Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2014

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.

---

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because soon I'll nominate it for FLC but before that I'd like some suggestions. Feel free to give comments

Thanks, FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

It's clear you've put a lot of effort into this list. I still found it a little confusing and, at times, inconsistent. Some comments:

• The list is alphabetical, but the list in the infobox is randomly arranged
• I like what you've tried to do when introducing the awards, but it's quite inconsistent. I suggest for consistency you:
  • State and link the award name, eg "The FICCI Frames Excellence Honours...", not always linked
  • State what the aware is for ("... are awarded for outstanding achievements in Bollywood films and Indian television.")
  • Sometimes you include the year the awards were founded in; otherwise not. I suggest not, I don't think it's particularly relevant to this article.
  • Sometimes you include a summary of the awards given ("Her performances in the films Paa (2009), Ishqiya (2010), and The Dirty Picture have won her Best Actress Awards. "); otherwise not.
  • I think some statements may need inline citations ("The Filmfare Awards are one of the oldest and most prestigious Hindi film awards."), ("The award is considered to be a completely viewer driven award "), ("The Anandalok, the only film magazine in Bengali language")
  • Also, I think it's good that you include the selection panel and state who gives the awards (eg popular choice or judges) and suggest you do that for all the awards
• "Vidya has received five awards from five nominations" under Aspara - seems to be six nominations. If this is too complicated to edit and maintain (which is may be), then I suggest either add a 'total' row for each table, or remove the totals entirely and leave it all in the infobox.

So, in conclusion, this is in my mind quite a good article, however as you are aiming for FL status, it will need to be the 'cream of the crop', which means it will need to be accurate and consistent. I think standardising the introduction to each award, providing some citations where necessary, removing the totals provided when the awards are introduced, and alphabetising the infobox award list will help a lot. I hope this advice is useful and not too demoralising. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Tintin in Tibet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article will soon be submitted to WP:FAC and hopefully someday become a Featured Article (it fairly recently become a Good Article). Thank-you for providing your copy editing skills. What this entire article needs is a tough, thorough review as if it were already going through FAC. Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Prhartcom (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried nominating it at the WP:GCE? Brigade Piron (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try that after I give this one a try. Prhartcom (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just listed it there also. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did no one peer review this article? Today it was closed and archived with the erroneous statement that it had been peer reviewed. Prhartcom (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The Love Club EP

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the article's quality

Thanks, Simon (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

• "In November 2012, it was freely available through SoundCloud"..... try the EP was released

• How does it look now? Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely better. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "MacLachlan attempted to put Lorde with several songwriters and producers to help her producing them, but it failed"..... doesn't read very well, would be better as something like "MacLachlan unsuccessfully tried to set up Lorde with several songwriters and producers to help her with production"

• Done. Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "written by Lorde (credited as her birth-name Ella Yelich-O'Connor) and Joel Little"..... you don't need to mention the whole "credited as" bit

• Why? Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the "self" in "Lorde self-released The Love Club EP through her SoundCloud account" is needed

• Self-release is different from release. Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Very well. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "On 8 March 2013, The Love Club EP was available for digital download via iTunes Stores"..... was released digitally via iTunes

• Done. Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the hyphen from "In early-2014"

• Done. Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Try to find more reviews

• I'm trying to find more reviews, but seems like the only three sources in the article are WP:RS. Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just add more if you do find them. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There's my 2¢. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! Simon (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem :). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism

• "began to write songs" → "began writing songs"

• Fixed. Simon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• " all of the songs for the record" → "the EP" (simple and not redundant)

• Done. Simon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• "and from 8 March 2013, the EP was purchased for sales by Universal Music Group and Virgin." (a bit awkward...) → Make this a separate sentence, writing "The EP was (commercially/for sales) released on 8 March 2013 by (those labels).

• Done. Simon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Nelson Mail says nothing about indie rock, just indie.

• Adabow, he fixed indie --> indie rock. Simon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)|

• The "indie" in "indie-flavoured electronica" obviously refers to a genre, not the independent music industry. All the indie genres are derived from indie rock, so we could describe it as indie rock influenced or indietronica. Adabow (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• "some footage" → "footage"

• Fixed. Simon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Ultimately, ..." (remove ultimately)

• Why? Ultimately = Finally, to show that the pair-up with Joel Little was the last set up. Simon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The pair" is very similar to "paired"... change "the pair" to their surnames so the prose doesn't become repetitive

• Surnames for me are quite repetitive more than using "the pair". Simon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Lorde had finished recording three tracks: "Royals", "Bravado" and "Biting Down" (remove three tracks:, it's redundant)

• Removed. Simon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "They also recorded two other songs, "Million Dollar Bills" and "The Love Club" (Did they record two other songs, Million Dollar Bills and The Love Club, or did they record "Million Dollar Bills" and "The Love Club" (the two other songs)? This sentence is ambiguous. If it's the last option, change the comma and the following space to —.

• Oh my god! Thanks for reminding me . Simon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Little played all the instruments, including his own drum sample," (I find the drum part a bit confusing... like a drum sample is an instrument. Maybe "[...], while Little played all the instruments, including guitar and synthesizer, and also recorded drum samples.")
• There's a Wikipedia guideline (of which I forgot the name) that says AllMusic isn't reliable for composers. Can you use AV media notes instead?

