mostly stylistic in nature). Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penitentiary of New Mexico[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is nearing "Good" article quality status!

Thanks, teratogen (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COMMENT: First, this article needs additional cites to bring it back to B Class standards. Until that happens, there is no reason to review a Start Class article for Good Article status.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC) FURTHER COMMENT: A quick read shows the potential for a rather tidy little though incomplete article. The graphic is stunning in its starkness. Most of the overly long lead belongs down in the main text.Reply[reply]

Main text begins with a History section, as it should. Move lead paragraphs two through four down below this and entitle it appropriately.

Don't worry about the fact you have but a single paragraph lead at this point; leads should be the last thing written in an article, summarizing the main text. A History section and a Classification(?) section do not an article make. Research is needed to extend the article, because any itinerant reader (like me) will wonder, How does this pen fit into the legal community? our human community? Most of all, Why is this penitentiary notable?

A Google Advanced Book Search for "New Mexico Penitentiary" shows a wealth of opportunities. A tip: if these books are not available in your local library, ask about the Interlibrary Loan program. Participating libraries fetch your books from libraries nationwide for free or for a nominal fee. I am in a poor rural county, so they charge me a whopping $2.00 per book. I got a $100 paperback through my library for a 3 week loan, and hung onto $98.

Once you have a well-rounded article, fully cited, write a shrunken version of it for your lead. Then put this article up once again for Peer Review. Flag me on that, if you wish, or contact me if I can be of help.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toontown Online[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done some needed reconstruction and I am trying to achieve a "Good Article" status. I can see room for improvement and issues that should still be addressed. Any thorough advice to help me reach this goal will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, NightHawkCanada (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

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

  • Checklinks has found multiple dead links.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and Wikipedia. Some comments:

  • A list of video game-related good articles is available here (Wikipedia:Good articles). I'd encourage you to take a look.
  • This article has a very long summary of the game and its stages. This may not meet the 'brevity' criteria of the good article review (a good article nomination will involve six criteria, here: WP:GARC).
  • This article doesn't include a "reception" section, which is standard for many video games.
  • Several sections of this article lack sources.
  • This article could be improved by conducting a more critical analysis of the game, significantly reducing the summary of the game's content, and integrating several more sources into the article.

All in all, this article probably isn't ready for GA status right now. I'd advise you to have a look at similar good articles for some guidance, cut down on the summary of game features, and consider locating 2-3 relevant and good sources, and integrating their analysis into the article. This may be hard for a video game, so you may be able to have a look at the other video game articles for comparison. I hope this advise is useful and I wish you well. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early Netherlandish painting[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Feedback, especially on structure, would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk), Victoriaearle (talk)

Johnbod[edit]

  • Now a very impressive piece of work, well done all! On a preliminary look, I see room for a quick section summarizing the succession of leading artists, & how they related. Also one on the distinctive complexity of EN treatment of (mainly) religious iconography, stemming from van Eyck. Both would stress the importance of Van Eyck; after his great leaps forward, in many ways the style of works then developed pretty slowly for nearly a century.
  • I think we both have been weary of over emphasising van Eyck (espically in image choice!) but his centrality is fact and in the timeline section at least he can take up a majority of the discussion. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Johnbod; working (slowly) on a draft section in a sandbox. I never find the subject of van Eyck and iconography terribly easy to write about. Have made a start though. Victoria (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Iconography section done. Victoria (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod - that's high praise indeed! Have also restructured per your suggestion above the summarize the leading artists. I think it should work better now. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There could/should be more on the rather complicated end of the period. The lead rightly takes the period up to the 1560s, but the rest of the article concentrates heavily on the 15th century. The Italian influence section now says: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s [nb this means 1400-1410- is this what is intended?], when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism was the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll cartouches, 'twisted' figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism"." - No one dates Italian Mannerism before 1520, and it was certainly not the beginning of Italian influence on ENP. "By then" needs changing - to "By 1530" perhaps, or 1540. Joachim Patinir and Pieter Aertsen need mentioning, also my new World landscape. Breugel is the artist who continued to develop the EN legacy, and the key route through which it continued to be influential for later artists, when other artists were overwhelmed by Italian influences - this needs explaining.
    There is a lot in this point. Starting with World landscape; I might adapt passages the landscape section here, attributing your page as I dont have those sources. I think thats allowed? Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    re landscape Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Terminology and Scope" section spilt so that scope will deal with the very early and late periods; terminology to cover geographic range and art historical terminology. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do sources talk of the "Burgundian empire"? Its fatal problem was that it wasn't an empire in the technical, legalistic sense of being wholly independent, as all the territories had a feudal lord above the duke, whether the King of France or the HR Emperor.
  • I don't like "The arrival of print in the 16th century devalued illumination as books became far more accessible and commonplace.[115]" though it reflects the source. The market for illuminated MS was already badly hit by the 1470s, the very top of the market surviving, while the middle & bottom pretty much vanished before 1500 - Henry VII already mainly bought (French) printed books. Price was presumably a key factor, even for royalty. People had far more books than before. I may rejig a bit.
    Yes, this section needs a rewrite anyway. Need to research more on the contributing factors to its decline. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Johnbod. I agree with near of all this, will incorporate. The end of the period is difficult, no real right answer as you say, and there was good discussion on this on the talk page around two yers ago. Will have a try and ask back here and there; maybe ping some of the editors that had views at the time. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod. I changed Burgundian empire to Burgundian period which is more often used. I think we can extend out the end of the period but requires more immersion in sources (and a fair bit of reading). I agree it needs to be done. Victoria (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadads[edit]

Noticed the portrait in Early_Netherlandish_painting#Scholarship is Non-free. Might want to consider something that has more sticking, or write a fair use justification, Sadads (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. I ditched it. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe use the images we have on Commons as identified by Max Jakob Fried as a demonstration of the workshop/copy problem for identification in the scholarship? Sadads (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are probably better instances of breakthroughs in attribution to use. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your the expert :) Sadads (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry? Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

My comments will be rather haphazard and at intervals, as I am heavily engaged at the moment in another long review, as well as with my own project. I hope I will be able to get through this, as the subject is interesting and I shall enjoy helping to improve it. As a gesture of intent, here are a few comments on the lead:

  • Insert "who were" before "active in the Low Countries"
  • "decline" is probably a better word than "waning"
  • "It lasts at least to the death of Gerard David in 1523;[4] many scholars extend it to the death of Pieter Bruegel the Elder in 1569, or the start of the Dutch Revolt in 1566 or 1568, or the early-17th century". Too much information here, for an overview. I would simplify to something like: "It lasts at least to the death of Gerard David in 1523,[4] though many scholars extend it to dates as late as the early-17th century".
  • This is quite contentious, and complex; although I get what you are saying. Working on this atm. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Developed in "scope", and lead trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Early Netherlandish painting corresponds to the early- and high-Italian Renaissance..." By "corresponds", do you simply mean concurrent in terms of time? If so, "The Early Netherlandish painting period is concurrent with..." would be better wording.
  • "it" in "it is categorised" needs to be specified.
  • What are "high-end panels"? Clarify if this is merely a reference to the luxury market,
  • Do we need the roll-call of names in the lead – 12 in all? On the "overview" principle the list could be omitted or shortened to three or four examples.
  • Trimmed, though I dislike lists accept that a role call is needed to an article of this type. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There seems to be some selective referencing in the lead. Broadly speaking, any salient fact in the lead should also be in the main text, and should be referenced there, though there vcan be exceptions, e.g.direct quotations.
  • The only inlines in the lead now are explanitory footnotes.Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More anon Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working through these now. Just also to say there is no hurry at all with this one. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, Brian. Good points and I have to confess that I always wait until the end to check the lead, so this was very useful. I echo Ceoil in saying that there is no rush. Thanks much, too, for taking on this review. Victoria (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another couple of sections:-

Scope
  • Three images in the section, two enlarged to 380 and 400px respectively, which cause the text to be seriously squeezed. I can appreciate the need for an article such as this to be copiously illustrated, but great care needs to be taken over size and placement. The domination of text by images is likely to be a FAC issue; the article has, I think, 46 images in all, many of them very large.
  • I was working on this section on thursday night, and left it unfinished, so more to add to balance out, though I take your general point. Have cut a few images, and reduced the size of most. A few I'm yet undecided on keeping, might raise on the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not competent to comment on the content. I have corrected a couple of typos in the section and made a few small copyedits. Other than those I have a few nitpicks, below - this will be the pattern for my review:
  • "by the 15th century northern artist " → "by 15th century northern artists"?
  • "and are frequently, but not always, associated." Needs "with the school" to complete the sentence.
  • "The 16th century can be seen as directly leading from that of the previous century..." To what is "that" referring? It sees that a word or two may be missing.
  • Likewise in the following paragraph: "A full break... (from...what?)
Terminology
  • "Erwin Panofsky sometimes used the term "Ars nova" ("new art") and "Nouvelle pratique" ("new practice"), thereby linking the movement with innovative composers such as Guillaume Dufay and Gilles Binchois favoured by the Burgundian court." This is a hard sentence for the general reader to interpret. It isn't clear why Panofsky's nomenclature forms a link to the composers you mention, nor what this link consisted of.
  • I've developed a bit but would like to think about this and revisit. Victoria (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "At the time the political map of geography of Europe was very different..." Spcify "at that time"; the previous sentence refers to the 19th century.
  • "fiercely independent cities" – best remove the adverb, which is slightly peacocky?
  • "do not necessarily correspond to today's maps" – I think "necessarily" is probably redundant.
  • The phrase: "it is more correct to think of the Duchy of Brabant" is an editorial viewpoint which needs neutralising, e.g. "the largest of these regions was the Duchy of Brabant"
  • "This argument between French and German..." What is "this argument"?
  • I think you need "leads" rather than "lead", and an "and" after Pankovsky. The editorial aside "rightly or wrongly" should be deleted.
  • Likewise, "it can be argued" sounds like editorial opinion. You need to identify by whom this is argued. Incidentally, there are no citations in this final paragraph.
  • There had been some argument from time to time on the talk, so I threw this in as compromise. Will revisit. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rewroded but this is thorny and needs more work. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More when I can Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks Brian. I've taken a stab at these points, taken care of some of the smaller issues, tried to clarify a few points, will need to read a bit more to clarify a few more points, and others I'm still thinking about how to handle. Victoria (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Brian, your comments made me realize a few holes needed to be plugged so I've rewritten slightly, added a bit, trimmed a bit, all of which should address the points above. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: in view of the current level of editing activity on the article, I am pausing the review for a couple of days to allow things to settle. I'll definitely be back, though. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm resuming. Here are comments on two more sections:

Timeline
  • The content does not really reflect a "timeline", which is normally in the form of a graphic list. Perhaps "Chronological summary"?
  • "...the Netherlandish artist known as Hand G of the 'Turin-Milan Hours'" – I am not quite sure how to read this. I imagine that "Hand G" identifies the artist, and should therefore be in quotes. Also, for clarity, "who painted the" rather than "of the"?
Ok, but he only painted part of it - there are "Hands" A-H identified in the manuscript. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a sentence (actually a quote because I'm very tired and it's all I can manage at the moment) to clarify this. Will probably revisit to smooth it over. Victoria (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a consolidating change"? Again, not clear what this means.
  • Clarified this - A significant development came with Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "patronisation" → "patronage"?
  • "A number were financially successful..." A number of what?
  • "Philip the Good" does not appear to be linked on this first mention (he may be, later)
  • Master of the Life of the Virgin - unless this is in quotes, and preceded by "the painter known as", it will perplex readers. They shouldn't be forced to use the lin to find th meaning.
  • "who had already passed beyond the High Gothic." –needs more explanation, and the "already" is undefined.
  • "who had already developed a style seperate to..." Ceoil (talk)
  • The sentence beginning: "Some 16th-century painters followed..." is far too long, and also reads confusingly. It seems to be saying that some painters followed traditional paths, but at the same time geban moving away from them. I think splitting and some rewording is needed.
  • You should not use editorial observations such as "tellingly".
  • (last paragraph) "humanism": are you using this word in its present meaning, the rejection of religion and the church in favour of a belief that humankind controls its own destiny? That seems a very advanced position for the 16th century.
Lk Renaissance humanism, but it's not necessary to spell this out in the text. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added link. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technique and material
  • "The first generation of artists..." Need to specify more clearly who you mean by these
  • "It dries slowly..." etc – another very long sentence that needs to be split. Hard to follow as it is.
  • Split this into a few sentences, but need to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (2nd paragraph, last line) maybe "typically" would be more neutral than "notably"
  • "Typically the frames of hinged works are engaged..." –what does "engaged" mean in this context?

It may take me another week or so to finish this, as I have other things on, but I'll try and do a little each day. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these Brian. I'm only getting to these as/when I can (hence the flurry of activity a week or so ago), so no worries. I was just about to log out and might have to be gone again for a few days, so might not get to these too quickly - but I don't mind if they pile up. Thanks again so much for taking the time to read. Victoria (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another instalment:

Patronage
  • First sentence is of excessive length. Suggest break after "ascendancy"
  • Split into a few sentences, but needs more work. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "From the mid-15th century, Netherlandish painting was driven by the market". This has substantially been said in the last sentence of th previous paragraph. Suggest merge the sentences.
  • "However for the top end of the market, the process was very different." The "however" is redundant, "upper end" rather than "top end", and "the process was very different" is not expressed encyclopedically. Thus: "A different process applied to the upper end of the market."
  • Used this phrasing, which is much more to the point. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could "taste makers" be expressed more elegantly? Perhaps "arbiters of taste" or similar?
  • "The consolidation of the ducal households..." What is meant by this?
  • "Some gained enormous power..." Clarify to whom "some" refers.
  • "Maryan Ainsworth of the Metropolitan Art Museum believes the merchant class commissioned a significant number of devotional panels, often smaller pieces, and those frequently emphasising specifically requested themes, images and motifs.". Something amiss with the latter part of the sentence. Perhaps remove the comma after "pieces" and drop "frequently", which is particularly awkward after "often"
Iconography
  • "Morally the works expresses a fearful outlook, but evidence a respect for restraint and stoicism." Plural v. singular conflict in "expresses" and "evidence". I don't think a "but" conjunction is justified, and I have some doubts about "a fearful outlook" as an expression of morality.
  • "However the emphasis on technique should not be seen as the cause..." Sorry, can't follow. Should there be a pause, i.e. a comma, after "However"? Even so , should not be seen as the cause ... of what?
  • I've tried to rewrite. Let me know if it's still difficult to parse and I'll have another go at it. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "van Eyck's "religious works always present the spectator with a transfigured view of visible reality" – I would start the quote at "always present", otherwise it looks strange and reads oddly.
  • "Much of the iconography consists of symbols showing "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth". Who opines this?
  • Ward, as in the previous sentence, so combined the two to avoid repetition. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Final paragraph: my problem here is that, after the opening summary sentence: "Van Eyck's influence was huge, and deeply infused both his contemporaries and later artists", the rest of the paragraph seems to be indicating how distinct these contemporaries and successors were from van Eyck. Perhaps it's just my reading, but it's worth you taking a look.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Have tried to tweak - it is supposed to say that the contemporaries were distinct from van Eyck. Perhaps more clear now? Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little more:

Formats
  • Do we need to mention (and link) "tapestry" in both of the first two sentences?
  • Nope, removed. I'll be using the duplicate link tool later to resolve duplicate link issues as well. But thanks for pointing out the overlinking in a single sentence! Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adding: what's your opinion about having duplicate links in an article of this scope? My sense is that if done correctly it's probably okay because otherwise the top half will have a plethora of links with many fewer links in the bottom half. Victoria (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In an article of this length, duplicate or even triplicate links are fine when there are considerable distances between mentions of a name or term. It's a matter of judgement as to what might constitute overlinking; linking twice in the same section would definitely be over the top. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd be against linking say art terms twice. No so much for linking art historians - eg if we say [[Prof x] in an early section, and then 4000 words later drop in, "according to x", it might be confusing. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Wall hangings and books..." Does "books" mean illuminated manuscripts?
  • I don't understand "whereas", which generally means "as opposed to", and does not make sense in the sentence. Are you intending the meaning "as a result of which"?
  • As opposed to is correct: the ducal patrons favored other forms over portraits. At least that's the point I was trying to get across. Can have another go at it if it's difficult to understand. Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have removed a hidden comment in the text, querying your use of the word "movable": The comment said: "any chance this word can go? (Why yes, it's movable!)". I'm not sure what the problem is; I don't object to the word myself.
  • I've replaced with portable which is more accurate, but I think the sentence might need a slight bit of clarification. You'll find lots of hidden comments - it's a system we've used successfully for a long time and I always check that they're resolved, and in fact have gone through and fixed a number of them now. Victoria (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally, I think that making points via hidden comments is a highly inefficient method of review. First, there is no guarantee that the comments will be seen. Secondly, how do you respond to such points if you disagree with them? I can't see how this form of secrecy is preferable to open reviewing—it just seems like extra work to me. However, if you are happy to accept such comments I'll disregard them in my own review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a general comment, I observe that not all the information in this opening paragraph seems relevant to "formats", e.g. "Burghers and other members of the middle class commissioned and bought paintings, an aspect of demand that Campbell considers important and easily overlooked."
    Yes, thanks for noting. Trimmed away. Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks btw - I was rushing yesterday and forgot to mention how much we appreciate this review, particularly on such a long article. Victoria (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Illuminated manuscripts
  • "By the turn of the 14th century, the largely Gothic manuscripts coming from Paris were the major source of supply." Needs rewording: the manuscripts were the supply, not the sources of supply.
  • "...the popularity of the Netherlandish producers" – maybe a better word than "producers" ("masters", "craftsmen"?)
  • I suggest a pipe-link for "liturgical texts"
  • Another hidden comment in the second paragraph askes for clarification of the period/century which is the subject of this paragraph.
  • Yes, I added this. Don't have access to these sources. Victoria (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Third para: "Paris was overtaken as the centre of production in the 1440s by Bruges and Ghent". This repeats information from the first para, so needs to be expressed slightly differently here.
  • "...achieved by the artists working there" – you will need to be more specific about the nature of "there".
  • "The Limbourg brothers' work marks perhaps the high point of "manipulative realistic imagery" with their ornate Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry." This is presumably covered by the Harbison citation at the end of the next sentence, but as a specific opinion is expressed, it ought to be specifically attributed to the source.
  • "van Eyk" and "Jan van Eyk" in the same paragraph
  • "superior" artist? Superior to whom?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got these, thanks once again. Just on inlines - These are mostly myself and Victoria leaving reminders for ourselves and for each other, and we have been using them a long time. The each other ones ofthen are neglected. Riggr and other VA editors we work with also cmt this way when helping us (often as a way to make fun of my spelling grrr, but usually helpfully); those are responded to very quickly and I wouldn't discourage. Differing styles is all. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet more... the end is not yet in sight, but we're getting there slowly. Three more sections:

Single devotional panels
  • "Prayer and meditative contemplation were means to attain salvation, while the very wealthy could also undertake the establishment of churches or extensions, or commission artworks or other devotional pieces." I am uncertain of the purpose/relevance of this sentence after the word "salvation".
  • I've clarified hopefully. Simply put, the wealthy could buy salvation through commissioning works of art, etc., whereas those without the means had to pray (presumably more). Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Mary could have left no bodily relics" – why are the words "could have" necessary?
  • "The appreciation for Byzantine idealisation of Marian icons and the concept of purgatory were at their heights." I found it impossible to parse this sentence, or to work out what it means. Had to give up.
  • Last sentence: "his innovation" – from the previous sentence it seems that VdW "imitated", rather than innovated.
  • He did both - imitated what existed by using innovative techniques. I've tried to clarify a bit. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Triptychs and altarpieces
  • Second paragraph: there is some repeated material in the first and second sentences, which makes me feel they could be merged.
  • "Van der Weyden was especially innovative" – I queried "innovative" in the previous section. Perhaps it is more appropriate here, but please check. I am not sure about "especially", which veers away from neutral expression, as does the "as can be seen" which follows.
  • I have checked this and I think it's an accurate summary of a very long multipage passage delineating the manner in which Rogier van der Weyden mixed up the traditional placements of holy family and saints on the panels. Removed the "as can be seen". Victoria (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm comfortable with "especially", and the sources would support. As Johnbod mentions above, van Eyck, and I think van der Weyden, made huge advances which somewhat oveshadow northern painting for the next 100 years. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...the best of which subverted existing conventions." Source?
  • Acres - will revisit - see my comment below about Jstor and losing access to sources. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "After Mannerism came to the fore..." badly needs splitting, probably into three. (Any single sentence that contains "while" and "when" and "with" is getting above itself!)
Diptychs
  • "The vast majority of donors were male; Andrea Pearson ascribes this to the fact that women were encouraged to pay devotion in private rather than public spaces". Two things: first, I imagine this to be generally true, not just for diptychs. Secondly, another reason, surely, whole male donors predominate overwhelmingly is that men held all the economic and social power.
  • I'll have to re-read the source (sorry, had a heart attack when I lost access to Jstor and all my sources and I actually called them on the phone about it!) but this is an important point because there was a difference between spaces that were merely "quiet" and spaces that were "private". Plenty of women of means had devotional works, books and such, but unlike men, they typically kept their devotions in "private spaces", chambers, behind screens in churches where they were hidden, etc. Multipanel works were mostly commissioned for public spaces whereas small devotional works (diptychs) could be used in homes, but even then a woman would have had to retreat somewhere (to a chamber if she had one) to make her devotions. This is true of medieval women readers too. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been thinking about this since writing the longish post above and am thinking that this is point that possibly not all that relevant (as you pointed out). I might pull it out. Haven't quite decided yet. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do either of the two images illustrate anything in the text? If so, could we have slightly more informative captions? Another thing is the MOS violation of squeezing text between images. I wonder whether we actually need both pics?
  • I'll work on the captions - but the one on the left is a rare surviving sample of a devotional piece that's not been broken apart, still has its frames and is free (extremely rare!) so I'd want to keep that. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "salable" is US spelling. I think the article uses BritEng.
  • Will leave this to the non-American English speakers to sort out. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks again. I've done most of these; will report back after re-reading sources on the others. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inch by inch...
Portraiture
  • "arguably more influential on the following generations of painters." We need to have an indication of who argued this.
  • "there is a noticeable similarity in his portraits" – possibly "there are noticeable similarities in his portraits" reads better?
  • "...and is all the more notable as it is likely van Eyck himself who stares out at us." Nicely put, but needs to be expressed in less personal terms – encyclopedic impersonality and all that.
  • "Yet the gaze of the sitter rarely engages the viewer." You need to clarify that you have moved from the particular (Van Eyck's self-portrait) to the general, and in rephrasing you should ose the "yet".
  • I've moved the sentence but kept the "yet" because I think it now makes more sense in context to explain that the sitters looked out at the viewer without engaging their gaze. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The portraits were not usually executed with the subject sitting for the artist for long periods" Too cumbersome. You could shorten to "Potraits did not generally require lengthy sittings".
Tapestry
  • "excelled" is the wrong word in the first line – production cannot "excel". Perhaps "proliferated" or similar word
  • "these craftsmen" — no previous reference to craftsmen in the section
  • You should specify Pope Julius II
  • "woven into hangings" – will readers immediately appreciate that hangings = tapestry?
  • "as seen in the surviving example handed to Philip the Good at the Congress of Arras in 1435" – "as seen in" without ant identifying detail, is frustrating.
  • Excellent point. Will have to dig and see if we have this on Commons or find on the Met site. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmm. Thats because the statement was incorrect. He gave out several existing tapestries, and not as been implied, recieved a specially produced commeration. Sorry about that. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "textiles provided easy to put together environments for conducting religious or civic ceremonies." I can't work this out. Perhaps "easy to put together" means "easily assembled", but how can textiles provide environments?
  • "considered at the first mark" – pesumably meaning the most superior?
  • "Charles V of France had 57..." 57 what?
  • I suggest you pipe-link "cartoons" thus: cartoons
  • "He interacted directly..." – who is "he"?
  • Clarified I think. Ceoil can have another go at this one too. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And so we go on.... Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearly done now...

Landscape
  • "Because most of the settings contained commissioned donor portraits, very often the landscapes were tame and controlled, in harmony with the warm idealised interior setting." I am confused by this sentence. Two different meanings for the term "setting"?
  • "who had already segued interior and exterior pictorial spaces" – what does this mean?
  • "This changed towards the end of the 15th century..." Not clear what "this" refers to.
  • Link "still life" (unless previously linked recently)
  • Second paragraph: "in nature" rather than "to nature". But why not just "representing things naturally"?
  • "Hieronymus Bosch adapted elements of the World landscape style in his single panel paintings; in his major works they serve as a backdrop for crowds of figures and are not as concerned to include a variety of landscape elements." I have difficulty parsing the second part of this sentence.
  • I suggest "world landscape" not "World landscape"
  • I got lost somewhere in the final sentence of the section - needs clarifying.
Relationship to the Italian Renaissance
  • The last sentence of the first aragraph requires a citation.
  • "there was an established trade in their works" – would it be clearer to say "an established north-south trade"?
Iconoclasm
  • "...is an insightful look at the appearance..." Encyclopedic neutrality requires something like: "is an indication of the appearance", unless you are able to attribute "insightful".
    Yes, I've attributed this. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for these Brian! If I don't get to some of them tonight (very busy in real life (and tired too!)), I'll start working my way through them tomorrow. As you say, almost there! Can't thank you enough - it is a marathon. Victoria (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: leaving the "Landscape" section for Ceoil - I don't have those sources. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are my final detailed comments:

Documentation
  • "Establishing the names of Netherlandish masters and attributing specific works has been challenging." You need a less emphatic, more neutral statement along the lines: "There have been difficulties in establishing the names of Netherlandish masters and attributing specific works".
  • "to this day", which provides no time reference, should be avoided
  • Clarified, but tricky - some artists considered of the first rank by art historians have no public profile precisely because there is no historical name has been associated with them. Need to say more clearly, but see below. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "His oeuvre has since shrunk..." The last person mentioned is Hubert, but I think "His" refers to Jan van Eyck – needs clarifying
  • Clarified. The work of both jan and hubert are fewer than once thought, for different reasons; clearier on the page now I hope. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "names of convenience" should be in inverted commas, if it is generally-used term
  • A very difficult term in English, had cobbled together an article using a deritive of the German word, which is linked in the following sentence. Ok yes, italixed now. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It is probably a truism to say..." Such formulations must be avoided. See WP:EDITORIALISING
  • "The lack of surviving theoretical writing on art and recorded opinion from any of the major artists..." – probably should be "from any of the pre-16th century major artists..." – if Durer was the first.
  • I've rephrased here but would like Ceoil to double-check the source (which I don't have) to be certain this only applies to pre-16th cent. Otherwise we should rephrase. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A more probable explanation..." - according to whom?
Rediscovery
  • The link on "Mary of Hungary" goes to the 14th century queen, though I suspect it might be meant for here. Even so, can she and Philip II of Spain really be described as "modern royals"?
  • Some introduction should be given to Schlegel, other than the link
  • "early and necessary..." I'd drop the "necessary" (editorial voice?)
  • I've dropped it but must re-read the source. If I remember correctly it was thought to be necessary. Adding: I've left as is per the source. Victoria (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "newly-emerged" → "newly-created"?
  • "Prince Albert" needs a link, and the later reference to the Prince Consort is to the same person
  • "a ground-breaking acquisition" – what ground was thereby broken?
  • I believe this is important but don't have the source it's cited to. There are others and will dig a bit, or Ceoil can answer. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "today's taste" – again, no time reference.
  • "At the turn of the 19th century..." – you mean the turn of the 20th century, or you could say "beginning of the 20th century" to be absolutely clear.
  • Thanks. Third time I've gotten that wrong for some reason. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "thought to be" – this form always raises the question "thought by whom"?
  • Does the qualifying phrase "to an extent" apply to both van Eyck and van der Weyden (as the present punctuation implies), or just to the latter?
  • Final paragraph. First sentence needs splitting for clarity
Scholarship and conservation
  • As this is a new section, "The most significant early research..." needs to be explicated
  • "Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism". Term should be linked/explained

Phew! That is probably the longest of the 600-odd peer reviews I've done, but I don't mind. This is a very worthwhile article that shows some true scholarship, and the main editors can be proud of it, however it may fare at FAC. Since my knowledge of the subject matter is slight (though more, now, than when I started) my review has necessarily consisted mainly of nitpicks and presentation issues, but it is worth getting these right for the sake of the article's overall quality. I will follow its further progress with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to see you finish too - maybe now you can get on with the rest of your life and work on wiki! All these cmts and the time youve taken are really appreciated. You'll notice some of the more difficult earlier ones are not resolved yet, we are plowing through but will get to them in the next week or so. Its not lost how much attention, thought and work you have put in here. All I can say is tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceoil said it better than I could - all I can do is echo what he's said. Thanks so much for the time! You've given us many excellent points to work on. Victoria (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tim riley[edit]

I'm jotting down a few points to contribute to this review, but before I press on can you say which variety of English the article is intended to be in? Quotations apart, the text seems mostly to be in British English (using these BrEng spellings: "categorised", "centre", "characterised", "colour", "colouring", "colours", "crystallising", "emphasise", "emphasising", "favour", "favoured", "idealisation", "idealised", "jewellery", "labour", "moralisation", "notarised", "organisation", "patronisation", "recognised", "specialisation", "specialised", "specialising", "unfavourable", "unidealised" and "utilised") but the occasional American spelling pops up: I spotted "capitalized", "catalog", "center", "color", "labeled", "recognized" and "traveled", none of them within quotations. – Tim riley (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BrEng we were thinking. I've fixed the ones you found, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Tim for bringing attention to this and especially thanks for the typo patrol. I'm afraid I'm the culprit for the American English and will bear it in mind now that much of the drafting is finished. Victoria (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Tim

I have very meagre gleanings to offer, Bold Sir Brian B having harvested so thoroughly.