• Sadly the EP doesn't have liner notes. Simon (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Be consistent with locations... either add them for all articles or remove them for articles that have them. (except for the iTunes Store links)

• There you go. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• "'Royals' and 'Million Dollar Bills' are the two tracks that criticize the high life" → "Royals" and "Million Dollar Bills" criticize the high life. — prism △ 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

UEFA Celebration Match

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is not far away from FA status, or at least GA status. I'm mainly looking for comments about the content and if I've missed anything, but any comments that would help the article meet the FA/GA criteria would be appreciated.

Thanks, – PeeJay 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just a couple of notes: the summary is unreferenced and seems to contain quite a bit of POV, e.g. "perfectly timed" and metaphor, e.g. "Wes Brown was on hand". In the officials section, there is discussion that the referee was the "German representative" at the 2002 and 2006 WCs but iirc the officials don't represent their country, but FIFA during these tournaments. Perhaps the wording there could be tweaked. C679 15:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the summary section could do with a bit of a tighten. I'll blitz it when I have some time tomorrow. And the officials at the World Cup may officially be FIFA referees, but Merk was still there as a representative of the German Football Association, if only idiomatically. – PeeJay 22:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    

---

List of How I Met Your Mother characters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working for a while to try and improve it, and I've copyedited the whole article now. I would potentially be interested in seeing if I could get it to featured list standard, although I've never nominated anything for GA or FA/FL before.

Thanks, Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

comment by llywrch

Looking it over, I find the short descriptions all are accurate & adequately sourced. They are all handled as characters, not as living people -- good. I may have overlooked a detail that needs to be included -- or one that should be excluded -- but without watching all the episodes & taking careful notes, I can't address how accurate that is. But after checking all of the entries to see if any one of note has been overlooked, I did find one omission. Or a group of omissions. Namely, the doubles of the main characters. AFAICR, only one is ever developed beyond a short mention -- Stripper Lily -- so I think one paragraph on the whole theme would adequately cover these characters, even Stripper Lily. -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a section under "Secondary characters". (Technically, they do appear in 5 episodes combined.) The theme of Barney's doppelganger is also extended a bit more, so it/they have a whole paragraph, but the rest have been given just a sentence each. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That section works for me. I did a little tweaking to the language, just because, & I hope that improved things. -- llywrch (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

---

California Chrome

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC in the near future. This will be the third race horse "biography" I've taken to FAC, but it has become the most complicated because there were, literally, hundreds of news articles and other sources to consult in an ever-changing story. At this point, I have been working at the article and updating it on a near-daily basis for the last six weeks or so and am bleary-eyed. News on this horse changed quickly, and sources contradicted themselves, and it took a lot of time to be sure I "got it right" when, clearly, many members of the press did not. This was the first time I ever worked on an actively-developing story, and the article just hit 500,000 hits sometime today. So in reviewing the article, aside from the usual, I am hoping folks can:

1. Catch the usual wikignoming fixes I need to make in style and syntax;
2. Catch anything duplicative or otherwise just poorly written
3. Is all the horse lingo either wikilinked to an article/definition or explained in the article well enough for non-racing, non-horse aficionados to understand?
4. Suggest things that could be trimmed down a bit and discuss if anything could be thrown out altogether.

   For example, should we keep the funny story about the opossum at Belmont Park?  ;-)

5. Any other improvements recommended before FAC?

Thanks, Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick pedantic comments

• Sorting of Time and Margin fails.
  • I don't know how to fix that. (I don't understand table syntax at all, I just copy what other people do) Advice? --MTBW
    • Did this get fixed? --MTBW
• Odd partial abbreviation of dates (e.g. you allow June but not July)...
  • Where?? --MTBW
    • In the same table that the previous remark related to. `The Rambling Man (talk)
      • The dates should be three letter abbreviations, else the column is ridiculously wide compared to the others. I'll tweak somehow. --MTBW
        • Looks fine with proper dates. No need to abbreviate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Have already had someone at talk complaining that the chart is too wide for their mobile device and want me to eliminate columns, which we're pretty much already cut to the minimum by eliminating unneeded parameters. I'm gunshy. Not a moral issue to me, but feels like a no-win.  ;-P Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Use a multiplication sign, not an x for the " 4 x 3 " etc.
  • It's an abbreviation for "by" like a wooden board is a 2 x 4 - I can do this, but is that the correct form? --MTBW
    • Yep, you need a multiplication sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • OK I fixed three, did I get them all? (I hate that stuff, it looks exactly the same to me, in all honesty, it's very difficult for me to fix, but I know, I know...) --MTBW
• Explain what bold means (and if you're really keen, avoid it altogether or use an additional marker like a per WP:ACCESS).
  • it indicates Inbreeding. (Other web sources use colors) We've never had anyone raise this at FAC and it's used for every pedigree chart in WP Horse racing... I can note it, but? --MTBW
    • Yep, well I'd raise it at FAC and I'd also ask for for WP:ACCESS compliance with the addition of a symbol so that those of us with inadequate sight don't rely on bold text when we can't really easily see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I hesitate to change the longstanding consensus of WP Horse racing to use bold on pedigrees, but I also understand the issue, so should I use a note that says "inbreeding in bold" or add a dagger to the boldface for the access issue, or...? (Open to suggestions) --MBTW
• Notes should use consistent grammar, i.e. complete sentences take a period.
  • Feel free to tweak those as you see them, probably easier than telling me to look for the mistakes with one eye needing cataract surgery; which is probably why they occurred in the first place! --MTBW
    • I have done a few, but really it needs a copyedit to cover them all to stop the FAC warriors from going ape. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm quite bleary-eyed. Think we can convince Corbett to do a run-through? I burned him out on the last two, I think. --MTBW
• Things like "Washington Post" really should be Washington Post as they're "works" not "publishers", this will be picked up at FAC no doubt about it.
  • Web citation template has removed the "work" parameter... looks like you or someone got a bunch of these already (?) I've had a lot of differences of opinion if online newspapers are citeweb or citenews. I'm open to whatever, I just don't want to fix 100 refs and then have someone else tell me I have to do it all over again --MTBW
    • I use the {{cite web}} template where "work" still exists fine. It's certainly clear that something like "Washington Post" is a work and not a publisher though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The pull-down template version in the edit window has replaced it with "website". I'll have to check later to see if it italicizes the same as "work". Somebody fiddled with something that wasn't broke. (sigh) --MTBW
• Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
  • Copy and paste, probably. Found two that I fixed. Any more, if so, which refs? (numbers?) --MTBW
    • Everything where you HAVE A TITLE WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • See above --MTBW
• New York Times is The New York Times.
  • Fixed, that is soooo annoying. --MTBW
• You have a "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "BH9May" is not used in the content (see the help page)." message to cope with.
  • Fixed. --MTBW
• Sometimes it's Blood-Horse, then it's Blood-Horse, then it's BloodHorse.com.... be consistent with these.
  • Well it's this publication: Blood-Horse and I guess in italics as it's a magazine but it's also a web site and the two don't have identical content; I am always referencing the web articles. Thoughts? --MTBW
    • I don't really care either way, but I'd ask (suggest) that you're consistent every time you use this source. Or else I know of at least one FAC reviewer who will just mention it again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Gee, who might that be? (/snark) OK. Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm seeing four WP:DAB links, "pedigree", "populist", Foundation, "Gary Stevens".
  • Will fix, thanks for spotting--MTBW

I haven't read the prose much, but these are things that will get you slaughtered at FAC if you don't fix... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @The Rambling Man:! I've answered or asked further questions inline. Feel free to tweak any small things you see as you go, probably easier than telling me to look for something I am not going to see, my eyes suck and I'm putting of getting cataract surgery, FWIW. Yes, ironic that prose, the first thing that readers see, is the least likely thing to derail a FAC. Sigh... off to fix the nitpicks, as you are correct, I'm just annoyed in principle... bleech Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I've made a few tweaks, some you need to address yourself, and after all the technical crap, I'll try to find some time to read the prose (in between real life work and looking after The Rambling Kid).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:I've heard there is a Rambling kid... and at certain ages, they can really ramble... Basically, There are some things that are truly very difficult for me to see, I edit on a laptop and my eyes are over 50 (as is the rest of me) so where you can make the little tweaks, i will be quite grateful! Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing my best, trying to fix your table, will try to sort the other technical bits too. And will finally get round to reading the prose (avoid contractions by the way!!) in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate everything. Considering how much I've stared at this thing to the point I just can't see half of what's there, I am more than welcome of any help in any form. You're the best! Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More and sorry for not getting back sooner.

• Is the wives' participation in DAP really so important that they need to be included in the lead?
  • Complicated issue; they seem to be very active behind the scenes, see the Scoby source here. One other news article (One of the Arrington ones) says they are co-owners in the partnership. I have a note at your talk, it's about this. --MTBW
• You link to the 2014 and the general Kentucky Derby using the same text, so it's a potentially confusing issue. Why not link "1955 Kentucky Derby" to the specific event, rather than the general event?
  • No article on 1955 Kentucky Derby, but I will see what I can do to alleviate the confusion; I did some rewriting. Is it better? --MTBW
• "to treat the mare several times a day and gave him extra attention" reads just a shade odd, maybe replace "him" with "Chrome".
  • You're right, I'll figure out something. I don't like to say "California Chrome" tons of time, but I don't have a source saying that a lot of people (including Sherman) truncate his name to 'Chrome, though they do. --MTBW
• I don't believe there's a real need to link a common term like "jockey".
  • Interesting article though, and I can see someone later claiming "jockey" should be "rider" or some such nonsense. I'd prefer to keep that one. --MTBW
• "He won that race..." last "he" you mentioned was Espinoza, keep track of the subjects so they're not too confusing.
  • I did some rewriting there. Better? --MTBW
• "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby" now you've linked the event twice in the lead, avoid over linking.
  • Fixed a couple of obvious ones, thanks for hunting them down. --MTBW
• "a large field of 19 horses." interesting, a field of 19 is "large"? In the Grand National, we have around 40 horses, that's usually considered "large"!
  • Flat dirt race and the gate spans the width of the track 1-1/4 mile distance all start evenly - In most US flat races, you seldom see even 14 or 15 horses in a field. I think the Derby has the biggest field of any flat race in the country, though I'd have to double-check. --MTBW
• You over link Preakness too in the lead.
  • Fixed --MTBW
• "is anticipated race again later in the year, aiming for the Breeders' Cup Classic." this will very quickly become stale, I imagine it's best to not try FAC with such a temporally fragile ending to the lead.
  • I was lucky that Mucho Macho Man went up at the end of the season. I agree that stale could become a problem, but the Breeders' Cup isn't until November...his story is still being written. --MTBW
• "when he was a foal, is "Junior"," no need for that first comma. Or, if you insist, add one before "when".
  • Fixed --MTBW
• "broodmare" just links back to mare, is there a more explicit link (e.g. a section link) you could use?
  • No, the definition is in the first paragraph of the mare article. --MTBW
• Don't overlink e.g. "filly" then "fillies" linked in consecutive paragraphs to the same article.
  • FIXED --MTBW
• Add non-breaking spaces for things like "$2.1 million" so the text doesn't break in an awkward way.
  • Added   with each ref of millions, are there other places I need to do this? --MTBW