  • Terminology and scope
    • Being utterly pernickety, I draw your attention to two "due to"s in close proximity in the fourth para. Perhaps turn the second into "because of"?
    • "In the early 1500s artists began to explore illusionistic depictions of three dimensions" – I think I know what you mean, but I had to read it twice to be sure. I can't think of any better wording, but I leave you with the thought.
  • Chronology
    • "artists from today's France" – a suggestion of time travelling here. Perhaps "artists from what is now France"?
    • "either Jan van Eyck" – not blue-linked here but he is so linked in the next para; best to move the link up
  • I'm not sure I fixed here, but fixed the same in another section and thanks for noting. Getting the linking right throughout, or as right as can be for an article like this, should be on our to do list. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "significant figures such as Hungarian king" – this is as good a point as any to mention that you have the word "significant" 17 times throughout the text. After a while it becomes vaguely noticeable, and the pedantic question comes to mind, "what did it/he signify?" Such near-synonyms as "important", "dominant", "considerable" and "influential" might be pressed into service instead from time to time.
  • Technique and material
    • "It dries slowly and thus manipulated" – "and thus can be manipulated…"?
  • Reworded. I think that's bolded above and it's one that requires a revisit. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "mainly because the perishability" – "mainly because of the perishability"?
  • Guild and workshop system
    • "in order to be allowed" – I'd lose the "in order"" – never necessary in such a construction
    • "the master had passed" – he hadn't passed, passed over, passed on or passed out: he was dead. WP:EUPHEMISM
  • Patronage
    • "guilds which amongst other things" – one of my constant bleats: what has "amongst" got that "among" hasn't, other than two unnecessary letters
    • "the patron has little say…" – "…had little say…"?
    • "Painters not only exported goods but exported themselves" – after all the carping, above, pray allow me to compliment you on this delectable, elegant construction.

That's the end of my first batch of comments. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks Tim for going through and for the comments. I got the easier ones; a few require a peek at source, which I will have time for tomorrow. Thanks too for the typo patrols; those haven't gone unnoticed. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate links: apropos your remark, above, about finding duplicate links, there is an excellent device at the left hand side of the article page under "Tools" – "Highlight duplicate links", which takes the effort out of checking. Using this I see you have the following duplicate links in the main text to names and topics already linked in previous paras (ignoring further duplications in image captions, which are seemingly permissible):

  • Chronology
    • Jan van Eyck, Robert Campin, Hans Memling, woodcuts, Jan Gossaert, Gerard David, Quentin Matsys, Albrecht Dürer, Hieronymus Bosch, humanism
  • Technique and material
    • Panofsky
  • Guild and workshop system
    • Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych
  • Patronage
    • Tüchlein (and you need to decide whether to capitalise the word or not), Hans Memling
  • Iconography
    • Madonna of Chancellor Rolin
  • Illuminated manuscripts
    • Jean, Duke of Berry, Turin-Milan Hours
  • Triptychs and altarpieces
    • engraving, Hieronymus Bosch
  • Portraiture
    • Petrus Christus, Hans Memling (his fourth link – have you got shares in him?) , Martin Schongauer, betrothal, Albrecht Dürer
  • Diptychs
    • House of Valois-Burgundy, our old friend Hans Memling, donor portraits
  • Tapestry
    • Raphael, cartoons, Jean de Berry
  • Landscape
    • Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, Hieronymus Bosch (who is closing on Hans Memling in the Blue Link Stakes), Antwerp
  • Relationship to the Italian Renaissance
    • Renaissance humanism
  • Destruction and dispersal
    • Protestant reformation, iconoclasm, Madonna in the Church
  • Documentation
    • notname, Stefan Lochner, Simon Marmion
  • Rediscovery
    • Mannerism, Northern Renaissance, Karel van Mander, Hubert van Eyck, Antwerp, Brussels, Leuven, Johan Huizinga, Georges Hulin de Loo
  • Scholarship and conservation
    • Max Jakob Friedländer, Erwin Panofsky

The Manual of Style is pretty clear about links: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I dabble in articles on composers, where we seem to have reached an informal understanding with which the FAC delegates and reviewers have been happy, viz that if the article is a "Life and Works" piece, it's OK to have people or terms linked (once) in the Works section even if they've already been linked in the Life section. There may be some similar rationale applicable to large articles on art, such as this, but you'll want to ponder the point. In short, what is likely to be helpful to the reader? Tim riley (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ser Brian is a tough man to follow, but these are most helful, many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Two things: Yikes & and got all these. <puts heads in hand and reaches for coat>. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Round Two
  • Iconography
    • "Morally the works expresses" – I suppose this is a typo for "Morally the works express" but then again perhaps it should be "Morally the work expresses", in view of which doubt I have not changed it. Over to you.
    • "His harmoniously blended realism and symbolism creates a vision" – I'm struggling with the grammar here: if you read it literally it = "His A and B creates", which can't be right. Perhaps "His harmonious blend of realism and symbolism creates"?
    • "Fourth para" – a masterly opening, if I may say so. Carries the reader along with a tremendous swing.
    • "much of the iconography revolve" – more problems with singular nouns and plural verbs
  • Thanks, fixed (bad habit I have with these! I know better!) Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "the idea that, according to John Ward, "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth"" – something missing here. Do you mean "the idea that, according to John Ward, there is a "promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth"?
    • "Many of paintings" – "Many of the paintings" or "Many paintings"?
    • "traditions of the earlier centuries absorbed" – "were absorbed"?
    • "tended to be centred around" – some people (probably the same people who think a split infinitive is a mortal sin) get very aerated about "centred around", and insist it should be "centred on". For the sake of a quiet life I try to stick to the latter.
  • Will give you a quiet life and have changed to "on". Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Last para – there are a lot of "formats" in this para (two in the last sentence). If possible, you might change one of them, though I have no useful synonym to suggest.
  • Yes, this needs thought and something Ceoil does better than I. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Formats
    • "while van der Weyden designed tapestries" – some people (including me) dislike "while" used as a synonym for "and" or "although". "While" is probably best kept for cases where there is simultaneity, but that said, your usage here is perfectly good English, and you may feel inclined to tell me where I can put my personal preferences.
  • Went through the article changing. Agree by the way. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "the crystallization of new conventions" – I'm not sure what you're getting at with "crystallization" here.
  • Illuminated manuscripts
    • "conferred notions … to their owners" – I think you confer on, not to.
    • "with more junior painters assisting" – in the context I wonder if "more" is wanted here
  • I've tried "additional". The point being made is that it took a team of master painters and apprentices to produce the more elaborate panels. Want to think about how to rephrase. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Netherlandish artists found increasingly inventive and innovative ways to highlight and differentiate their ability from manuscripts produced in surrounding countries" – I don't think this sentence works. I think perhaps you mean "Netherlandish artists found increasingly inventive and innovative ways to highlight and differentiate their manuscripts from those produced in surrounding countries."
  • Triptychs and altarpieces
    • "The central panels' mid-ground were populated" – plural–singular–plural. Not sure what to do about it, but it looks wrong. Do you think, perhaps, "In central panels the mid-ground was populated"?
    • "the exterior, which now were" – "exteriors"?

End of round two. One last batch and I'll be done. This is a mightily impressive article. In passing, is there a reason for the section order Triptychs and altarpieces – Portraiture – Diptychs? To a layman's eye the more natural order would be Triptychs and altarpieces – Diptychs – Portraiture, but what do I know? Back tomorrow, probably. – Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks Tim. Lots of mistakes and all mine, I'm ashamed to admit. I'll get to them a little later today. I really appreciate the close reading. Victoria (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Got about half of these. Ceoil is more familiar with the other sections and can probably get those better, as well as the explanation about why the structure is as it is. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last lot of comments from Tim
  • Portraiture
    • Third para – rather a lot of engaged/engaging in this para.
    • "in the Burgundian Netherlands, however," – does the "however" add anything here? I think the sentence would be stronger without it
    • "were now able to afford to commission" – "could now afford to commission" would cut out a jingling repetition of "to"
  • Fixed a couple of these, but this is Ceoil's bailiwick more than mine. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Diptychs
    • "often a crest of arms" – (Tim going into pedant overdrive, stand well clear) the crest is the thing on the top of the arms, surmounting the coat of arms (the shield). There is a technical name for the whole shooting match, but it wouldn't be helpful to your readers. "Coat of arms" is not technically correct, but is less incorrect than "crest of arms", and I'd be inclined to go for that.
    • "solitary devotion – exemplified by the Devotio Moderna movement – grew" – I've just noticed that you have en dashes here, but em dashes are your norm. Perhaps make them consistent here and check elsewhere in the article for stray en dashes.
  • Should be endashes throughout! Will go through and make consistent to some kind of dash. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tapestry
    • "the Metropolitan Museum of Art" – I don't think you have linked this earlier in the main text, and possibly a blue link would be appropriate here
    • "an entrepreneur, usually a trained painter. This entrepreneur" – I think you might make the second entrepreneur "He", to the benefit of the flow of the prose.
    • "agreeing to the design" – as it was evidently a joint decision, perhaps "agreeing the design"
  • I've linked the Met. Leaving the rest to Ceoil as he has the sources for this section. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Iconoclasm
    • "explains Nash" – a touch editorialising, suggesting that you endorse what Nash says. Perhaps "according to Nash", or "in Nash's view"?
  • Documentation
    • "the turn of the 19th century" – your use of the phrase is impeccable, but as some people get muddled about whether the turn of a century is at the beginning or end I'd play for safety and say "the start…"
  • Changed - but needs Ceoil to re-check it. I don't have that source. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rediscovery
    • "aside from official legal documents" – as you're opting for BrEng I'd go for "apart from" rather than the American "aside from".
    • "the Prince Consort" – not all readers will know that Prince Albert was the Prince Consort, and I think it would be helpful to call him just "Albert" at this second mention
  • Have done that. Needs a re-visit - bit of a long sentence. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notes
    • Note K – in BrEng you don't meet with people but just meet them
    • Note R – "developed on" seems odd; perhaps "built on" or just "developed"?

Right, that's my lot. It is an article of considerable scholarship lightly worn in the most readable prose. It has been a privilege to be associated with it as a reviewer and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Please tip me the wink when you're taking it there. Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks Tim, I got some of these. Thanks too for the praise. It's certainly been a fair amount of work and we're more than grateful to reviewers who are taking the time to get through this. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic JavaScript suggestions[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 262 cm, use 262 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 262&nbsp;cm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tks Josve05a, have a incorporated some of these which were helpful. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pink Moon[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… My friend and I Elisunshine01 have made significant changes to the Pink Moon article, nearly an entire rewrite (about 90%). Such a drastic edit that the current status doesn't apply. We did this as fans of Nick Drake and the album and also because the album is in the Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time. It is the goal of Wiki:Albums to get all those album articles to at least a GA status.

Pink Moon is a fascinating story of an artist, depression, misinterpretation and posthumous fame. The article simply deserved more than what it had.

We welcome advice and critique. This is our first Wikipedia endeavor...you may want to hold back on the newbies, don't, we can take it.

Thanks so much, we truly appreciate any attention to this we get, Pugsly8000 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions by other Wikipedia users[edit]

The references list needs tidying up quite a bit - I'll see if I can help out. Of the album reviews listed, the Sputnikmusic one is not valid as it is by a user of the site, not one of the staff, and I doubt the Music Box review is allowable either (but check). I see you've referenced Trevor Dann's book but I think the other two major Drake biographies, Patrick Humphries' Nick Drake: The Biography (1998) and Gorm Henrik Rasmussen's Pink Moon, a Story about Nick Drake (English version 2012), may well help fill in some more of the details about the album, if you can get hold of them. Richard3120 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your review and advice! This is new to me...I will check also if Sputnikmusic is a valid user and also Music Box review. Thanks again for your advice, it is respected and appreciated. I will not take it lightly and will get to work on it right away. Pugsly8000 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your updates and edits to this page and Wikipedia! Having had a quick look, there don't seem to be any problems with the lead, prose, the content of the article, or the images. As stated above, there are some areas without sources, which will need sources to get to GA status. I'd encourage you, once the issue with references has been dealt with, to nominate for GA status, and wish you all the best. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I'd love to nominate it for a GA, but not really sure of the process. I will get on the references and see what I can do there and then get to work on learning the GA process. MUCH appreciation to you for looking at this for us. Also, as a side note, you taught me what a WikiOtter is (I looked at your userpage) and that is pretty damn cool. Pugsly8000 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! To nominate for GA, copy and paste this: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=music}} at the top of the article's talk page. More thorough instructions are available here (WP:GAN/I). A list of good articles is available here (WP:GA), and there you will be able to find similar articles relating to music and see how they are. Unfortunately, there is a backlog, especially amongst music articles, so you may hit the next stage of life whilst waiting for a review. The upside to this is you have ample time to read and re-read the article, and the end-of-year period will certainly not be interrupted by a review for you. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International labor standards[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi Guys! I've listed the article international labor standards for peer review because I've recently made substantive additions to this article in the areas titled "monitoring international labor standards" and "violations of labor standards" as part of a classroom assignment for Rice University. I was hoping to see if there would be any super awesome editors who would be willing to read over those two sections in particular to see areas that could be improved. General feedback over the entire article would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!, Hihappy21 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

  • Checklinks found multiple dead links out of a total of 40 external links.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

The two sections are looking good. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to make informed advice, but I will try my best. Comments below:

  • I would say that I find the language quite difficult to parse, and that overall this article would benefit from some simplification to improve readability.
  • This includes trimming verbosity and reducing jargon. Additionally, some of the conjunctions could also be cut.
  • In the given sections, I am having a bit of trouble finding the 22.9% in the source, could you point me to it? At any rate I find this a strange figure to include given the variation between countries.
  • The platitude "Operating under the mantra that “decent work is safe work,” the ILO Programme on Safety and Health at Work and the Environment, SafeWork, has the goal of making work safer for all. " could be cut
  • I am a little confused about the article's scope, as although it states that these are possibly issues that may be external to ILO issues, some sections (particularly "Unsafe working conditions") more-or-less entirely focus on the ILO and its implementation, which may be better covered in the corresponding article. Are there other examples of standards (such as those promulgated by the UN, required by the US for fair trading status, reinforced under the WTO, enforced as signatories to WHO treaties, or other agreements) that are relevant and worthy of mention?
  • Gender discrimination is given a lot of prominence in workplace discrimination. Is this prominence warranted, given the many other forms of discrimination that exist? (See WP:UNDUE). At any rate, suggest move this example down and in the first part of this section focus on discrimination in totalis.
  • What standards are violated is not mentioned in workplace discrimination
  • Statement "From the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire", suggest rephrase as modern examples. Some earlier examples of unsafe working conditions may include the tens of thousands of Chinese workers who died building the great wall, slaves used to construct the pyramids, and hunters of the hunter-gatherer variety.

Thanks for your edits during this course. In summary, this article reads quite well, but could be improved by ensuring that this article is more than a summary of the ILO's activities, and by making the language more accessible to lay Wikipedia readers. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johann Lamont[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and a key figure in the pro-union debate as Scotland prepares to vote on its future. I've listed it for peer review because I've been working on it over the past few weeks and would like some feedback on how it's developing. Using Ed Miliband—a current GA about a senior politician—as a template, I've pretty much written this from scratch. I think it's probably a good candidate for GA but am interested to know what others think, and what other information I may need to add. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Thanks for your edits to this article going forward into the 2014 referendum! This article is very well-written and well-sourced. There don't appear to be any problems with the image or sources, and the article is very thorough. Unfortunately I don't know too much about the politics of the situation, but having had a look at the article, I'd encourage you to nominate for GA status with this article, and deal with any problems identified in that context. Unfortunately the PR process is not very active, so it might be a good idea to request feedback on the talk pages of any relevant wikiprojects (WP:Scotland and WP:UK) to elicit some more targeted feedback. Good luck! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Edit: The titles of the positions of policitians and political bodies are generally written as common rather than proper nouns, and not capitalised. This is found here WP:JOBTITLES and helps make the text look less prickly. --LT910001 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd kind of given up on getting any feedback with this, so your comments are much appreciated. I'll go through and change the office titles, and ask for some comments at the various WikiProjects. I also have it listed at WP:GOCE so that should hopefully sharpen the prose too. Thanks again, Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Keith D[edit]

Minor comment - MSP needs to be expanded or linked in the text. Keith D (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Westminster Assembly[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA. This is the first article I've put this kind of research and work into. I'd like to see how best to improve it further.

Thanks, JFH (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 03:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and Wikipedia. This article reads excellently and is very thorough, and it's a pity there's only one of you! This article is not only well-sourced, but there do not appear to be any problems with spelling or grammar, nor with the images. I'd encourage you to nominate for good article status, which is the next step for your article on the road to an FA nomination. There it will undergo a more thorough review, and will be eligible for FA nomination. Given the article's current quality I am sure that the GA review will not be a problem. If you want (as I'm sure you are doing), you can view good articles or featured articles of a similar topic for inspiration and comparison. I wish you all the best in this regard. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Russia[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it meets the standards set by the other Olympic featured lists: Canada, Switzerland, and USA. Hoping to get some constructive comments before it goes up for FLC.

Thanks, Anthony (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater

  • It looks like you're getting this dialed in. The alts need to be updated per WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
    • Not sure what you mean about "dialed in" haha, but alts have been updated.
  • Skaters table - TOC alphabet links stop working after "G".
    • Formatting mistake, it's been fixed.
  • Note about assists not being recorded until 1932 seems irrelevant as list only dates back to 1994.
    • Removed.
  • I think at FLC you will have an issue with the Soviet Union-centric second paragraph. My thoughts on this would be to note in the opening paragraph that Russia has participated in the most recent five tournaments as it was previously part of the USSR. A bit about the Unified Team is necessary as Russia was a part of that squad, but much more beyond that and it becomes Ice Hockey History of the Soviet Union at the Winter Olympics.
    • Tweaked, will work more when I have more time.
  • You know someone will bring up the third paragraph as well especially as much of what is discussed pre-dates Russia in the tournament.
    • Streamlined the NHL stuff.
  • Move the "The Russian national team is co-ordinated by..." sentence to the opening paragraph. That's where you define the scope, inclusion criteria, and give that kind of background info.
    • Fixed.
  • Overall I think the lead should focus more on the Russian players and what they have accomplished (or not) at the tournaments they have been in.
  • Pavel Bure shaking hands with Vladimir Putin, but Putin not mentioned in the caption or the alt text?
    • Fixed

Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I've addressed some of the issues, and when I have more time I'll try to get around to working more on the lead. But the smaller ones should be fine now. Anthony (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Further tweaked the lead, so now it's much more Russia, less USSR. Hopefully this helps. Anthony (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Josve05a[edit]

  • This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Simpson[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need feedback before taking it to FAR. It's had a thorough copy edit from WP:GOCE and has recently gained promotion to GA.