• "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well." really? Our horse has four white legs, two white hooves and two black hooves...
  • Did exceed the source a bit, tweaked. --MTBW
• "to developing problems,[16] During his two-year-old season" grammar fail.
  • Tweaked. better? --MTBW
• "develop low heels" a bit jargon.
  • You are right, I'm not sure how to fix without a treatise on horseshoeing. this has a picture of what I'm talking about. Common problem in race horses... Thoughts? -MTBW
• "a bit farther" sounds non-encyclopedic.
  • Tweaked. Better? --MTBW
• Avoid repeating humans' first names after you've first introduced them, as long as it's not ambiguous to do so.
  • Alan and Art Sherman are a problem in that regard; as are Alberto and Willie Delgado. Other than those, you're correct, did I do it elsewhere? On those fellows, any thoughts? --MTBW
• Do you mean "University of Illinois at Chicago " instead of "University of Illinois-Chicago."?
  • I think I phrased it to the source's phrasing. Problematic? --MTBW
• "his reticence in talking" bit passive, maybe "his reluctance to talk"?
  • Complicated issue (see other complicated comment) --MTBW
• "March 2014[28]" I think we could all wait until the end of the sentence for the citation.
  • Open to discussion, you re right it would look better, but I know that where I've worked on articles where two or more sources are needed to cite a single sentence and they all get lumped at the end, it can confuse future editors. I hear what you are saying, but my default is to cite each tidbit to the source provided. Do you think this one is small enough that such confusion could be avoided? --MTBW
• "when he was looking for a tax write-off" again doesn't read particularly encyclopaedically?
  • That is the way most sources phrase it, not sure precisely what kind of tax issue he had - open to a better way to say it, though --MTBW
• Is it "Love the Chase" or "Love The Chase"?
  • lower case "the". I'll fix. --MTBW
• I imagine a link to catheter would be more instructive than a link to cowboy.
  • Did both.

That gets me up to the "Sherman training stables" section. If I haven't annoyed you too much, I'll continue when I get another 30-minute burst of concentration.....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

More

• "individualised attention" why not just "individual attention"?
  • Good question;I guess because he is an animal, so the handlers didn't treat him like all the others, but your call. --MTBW
• "had one prior experience with a Derby horse" perhaps -> "had prior experience with one Derby horse".
  • OK Fixed --MTBW
• " race horsesr in" typo.
  • Fixed, thanks for spotting --MTBW
• Is it "Southern California" or "southern California"?
  • I honestly don't know what the wiki gods of capitalization have decreed this week, but made both "southern California" for consistency. Until the rules change again... --MTBW
• "Three weeks later... About four weeks later... " not terribly engaging prose.
  • Unclear about what solution you seek? Time between races is a factor, particularly when we got to the Triple Crown races with three in five weeks...? --MTBW
• No need to repeat Delgado's first name until it becomes confusing because there are two of them...
  • Which occurs quickly... the later Delgado was the more involved one...? I removed one use, I just don't want a different reviewer coming at me later saying "which Delgado?"  ;-) --MTBW
• You convert pounds to kg but leave furlongs and miles as they are. I'd suggest converting everything or nothing.
  • I've put in convert templates for all distances save where they are a direct quote. (I favor all) No conversion for furlongs in the text, but we have them linked at first use and the convert template after the chart. I can convert the miles in text, further fixes... ? --MTBW
• "The horse was, incidentally, the" if you're saying "incidentally", is this really necessary for inclusion in an encyclopaedia?
  • It's a thing that mattered to horse people; shutting down Hollywood Park was an enormous big deal, last stakes winner was viewed as significant. --MTBW
• "Alan Sherman at right." -> "Alan Sherman (right)."
  • I hate parenthetical phrases, but no big deal in a caption, I guess. Fixed--MTBW
• "Stakes [82][86]" remove the space between s and [.
  • Fixed --MTBW
• "plane" is a little colloquial for me.
  • Said "airplane" first time, the subsequent use is common American English. Better? --MTBW
• You mention "speed horse" but I have no idea what is. Is it like a pacemaker?
  • Good catch, tweaked. Better? --MTBW
• "Following the Derby, Sherman told the press that he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby" -> "Following the Derby ... prior to the Derby" in one sentence reads poorly (to me).
  • Tweaked. Better? --MTBW
• "Sherman didn't like that" avoid contractions.
  • Fixed. --MTBW
• " 35 pounds" previously you've used lb and converted to kg...
  • Fixed. --MTBW

Gets me to Belmont Stakes... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