Thanks, BaldBoris 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Very thorough account of a largely forgotten British sportsman. I don't have time for a full review, but after what was pretty much a speed-read, here are a few random observations which you may find helpful:

  • The lead should a summary overview of what's in the article. You don't need citations in the lead to support that Simpson was one of Britain's most successful professional cyclists, or that he is held in high esteem by many cyclists. These are summary accounts of what is detailed and cited within the main text.
 Done BaldBoris 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overall, I found rather too much detail in the race descriptions. Some of these might be of interest to cycling fans but they are likely to be too much for the general reader. I feel the article could be pared down on these details without any loss to its overall coherence.
  • The format of complex tour races such as the Tour de France is very difficult for the non-enthusiasts, made even more so when accompanied by so much detail. For example, in the account of the 1962 Tour de France, we have Simpson in second place overall, then finishing 18th in the following stage – and being awarded the leader's yellow jersey. I can work out how that happened, but it is far from clear, and readers may well be confused.
 Done BaldBoris 04:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At times I found the prose more akin to that of reports in a cycling magazine. e.g. your use of formulations as "he then punctured", which makes no sense outside sports reportage, and repeatedly, "Simpson rode [race name]" rather than "Simpson rode in [race name]".
 Done BaldBoris 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the account of events leading up to Simpson's death, we learn that he fell ill during stage 10. We hear nothing of stage 11, only that before stage 12 he got confliciting advice as to what to do. Then we are straight into stage 13. These gaps in the narrative need to be filled, however briefly.
 Done BaldBoris 09:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The section heading "Curse of the yellow jersey" is not encyclopedic
 Done BaldBoris 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You need to avoid descriptions such as respected journalist
 Done BaldBoris 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Check the page range for ref 140.
 Done BaldBoris 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that these suggestions are somewhat disjointed, but they may help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments are a huge help to me. Thanks for taking the time to do this. BaldBoris 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

  • Checklinks found one or more dead links on Tom Simpson.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring the article to GA-Class. I was actively involved in the writing of the article preceding and shortly following the game's release. I've recently done a rewrite of section 6, Reception (haven't gone into 6.1 & 6.2), and a tidy up of the Gameplay. Popular culture will probably have to go. I'd like feedback on how I can improve the other sections, particularly Development and Release. Plot certainly would need a cull.

Thanks, CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

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

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

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Hit me up in a day or two if I haven't started posting anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ok so on a look through this is a fairly solid start to an article, but I'd say it needs some work for GA class and beyond.
  • Content
    • A big issue I'm seeing throughout is that the article isn't entirely comprehensible if one hasn't played the games (or the series). Take for example, this passage: The player was caught in an Imperial ambush while attempting to cross the border into Skyrim, on a wagon with several Stormcloak soldiers, Ulfric Stormcloak himself, and a horse thief. They are all headed to Helgen to be executed. "Stormcloak", "Ulfric Stormcloak", and "Helgen" are thrown in with no introduction; similarly there is no introduction for what the civil war is, who it's being fought between, what Tamriel is, Mer, the Blades, Greybeards, et al... The entire plot section needs to be rewritten so that it's understandable for someone with no prior knowledge.
      • As a point to addressing some of the issues with the plot section, I would cut the voice actor mentions as it's repeated later on and seems oddly picked (as in mentioning characters such as the Blades who play a very minor role in the story, but seem to be mentioned due to their voice talent.)
    • The prose in general is a bit clunky, though that's not as large an obstacle for GA class. I would suggest trying to reword as many sentences as fits to active voice to cut down on some of the repetitive sentence structure.
    • Parts of the article still need to be updated; the soundtrack was released in 2011 but the prose still says All copies preordered before December 23 will be personally autographed by Soule. The add-on section needs particular attention.
    • In terms of overall content, there seems enough to consider it broadly comprehensive for GA criteria. The reception section is fairly well-formed, although I think it could do with an opening paragraph that sums up critical reception before diving into the various aspects of the game.
  • Images
  • References
    • Most of the refs appear to meet reliable source requirements on first glance: the ones I'm not familiar with are Attack of the Fanboy, Sixth Axis, Nexus Mods, and Geekosystem. Might wanna' double check those meet WP:RS. I did a cursory spotcheck on referencing and didn't see any issues but I wouldn't swear by it.

If you have any questions, ping me on my talk—I don't watchlist reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the peer review. I would like to discuss your concern about the prose being "clunky". Would you be able to elaborate on this point? Where in the article are you mostly seeing the issue? If it's a concern with the Plot, yes, I plan to rewrite it, but I think Gameplay is quite concise and I don't think it suffers from the problem of alienating the non-gamer as much as Plot does.

Would an opening paragraph in the Reception section be necessary? Generally these paragraphs read "this game received critical acclaim" and "it earned [scores] from Metacritic and GameCritics". That information is supplied in the reviews table. Do you mean having an opening paragraph which is a summation of the following paragraphs?

In terms of the supplementary media, I agree that File:Skyrim game world.jpg is a poor addition to the article. It's hard to make out what's in the picture and there's no HUD. I will certainly attempt to replace this screenshot. I don't understand your ambivalence to File:Skyrim dragon language.jpg and File:Jeremy Soule - Sons of Skyrim.ogg however. As discussed in prose, the dragon language actually makes use of an alphabet and lexicon created by Adam Adamowicz with a specific design to emulate the claw markings of dragons. It'd also be nice to have his work exemplified in the article as he has since passed away and the development of the language would have been a very meticulous process. Likewise for the theme song sample; because we have good information about how it was created, it is nice to provide the reader with an example of what it sounded like. Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say there isn't enough reception content?

Thank you again for the comments. CR4ZE (t) 05:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the images, it's certainly "nice" to have the images. But WP:NFCC puts as the threshold that non-free content has to be well-nigh essential to the article to the point that removing it is heavily detrimental to the article as a whole. I'm not sure it's proven that's the case here. To my comment about reception, if you could find info that specifically discussed the dragon language design or talked about how significant the title track was, that would bolster the argument that the content is important enough to retain.
As for the prose, what I mean by clunky are places where thoughts take more words than necessary to express, where the connections between sentences are unclear, and where transitions between paragraphs are off. A lot of the prose for example depends heavily on comma splices. Another example: A main quest is assigned to the player at the beginning of the game, but it can be completed at the player's leisure, or ignored given the prerequisite that the first stage of the quest is completed. is a mouthful. You could make it more straightforward by rewording it to something like this: The game's main quest can be completed or ignored at the player's preference after the first stage of the quest is finished. (of course, staying within sources—which reminds me, for audio podcasts, etc. where there's a long chunk of stuff being referenced, putting in time markers and a quote is very helpful for people trying to verify the citation.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this diff, I have tightened up the prose in Gameplay sections. Are there any other sections you can see that are unnecessarily wordy? Bar Plot, as I know this needs a rewrite anyway. CR4ZE (t) 06:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Principality of Nitra[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some more attention by experts of the topic. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: It is somewhat unlikely that experts on this topic will be browsing at WP:PR. I doubt there are that many. If you need their co-operation and can identify them, a direct approach would probably be more fruitful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Brianboulton, I left a message on the relevant wikiproject's talk page when I listed the article for peer review. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've given this article a major revamp but now I'm looking for some outside help to clean it up before I send it over to GAN. Looking for any kind of feedback! Thanks in advance, iMatthew / talk 00:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proteus (video game)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently gained GA and I would like to know what the main areas for improvement are to gain FA (expecting them to be largely focused around criteria 1a).

Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wookey Hole Caves[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a lot of editing on it and I think it is nearing GA standard. I would be grateful for any comments, but particularly relating to MOS issues and some of the capitalisation of specific chambers. Particular expertise in cave or cave diving would be great, as I know little about this area, but any comment or advice would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod talk 19:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dental implant[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major change at the request of the DentalProject group because it was WAY too technical, poorly referenced and had many WP:COI issues. I've cleaned it up and rewritten it so it's geared towards a general reader. Not a patient, not a dentist. Looking for ways to make it a better wiki article. Thanks, Ian Furst (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Realized that I listed the article as a "list" in peer review by accident. Moved request to more appropriate category.

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article! It's looking very good and is very easy to read. Comments:

  • Easy to read. You've done a good job there. I like how you've integrated the images with the text

Thank you Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Take a look at the list of good articles (here: Wikipedia:Good_articles), especially the ones in the "Biology and Medicine" category for comparison.
  • It's fairly non-standared to see the 'main' and 'see also' tags at the bottom of paragraphs - these are generally placed at the top.

 DoneIan Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Similarly, it's quite non-standard to have so much bold text, which detracts from readability. Instead, you could consider wikilinking to the respective articles.

 DoneIan Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Additionally, the heading stucture is non-standard. Headings that are in bold can be replaced with lower-order headings by adding more equals signs (eg === -> ==== )

 Done - I'd gone without the third-order headings to simplify the TOC, but everyone seems to dislike it with bold, have switched it back.