More

• "Following the Preakness, about 24 hours of press excitement erupted the day after the race" too much time here, maybe "About 24 hours of press ... erupted the day after the Preakness..."?
  • Fixed--MTBW
• "like he had worn in his" prefer "as he had in..." tighter and less repeat.
  • Fixed --MTBW
• Any reason to abbreviate EIPH if you don't use the abbreviation?
  • Was potential it might show up again in the article later, probably not now, but hesitant to toss it too soon; Ride On Curlin did just that (started bleeding in a race) in the Belmont, poor fellow. --MTBW
• "plus aid" just "and aid"
  • Already had an "and" but reworded. --MTBW
• "and on the following day" no need for "on".
  • OK--MTBW
• "His first week at the track" you've lost the subject.
  • Fixed--MTBW
• Is "critter" an encyclopaedic term?
  • Out here in the west it is, pardner! LOL! Actually, someone else added it, the original source said "marsupial" and I didn't want to crib that word but, I already have "opossum", "creature" and "animal." I'm out of words! Will "it" do? --MTBW
• " a half-mile (0.5 miles (0.80 km))" I don't think we need to have it explained that "half-mile" is 0.5 miles...!
  • Fixed template.--MTBW
• "47:69" do you mean 47.69?
  • Fixed--MTBW
• "back .. the one" in the quote, shouldn't that be an ellipsis rather than just two dots?
  • Fixed--MTBW
• "was tired for third" tied I guess you mean.
  • Fixed--MTBW
• I would merge the Twitter account and hashtag information together as they both relate to similar things.
• "The naysayers also were out in force" this reads a bit tabloid for me.
  • Suggestions for improvement on that one? Trying to include the good with the bad to keep it balanced, though DeFord was sort of the most interesting.
• In the table, there's a mixture of the use of .5 and 1/2 to represent a half.
  • Convert all to fractions --MTBW
• Also, the 3.2 should be 3.20 to be consistent with all the other odds formatting.
  • Fixed--BW
• You have a conversion table for furlongs but not for lengths...
  • We have lengths wikilinked at first use in the text, it's 8 feet, roughly, but also "neck" and "nose" so not as precise as furlongs (which are also linked at first use in the text) Last FAC i worked on, we had problems with the furlong conversions in each chart cell bulking it out, so we moved it, WP Horse racing articles have not used conversions for lengths in charts; sometimes haven't even converted furlongs... not sure how big a deal this will be...? --MTBW
• It may be unavoidable but "Lucky Pulpit was sired by Pulpit, a leading sire of 63 stakes winners and particularly known for his son, the successful sire Tapit" contains the word "sire" three times...
  • tightened. Better? (We can't say "produced" because that's what horse lingo says the mares- mamma horses - do) --MTBW
• Needs an explanatory note as to what bold text means (and technically, per WP:ACCESS it should be used because some people find it difficult to distinguish from un-bold text....)
  • You are right, I'll figure out something. --MTBW

That's it for a quick PR, hopefully some of it will stand you in good stead (no pun intended) for FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All has been very helpful. Can you pop back through my questions here and see if there is anything I did not fix to your satisfaction? I hope you will feel OK about weighing in as a supporter (acknowledging PR work) when I do go to FA? Thank you SO much! I appreciate your help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Eminem

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up to FA, possibly so it can be "Today's feature article" for his 42nd birthday this upcoming October 17th.

Thanks, XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are 12 dead links that should be fixed or removed.
• Mashin' Duck Records redirects to Eminem's article.

Otherwise, the article looks very good to me. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead

I was asked to review this article via my talk page, so here are my concerns:

• cite number one should be moved to the first section
• "as well as one half of the hip hop duo"→since we know it's a two men project, it would be simpler to just say "part of"
• omit either "listed" or "ranked" since it's the same thing
• "the second best selling male artist of the Nielsen Soundscan era"→I think mentioning this in the lead is irrelevant, because it is followed by him being the sixth best overall selling artist in the US. Another thing is that the Beatles and Metallica are also male and they have sold more than him.
• "After his debut album Infinite"→It would be nice to explain here that he was signed to a major label for the release of The Slim Shady LP, which was the reason for his rise to mainstream popularity.
• His next two albums were worldwide successes→since they were successful on a global level, it is logical to include the worldwide sales, not just the US certifications.
• This was followed by Encore in 2004, another critical and commercial successful album.→Looking at the Metacritic score of the album (64) and the sales (5.3 million), this wasn't a critical and commercial success compared to his previous two albums.
• "the film's iconic song" — per WP:PEACOCK, descriptions such as "iconic" are not encyclopedical
• Overall, I suggest nominating this page for a copyedit at WP:GOCE; there are probably a few grammatical errors that need to be ironed out before seeking a higher rating.--Retrohead (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• There are some external links that will need to be corrected.
• There is one redirect link that will need to be addressed.
• Each picture used in the article will need an alternate text description added.
• Can you move the references from the introduction into the body of the article?
• I would suggested merging "Memoirs", "Advertising", and "Charity" into a single subhead under the "Other ventures" section; even though they are fairly disconnected, they are all small sections that could probably be chunked under something called "Miscellaneous" or something with the same idea.
• I think the books listed in the "Bibliography" section can just be listed like "Title (Year of release)", the way that studio albums are treated.
• I don't think that the "Business ventures" section is needed, since the two ventures with articles are already discussed in the body of the article.
• I see some inconsistencies with the way that Billboard is treated in the citations; some spots list it as Billboard with the publisher Nielsen Business Media, others with the publisher Prometheus Global Media, and others where it is simply listed as Billboard.com. I recommend that you pick one citation style to use throughout the article.
• I've also spotted some occasions where the article bounces between "number" and "no." when discussing rankings. I would go through the article and make sure they are all changed to "number", which to me seems more formal.
• I personally would remove the succession boxes at the end of the article; I don't find them particularly needed, especially when these achievements are discussed in the body of the article.