  • Sources play an important role in medical articles and Wikiproject medicine (here: WP:MED) we are very careful about what sources are used. Have a look at the guideline here: WP:MEDRS, which states in general that we try not to use 'primary' sources (such as direct studies), but instead 'secondary' sources, such as meta-analysis and reviews. I see some primary studies in your reference list and can almost guarantee that this will be a problem in any GA review.
going thru this now, I've actually removed a lot of primary studies from a previous version, replaced with secondary but have left in with landmark studies (e.g. #26) or Cochrane/metaanalysis/systematic reviews (e.g. all studies by Espisito) - will go thru again, however - there are some I can still replace. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additionally, several paragraphs lack sources
will do Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope this isn't too much to take in. I would encourage you to peruse some of the existing GA article in the biology and medicine category to get a feel for how articles are formatted and styled on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best and please feel free to continue the discussion below. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dental implant[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's had major overhaul. It was WAY too technical (e.g. a debate among dentists instead of an article for a layperson), had many WP:COI issues and depended heavily on primary sources. The entire text and structure was changed and many pictures added. References are almost all either textbook, meta analysis or Cochrane reviews. A few primary papers remain, but these are "landmark" papers that discuss a very small topic in the article. It needs an editorial review especially for information that comes off as too technical. Thanks, Ian Furst (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

concepts are difficult to describe without pictures; each gallery is appropriate in my opinion as per; "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". Same with use of GIFs in article, only used where stepwise progression is useful tool in understanding a concept or when showing the implant then xray allows the reader to better understand a concept.
titles added and reformatted as per Wikipedia:Galleries  Done
Went back and forth a lot on this; finally decided the ToC looked too complex and no one would use it, so I've removed the 3rd order headings
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered Done
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]  Done
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Done major rework of lead and first section to satisfy
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

Can't find this disambiguation page, search all the code and it's not there??
I looked through the codes and progrmas and the link is NOT there. Most have been a glich in the JavaScript program. -(t) Josve05a (c) 10:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United Nations[edit]

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to bring it to Good Article status. Normally I wouldn't open one of these for a GA, but this has been an unusually hard article to write, since its scope is sprawling in space (global), time (50+ years), organizationally (six major organs and countless agencies with diverse agenda), and analysis/response (the UN, alas, has no Metacritic score to include). I think I'm close but I've reached a point where outside input would be helpful, and the article's talk page has been quiet.

So all feedback is welcome, but I'm particularly interested to know:

  1. In what ways might this still fall short of the GA criteria?
  2. In particular, are any major aspects or facts being omitted? Conversely, is there any area in which the article is overdetailed?
  3. Do you have any suggestions for improvement outside of GA issues?

Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

Hi K, this is a massive piece of work. I'll try and give a bit of feedback, though it may end up being mostly prose stuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. - so the containing of organizations helps the UN carry out its mission? (That's what it reads like here)
  • On reflection, I'm just cutting this sentence; the organizational breakdown is given in much more detail in the third paragraph anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • financed by assessed and voluntary contributions - confusing, for me at least. What are "assessed contributions"? Or are you missing a comma here?
  • I think "assessed contributions" is the correct term here--the UN looks at the GDP of member states and essentially taxes them for their share. The "voluntary" part goes into programs like WFP that aren't in the main UN budget. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cold War between the US and USSR - is this a bit of an oversimplification? NATO and the USSR, perhaps?
  • Added "and their respective allies", which is comparable to the wording in the Cold War lead (a GA). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • currently inactive - as of? I'd say "since 1994" or whatever
  •  Done
  • The UN's objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict. - is this redundant to the first paragraph?
  • Part of it, but it's an expanded list. I'm not sure quite how to handle that, since not all of these objectives were present at the UN's founding (which is how the first paragraph is oriented). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • international structures for areas such as postal mail, aviation, and opium control - is areas the best word?
  • USSR - why link USSR and not the other nations? I think most people will still know the USSR
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • Third World nations organized into the Group of 77 - do we have to use "third world" here? I seem to recall that term falling out of favour in recent years.
  • I think it's historically appropriate in the context of the '70s, but I'll make sure it's not used later in any present-day contexts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meisler, pp. 312–29; quotation "worldwide ridicule" is on p. 293 - are those numbers correct? 293 is outside of 312–29
  • You mention UNESCO out of the blue in the history section, when readers may or may not know what it is (it wasn't in the lead)
  • Added to the lead (should have been there anyway), and added a phrase of context. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For "Specialized institutions", I'd recommend against using flags as they are almost illegible at 16 px and not all organizations have free logos (doesn't look standardized).
  • I took out the organizational logos (I agree). Are you suggesting taking out the flags in the headquarters and "head" columns also? I could go either way on that, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More to follow... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, and for the good suggestions so far. I'll start implementing/addressing tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think I've done about 80% of the above. Thanks again for the suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any other subgroups aside from the Group of 77?
  • Not that I'm aware of. NATO doesn't really have the same consistency in its voting.
  • UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. - Would "66 percent of its peacekeeping efforts" be better?
  • a refugee haven by authorising peacekeepers to use force, - where?
  •  Done
  • child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, - Did you ever read the TV tropes article on "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking"? Prostitution isn't a crime in some countries...
  •  Done
  • In 1980, the agency eradicated smallpox, - this implies that Smallpox eradication was done only in a year, and only be the agency. If I remember the smallpox article correctly, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, but the last cases were a couple years before then.
  •  Done
  • and in subsequent decades largely eradicated polio, river blindness, and leprosy. - again, it is not only this organization which has been making strides, as implied by the wording here. Rotary International's Polio Plus campaign, for instance, has helped quite a bit... I seem to remember the organization spending several billion dollars in the effort.
  • Did the first part. As for the second part, the Polio Plus site lists WHO as one of their partners, so I think it's still fair to give WHO the lion's share of the credit (as the source does).
  • "with no votes against but abstentions from all major colonial powers." - Nothing to fix, I just love this quote. "Well, if we say 'Don't take our stuff' we'll be accused of not being fair, but we don't want to look weak..."
  • Yeah, that part made me laugh, too.
  • Off the top of my head, Lester B. Pearson earned a Nobel Peace Prize for helping spearhead the peacekeeping movement (and was quite active in the UN too)
  • Fair enough. I'd left him off as a non-UN employee, but it's UN-related enough to include. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any more praise of the UN? That's a seriously negative section there.
  • I'll look into this, but I think it's actually a fair summary to say that the UN is constantly criticized by governments around the world for different (and often opposite) reasons: it's too weak or too strong, too communist or too capitalist, too focused on military or too focused on development, etc.
  • Okay, I've worked to balance this a bit more by reducing the criticism regarding Israel, adding another positive evaluation, and a recent statement from France on the organization's importance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Watch for overlinking. I think this article is suffering a serious case of it. Third World, almost everything in #Post-Cold War... the list goes on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I plan to run the script once we're done here. But that Post Cold-War part is just an odd glitch with the script; I'm not sure why it's flagging every single link in that section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, check that, it's some accidentally duplicated text that snuck in last night when I had multiple windows open. Fixed now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to read this long article--your input's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

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

  •  Done
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  •  Done, I think
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
    • Striking-- the "allege" appears in a source title -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), paralyse (B) (American: paralyze), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

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

  •  Done

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Piotrus[edit]

  • Ref at the end "General Assembly" - does it apply to the entire list? If so, I'd prefer to see it following the colon, not the last entry. Not sure what's the MoS take on it, though.
  •  Done
  • See also seems large. It is an old rule of thumb that the better the article, the fewer see also's it should have. Their existence indicates either a MoS failure (don't link in see also what's linked in body) or that the article fails on being comprehensive (important related topics are not discussed in body).
  •  Done I agree, this was out of hand. I've trimmed it to what seems to me a more reasonable size. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Through it is not something I'd insist, perhaps the interesting story of Poland's delayed membership (see Enlargement of the United Nations) would be worth of a short sentence in the history. On a second thought, considering that the history mentions both the 50 and 51 numbers, and doesn't explain that the extra 1 is Poland... please add this.
  •  Done I added this as an explanatory footnote, since it's a bit involved and I don't want to give it undue weight. Thanks for this suggestion--I was curious who the 51st had been, and my sources hadn't said.
  • I got a few hits on "highlight duplicate links" tool.
  •  Done I did another pass and removed almost all, though there's a few passing mentions (like Secretary-Generals mentioned in both the History and Secretary-General sections) that I left to avoid confusion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your suggestions--I'll be acting on all of them. I agree that the Poland bit is interesting and worth a mention, just need to dig up a decent source on it first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by kaireky[edit]

I'm new around here but looking to get involved with the UN Wikiprojects. I found your request for feedback on there. I'm just giving some general things to look at for now.

In the introductory section, the last paragraph is three sentences that have little in common with each other, and it's confusing. I would think the list of UN objectives would better fit in one of the previous paragraphs, and turn the last one into what the reaction to and opinion of the UN has been, including the Nobel Prize and perhaps one other specific example.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd change the name of the 'Organisation' section to 'Structure.' Calling the UN an organisation and then having a heading called Organisation means it's the organisation of an organisation which is kind of confusing.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on UNGA voting should be changed. I was confused about the 'important question' thing so I found the rules of procedure here [6] and the matters that require a two-thirds vote are specifically spelled out. I would just use that list, and take out the thing about important questions. Reading this makes me think an article for UN rules of procedure would be helpful.

 Done, sort of. I'm not sure what you mean about "the thing about important questions" -- "important questions" is the exact description from the rules of procedure you cited, as well as the secondary source I consulted. But I don't mind including the full detail from the rules of procedure in a footnote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Security Council section uses 'member governments' which I don't think I've ever heard as a term in the context of the UN. Better to use member states to remain consistent.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secretary-General has to be recommended by the UNSC, "where the permanent members have veto power" - this is redundant since it was stated in the UNSC section.

Since this is only a few words, I'd prefer to leave it. Not everyone reads the full article from top to bottom, and this is an important point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UNGA can 'theoretically override' - confusing.

 Done This sentence doesn't really seem to be needed in the top level article, actually, since this power has never been used. We're having enough trouble fitting in the powers that have been. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specialised institutions should be changed to 'Specialised Agencies' to be consistent with the link to the list below the section heading.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Group 77 be in the Membership section? Seems out of place.