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, is anyone up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Red Skelton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because We hope and I would like to bring this to FAC in the coming weeks, and would like a pre-flight check for grammar and (if possible) comprehensiveness.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I could stop by, yes (love that game). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm started with reviewing your article! — Crisco 1492 URDNEXT (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Great, and I'll take a look at SMB3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisco nitpicks

• We hope, this says four of our links are dead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, Ive gone to wayback machine for the Scottish Rite one. I see that the other 3 are Google News Archive articles from The News and Courier. Google has removed newspapers without warning in the past and it looks like they've done it again with this one. Advice, please on how to keep this as a ref because we may not be able to find the articles at Google News Archive in other papers. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Have commented out the url links that as of now have no replacement. I absolutely hate when they do things like this! We hope (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• They dood it. Well, we don't need online verification abilities so - so long as you cited the page number and other pertinent information - commenting out the links is enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• We hope, you may need a reference for The Great Lazarus and Skelton's filmography, as they don't seem to be referenced elsewhere (and The Great Lazarus doesn't have an OCLC number for verification). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this now. :/ Got a ref for the book. Took a look at Peter Sellers and I see no refs on the filmography section of his article. Know IMDB isn't considered reliable for this--what about whatever Rotten Tomatoes may have rather than to ref every film in the list? We hope (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• What about the biographies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, but I got a list from Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling. Only trouble is that Google allows one to read the e-book edition only, which has no page numbers (EEK!). The other editions they have online are no previews. Have listed the book in the bibliography and left the Google Books link to the material so at least part of the list (what they'll let us see) can be shown. We hope (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hopefully that's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but think the e-book editions are something we're going to need to live/deal with when it comes to Google Books. I started working on ref fixes for Perry Como recently and the first offering from Google was the e-book with no page numbers. Had to work around a bit to locate the print copy there I started out with for the refs. We hope (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• Young Skelton/young newsboy. Rep of "young". Also occurs later on in this sentence. Once is enough.
• I'm not sure you "learn" to make people laugh, more "discover".
• "he realized that the days of showboats would soon come to an end." This sounds as if he he had a premonition or something. →"he realized that the days of showboats were coming to an end." In fact, "he realized that showboat entertainment was coming to an end."
• "Since he had left school at an early age, his wife bought textbooks and taught Skelton what he had missed." -- why do we jump back to his name halfway through when there is no confusion. It would be better to stick with the pronoun throughout as it would make this sentence flow much nicer.
• "The couple's hopes were to somehow find work in New York City and break into vaudeville there" -- did they intend to find menial work AND break into vaudeville? Or was the work vaudeville. I would suggest that if the latter, it is a bit redundant mentioning "find work" when we could cut to the chase: "The couple's hopes were to break into vaudeville in New York City."
• "When an offer came for a booking in Harwich Port, Massachusetts, some 2,000 miles from Kansas City, the couple was pleased to get it because it was nearer New York City, the capital of vaudeville, than they were at the time." →"When an offer came for a booking in Harwich Port, Massachusetts, some 2,000 miles from Kansas City, the couple were pleased as it was nearer New York City." Also, "capital of NYC" makes it sound like an advertisement IMO.
• "To get to Massachusetts, they bought a used car, borrowed five dollars from Edna's mother, and set out on the road" →"To get to Massachusetts, they bought a used car, and borrowed five dollars from Edna's mother." I think we can probably work out the rest ;)
• "By the time they arrived in St. Louis, the five dollars had become a mere fifty cents." →"By the time they arrived in St. Louis, they only had fifty cents."
• "The Skeltons were able to afford a hotel room that evening and for every night as they worked their way to Harwich Port, selling the eyeglass fog remover." →The Skeltons were then able to afford a hotel room every night as they worked their way to Harwich Port."
• "Red and Edna..." →stick to "Skelton and Edna".
• "Edna had an idea as they were having breakfast in a hotel coffee shop." -- What was the idea? If it was to revive the Doughnut Dunkers, then this'll need to be made clearer.
• "The skit won him the promised Loew's State engagement..." -- Do we need a reminder that it was "promised"?
• "They hired New York comedy writers to prepare material for Skelton's Loew's engagement" -- "They hired New York comedy writers to prepare material for the Loew's engagement"?

Up to film work, more to come from this enjoyable article! Cassianto^talk 08:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much! Have made the changes you suggested. We hope (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Next batch

• "After screen star Mickey Rooney had seen Skelton perform his "Doughnut Dunkers" act at President Roosevelt's 1940 birthday party, Rooney contacted Skelton, urging him to try for work in films" →"The actor Mickey Rooney urged Skelton to try for work in films after he saw him perform the "Doughnut Dunkers" act at President Roosevelt's 1940 birthday party."
• "Keaton worked with Skelton in this capacity for several of Skelton's films." -- Is there a way of not repeating Skelton's name?
• "Keaton offered to forego his salary if the films made by Keaton and Skelton's company were not box office hits; Mayer chose to decline the request." -- Skelton/Keaton, Keaton/Skelton... I feel dizzy! Also, the sentence I have put above could do with "made by Keaton and Skelton's company" being removed. This is redundant seeing as we are talking about it.
• Do we not have a link for Buster?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I dood it!

• "Skelton's voice pattern for Clem was very much like that of the later cartoon character, Bullwinkle." -- "Skelton's voice pattern for Clem was similar to the later cartoon character, Bullwinkle."
• "Skelton starred in a 1942 movie of the same name, but did not play "Junior" in the film." -- Who did he play then? I would mention Junior and the other role here.
• "The phrase was such a part of national culture at the time, when General Doolittle conducted the bombing of Tokyo in 1942, many newspapers used the phrase "Doolittle Dood It" as a headline." -- "The phrase was such a part of national culture at the time, when General Doolittle conducted the bombing of Tokyo in 1942, that many newspapers used the phrase "Doolittle Dood It" as a headline."
• "Skelton also added a routine he had been performing since 1928. Originally called "Mellow Cigars" by Skelton..." -- Do we need two Skelton's here?
• I think "studio audience" should be treated as a plural rather than a singular.
• *Skelton radio show: was this name of the show? If so, itals would be correct, and wouldn't this use a possessive apostrophe?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please check the last paragraph of the Divorce from Edna, marriage to Georgia section and see if you can trim back on the "Skelton" mentions. Some of these could easily be replaced by pronouns. This will also need to be checked throughout the entire article.
• "By 1947, Skelton's musical conductor was David Rose, who would go on to television with him. he had worked with Rose during his time in the army and wanted Rose to join him on the radio show when it went back on the air." -- needs checking. A stray full-stop is lurking within which is adding confusion to the whole sentence.
• "On April 22, 1947, Skelton was censored by NBC two minutes into his radio show. When he and his announcer Rod O'Connor began talking about Fred Allen being censored during his NBC show the previous week, they were silenced for 15 seconds." -- Could be simplified. I take it the second sentence relates to the first?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything else after this looks great. Good work! Cassianto^talk 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

From a first read-through purely for typos:

• Vallée or Vallee? You have both.
• loudmouthed braggard – "braggart" is the spelling in these islands, but perhaps things are otherwise in the US.

That's all from this pass. Three other typos amended. Shall be back with comments on the prose and content shortly. Tim riley talk 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Very little from me. The structure and proportions are good, and the prose is clear. Just a few points you may care to ponder and act on or ignore as you wish:

• General
  • Is it, I wonder, an advantage to give three different references for a single fact? It does rather smack the reader's eye with a lot of blue. For instance, the statement about his meeting Edna Stillwell and her being an usher is not so controversial as to demand three separate authorities, surely?
• Television
  • "grabbed his ankles from behind the set curtain, hauling him offstage face first" – if they grabbed his ankles I don't see how they could have dragged him face first. Should this be face down?
• Other interests
  • There's a serious epidemic of WP:OVERLINK here. Is anybody ever going to want to click on the links to "short stories", "music", "symphonies", "background music" or "gardener"? Hardly likely.
• Legacy and tributes
  • No blue link for Charlie Chaplin? It's the first mention of the man (as opposed to the studios).

That's all from me. Please let me know when you get to FAC. Tim riley talk 11:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And thanks to you too! Have changed everything you suggested except the "background music". It was suggested when the article was at GAC that a little explanation of what Muzak was be provided for those who are too young to remember that it was used as a synonym for background music. :) We hope (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Nice article, from a quick read through: well-balanced, nicely sourced, a good amount of information and not too far away from FA. A few comments for you to look over below, nothing too major in any of it. A few general points to consider across the piece:

• There are a few times you use the name Red, rather than Skelton, and these need to be tweaked accordingly;
• There are a couple of times when there are batches of references, and cite bundling may be the way to go on these
• There are some instances of "...against him.[21][note 23]" and others of "...and Ed Sullivan.[note 22][178][179]": the order needs to be consistent throughout.
• There are instances of "pp. 243–52", pp. 247–248 and pp.136–7: pick one of the first two and be consistent (the third format is verboten by the MoS).

Infobox

• I'm a great believer in 'less is more' when it comes to IBs (although I appreciate that opinions vary wildly!) There are two things I think you should consider here, although whether you act on them is entirely up to you.

1. Influences & Influenced: I always wince when I see these, and think "is that it?", quickly followed by "I don't see the connection between X and the influenced person". I'm not sure that a bald list of names is hugely helpful, posing more questions than it does providing information or answers, and think a prose appreciation would be a better way to deal with this info.

2. Is inclusion in the 'Television Hall of Fame' an Emmy Award? I appreciate that it's the same organisation, but it's not the same thing. (Overall I don't like the layout of the awards section of the IB, but I guess that's the enforced layout of the thing).

As I say, your call on this, but it's worth a minute or two consideration under your critical eye.

Sticking my oar in unbidden here, I agree wholeheartedly with SchroCat about the "influences" bit of the IB. I thought about mentioning it myself, but as I have a certain notoriety as an IB-sceptic I decided to keep quiet, and am now very glad to hitch a lift on SchroCat's train of thought. Tim riley talk 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Tim and SchroCat. Cassianto^talk 22:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Early years

• In para 2, you switch from 'he' to 'Skelton' midway, with no reason: I think you may need to read through the whole thing and see if there are any others that need sorting too.
• Is "emcee" a real word in AmEng? I presume it's from the more familiar MC, which I would suggest using instead, and perhaps linking it too?