While perhaps not perfect, I think it's as logical a spot as we're likely to find. It's an important bloc of members. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to stop for now but I'll be back later, hope the comments help kaireky (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's really helpful, thanks. I'll try to implement these changes in the next few days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded to the above concerns--thanks again, Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to reference 66 is broken, I went to change it but I'm not auto confirmed yet (silly thing) but I found a page with the same information that can be linked to instead [7] kaireky (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shraddha Kapoor[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to pass it as a Good article.

Thanks, SMauritius diR mWa!! 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to re-submit it for FA status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Quite good, here are the first half of my comments:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addressing:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Done. Footnoted that the state court used state clear and convincing evidence standard rather than federal beyond a reasonable doubt standard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
Resuming with one more SC supreme court argument
  • Was there oral argument in the state supreme court? The date at least should be mentioned if so.
SCOTUS
  • "Seven entities filed amici curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of hearing the case. This included amicus briefs by two former" Why is it amici for the seven briefs filed by the entities, but not the two briefs? Plural either way.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Italicization of certiorari seems inconsistent.
  • Consider dropping the dates of service of the exSG's to a footnote or at least deleting the repetitions of the name of the office.
Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
  • I wonder if it is really necessary to identify counsel as attorneys. It is clear from context. (used twice). Also, I would state their qualifications in the past tense to eliminate the need for updating.
  • "Guardian ad litem" I think ad litem should be italicized. As you have not previously mentioned this individual's participation, I suggest a link or an explanation someplace would be in order. Did the GAL make recommendations in the lower courts? Did the GAL file a brief on the merits?
  • Can anything be said about the oral arguments?
  • "He also noted that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption." I'm thinking it should be "would not have been able to object", but that makes the sentence so convoluted, you might want to rewrite. You also might want to make it clearer that this was in the absence of the ICWA.
  • Consider the use of non-breaking spaces between the section sign and the number.
  • "Thomas continued, to state that there was no constitutional authority for Congress to enact the ICWA." There's an issue with the start of this sentence. Perhaps start "Thomas contended that there was no …"
  • "Justice Stephen Breyer also issued a very short concurring opinion. " Ambiguity, possible implication that Thomas's was also very short.
  • The section on subsequent developments might need better organization.

That's all I've got. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Addressing:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
 Done, added "Historically," to Indian children removal to clarify. The removal to boarding schools started in the 1880s, forced adoptions came later. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 21:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
 Done, removed reference to other child. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Done. Footnoted that the state court used state clear and convincing evidence standard rather than federal beyond a reasonable doubt standard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
  • I wonder if it is really necessary to identify counsel as attorneys. It is clear from context. (used twice). Also, I would state their qualifications in the past tense to eliminate the need for updating.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resuming with one more SC supreme court argument
  • Was there oral argument in the state supreme court? The date at least should be mentioned if so.
SCOTUS
  • "Seven entities filed amici curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of hearing the case. This included amicus briefs by two former" Why is it amici for the seven briefs filed by the entities, but not the two briefs? Plural either way.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Italicization of certiorari seems inconsistent.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider dropping the dates of service of the exSG's to a footnote or at least deleting the repetitions of the name of the office.
 Done. Footnoted. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Guardian ad litem" I think ad litem should be italicized. As you have not previously mentioned this individual's participation, I suggest a link or an explanation someplace would be in order. Did the GAL make recommendations in the lower courts? Did the GAL file a brief on the merits?
I italicized ad litem. I'll do either a link or FN or both later. I don't know what was done at the trial court, the records are sealed, but I'll see what I can find. The GAL did file a merit brief. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can anything be said about the oral arguments?
  • "He also noted that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption." I'm thinking it should be "would not have been able to object", but that makes the sentence so convoluted, you might want to rewrite. You also might want to make it clearer that this was in the absence of the ICWA.
The exact language Alito used was:

"It is undisputed that, had Baby Girl not been 3/256 Cherokee, Biological Father would have had no right to object to her adoption under South Carolina law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 49; 398 S.C., at 644, n. 19, 731 S.E.2d, at 560, n. 19 (“Under state law, [Biological] Father's consent to the adoption would not have been required”). The South Carolina Supreme Court held, however, that Biological Father is a “parent” under the ICWA and that two statutory provisions—namely, § 1912(f) and § 1912(d)—bar the termination of his parental rights. In this Court, Adoptive Couple contends that Biological Father is not a “parent” and that § 1912(f) and *2560 § 1912(d) are inapplicable. We need not—and therefore do not—decide whether Biological Father is a “parent.” See § 1903(9) (defining “parent”).4 Rather, assuming for the sake of argument that he is a “parent,” we hold that neither § 1912(f) nor § 1912(d) bars the termination of his parental rights." Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 2559-60, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729 (U.S.S.C. 2013)

With "undisputed" being the language used in the opinion, I thought that we should use it in the article, but I'm open to change it, just let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it works better if you lead off with the phrase, as in "it is undisputed that under South Carolina law …"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider the use of non-breaking spaces between the section sign and the number.
OK. I've never used those. What's the code? GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  You'll have to check the edit window and see what's inside the nowiki tags on this edit, for some reason the code won't display even inside of nowiki tags. If you have "Wiki markup" displayed below the edit window, you'll see it there. Check the WP:NBSP for usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Thomas continued, to state that there was no constitutional authority for Congress to enact the ICWA." There's an issue with the start of this sentence. Perhaps start "Thomas contended that there was no …"
 Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Justice Stephen Breyer also issued a very short concurring opinion. " Ambiguity, possible implication that Thomas's was also very short.
  • The section on subsequent developments might need better organization.

Comments by Josve05a[edit]

  • There are multiple dead links on this page. Try finding archived versions of the websites.-(t) Josve05a (c) 00:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done, fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stapes[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is the third of the five articles I am trying to get to GA status, and I would value some input on what areas would make it more comprehensive, what would improve the article, and if I am missing anything, or if there are any errors.

Thanks! LT910001 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finetooth comments

I'm a well-informed amateur, not a health professional, and those are limits you might want to know about as you consider my comments and questions below.
That's all right! Your review has been very thorough, which is wonderful. The article's definitely improved because of your comments. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illustrations  Done

  • The caption of the lead illustration says in part, "B: Base of stapes, medial surface". Isn't the medial surface on the opposite side of the footplate, toward the labyrinth?
  • The caption on the next illustration down says, "Chain of ossicles and their ligaments, seen from the front in a vertical, transverse section of the tympanum". Is "tympanum" the right word? Wouldn't "middle ear" be more accurate?
Reworded both. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overlinking  Done

  • Usually one link per uncommon word or phrase is sufficient in a short article. Oval window is linked here five times, which is way too many. As you expand the article, you'll want to link the first use of an uncommon term but perhaps no more, depending on the situation.
Removed, and also removed excess references to stirrups and ossicles. If I've missed something please let me know! --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead  Done

  • Most readers will not know what "laterally" and "medially" mean. Would it be helpful to include an everyday English translation in parentheses after these words; i.e., "medially (towards the center)"?
Articles in other fields do not provide such definitions, and I am quite strongly against it, as it is usually detrimental to an article's quality and readability. We've been adding the note at the end about Anatomical terminology to deal with this issue. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since you mention "lightest" in the lead, it should also appear in the main text (in the "Structure" section) since the lead is to be a summary of the text.
Done. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure  Done

  • Can "smallest" and "lightest" be quantified? Would it be helpful for ordinary readers to include a comparison to something commonly known; i.e., "about the size of a fill-in-the-blank". Here's an NIH document with sizes, though only for a sample of 10: Measurements of the stapes superstructure.
Welcome to the world of minor Anatomy, which often feels like a professional game of Chinese whispers. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It lies directly on the oval window." – Would "rests" be better than "lies", which seems to suggest contact with the oval window along the entire long axis of the stapes instead of just the footplate?
Made the change--LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In animals  Done

  • Link gill arch?
  • Italicize pars media plectra.
Done and done. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinical relevance  Done

  • Everything in this section needs to be supported by a reliable source. Would it be useful to expand this section by adding brief explanations of the possible surgeries, mention of other options, and a few statistics? A good overview of otosclerosis, including incidence and prevalence stats, is here.
Added a source and details. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is persistence of the stapedial artery of any consequence? Does it manifest as symptoms of some sort?

History  Done

  • Would it be helpful to expand on the controversy? If not Ingrassia, then who? Or is the controversy about something else, Ingrassia's analysis, perhaps?

Images  Done

  • Galleries are sometimes useful in Wikipedia articles but are generally deprecated. That is, if you can work the most important illustrations into the appropriate sections of the main text, that is better than having a pile of images at the bottom of the article. I would suggest eliminating the mug shot of Ingrassia and the one of his first description; I don't think they tell us much. Ditto for the crude drawing of the ossicles. The other three are more interesting. I think I would create a smaller gallery with just those three unless the text gets big enough to fold them in.
I have removed the majority of images. Having an image of the first description is something close to my heart that is not often available, so I am strongly in favour of retaining it =P. --LT910001 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations  Done

  • Citation 6 has a dead URL.
  • Citation 1 lacks available details such as the accessdate.
  • The Vallejo-Valdezate LA citation should be connected to something specific in the text or moved to "External links".
Fixed: removed or replaced all three citations.
That's all I have at the moment. Please ping me if my notes above are unclear. Good luck with this, and Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

：：All right!! Finetooth, thanks for providing a very thorough review! Will address your comments soon. Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will finish my update tomorrow. That was a wonderful review (in case I haven't mentioned that!) and if you feel so inclined, would I be able to ping you for another 2-3 reviews in the next few weeks? --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I enjoyed reviewing this one. I'd be glad to review others, if you like. Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have nominated for GA status, will respond to your comments in the 2-3 months wait for a review. --LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have addressed all your commentary. Thanks! --LT910001 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ You seem to be focusing on Athens. If the choregoi were used elsewhere, you need to expand the description to note any differences from the Athenian model and how the choregoi were used in other parts of ancient Greece.
  2. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
  3. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/December_2013&oldid=593370467"