Dunkers

• "The Skeltons viewed this engagement as Red's big chance" -> "The couple viewed this engagement as Skelton's big chance"?

Finished down to the end of Dunkers: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, think I've gotten to most of this. Spent a lot of time doing pages. They do use the word "emcee" in the US--have changed that as you suggested. No, the Television Hall of Fame isn't an Emmy Award, but it is important because it's the Academy recognizing those who made a significant impact on television. You see people in the Hall of Fame like Ernie Kovacs, who wasn't awarded an Emmy until after his death, but whose work in television was, in Kovacs' case, groundbreaking, and you see people like Skelton and Perry Como, who had long and successful careers on television.

I'm not bent on keeping the "influences" section of the IB, nor on the awards section of it either. The award information is in the text as is most of the information about "influences". Was interested in trying to bundle some of the refs, but not sure what tag to use to keep them going into the right ref spot. We hope (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that whatever is in the lede, should be removed from the IB. That's the problem with IB's, they become hugely repetitive and redundant when placed next to the lede, and more so the bigger they are. Second lot coming from me today. Cassianto^talk 07:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Have killed off a ref or two in strategic spots; what's left should cover the text referred to. Also gave the axe to the influences/influenced segments of the infobox; the box looks like it's a more "manageable" size now and not a threat to take over the article. :) We hope (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that: it looks good now. There are 1,001 opinions about IBs, and it's often a thorny subject, but I think that in slimming down on the infomation, it strengthens the box (and the reason for having it), and means that people won't be tempted to bloat it out with people they think may have been influenced etc—which should make future housekeeping of the article less stressful! - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Overall points again

• Have you thought about adding date ranges to the main headings? You have to know Skelton's life or career fairly well to know to drop into the "Off the air and bitterness" section if you wanted to read about him in the 1970s, for example. It doesn't need it for the level 3 headings, not the level 4 ones. Your call on whether you chose to take it up or not!
• Given Crisco's involvement, and WeHope's excellent image copyright work (often around a mutual friend we've had issues with!) I take it that the images are all good: I haven't checked the licences behind them, you both know much better than I about these things!

Re: our "mutual f(r)iend"--while working on Skelton, I ran into a great quote from Charlie Chaplin regarding "stirring" that seems quite fitting. :) We hope (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I shall remember that when I inevitably run into the inndividual in question! - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's still a few too many instances of "Skelton"('s), rather than he/his. You'll need to run through the whole thing and see which cones can be squeezed out in the manner of this edit.

Film work

• "after he was no longer starring in films": was that after he was starring, or just appearing?

According to the refs and some further reading re: Keaton, his last starring roles were in the 1930s. Keaton made his living from the residuals of his earlier work and by being a comedy consultant to MGM, which is how he came to work with Skelton. He later had some non-starring roles in films, but wasn't really "rediscovered" until a circa 1960 Life magazine story about him. This brought him back into the public eye and he was doing quite a few television programs such as The Twilight Zone and Route 66. Keaton, who was an idol of Ernie Kovacs, began working with him on a television series in early 1962. One episode was filmed before Kovacs was killed in the car crash in January 1962; due to legal issues, it was never aired on television. The poor devil didn't even get to appear in The Buster Keaton Story, but was hired as a consultant for it. :/ We hope (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Radio, divorce and remarriage

• "The "Doughnut Dunkers" routine led to Skelton's first appearance": I'm not sure how a routine could lead to something: someone watching a routine, or the routine being performed on something may all be possible, but a routine in itself can't lead to anything!
• "Skelton hosted the show until late 1939": it's a bit of a short stubby sentence by itself, and could be worked in with the preceding sentence?

All done down to the end of Cast of characters: more to follow soonest! I'm enjoying reading this: I can see why he and Terry-Thomas enjoyed each other's company and why T-T appeared in a number of Skelton's shows. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm off to try making fixes :) We hope (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Have done some "deSkeltonizing". We hope (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Final batch from me:

Again, a few copy edits made, feel free to revert if you don't like them (or if I err in my grasp of AmEng!)

Television

• "His comedic sketches became legendary": this is going too far into WP:PEACOCKery for me

Richard

• The language in this section is a bit over-emotive and unencyclopaedic

• I've removed all the "young" descriptors, which are not needed: instead I'd add his age at some point, prob when he was diagnosed. The other bits you need to look at are:

• "The heartbroken father"
• "CBS management was exceptionally understanding"
• "it was the day before Mother's Day"

The Red Skelton Hour

• "he did not perform his "Mean Widdle Kid" or "Junior" character": characters?
• "He admitted that": I'd keep "admitted" for confessing to a crime: explained or described would be good replacements

Notes

• Note 5: "Skelton became a very well-read man with a fine memory he began training in his youth": two things here. Firstly we can lose "very" as it adds nothing; secondly, "a fine memory which he began training" would be better.
• Note 7: "Pre-WWII television" -> "pre-World War II television" (lower case "p", and expanding the initials on first viewing
• Note 11: "A sketch done by Red": -> "A sketch by Skelton"
• Note 15: good.".[105] -> You should remove one of the full stops
• Note 16: I'm a little uncomfortable with this: "I have viewed" will mean little when trying to find the reference in the edit history. Is there something from a reliable source that can back this up, or, alternatively, get rid of the "I have viewed" sentence, and add refs to link to 1. The ad on archive.org, and 2. The double-Emmy win.

Crisco 1492, some thoughts, please, on how to make this work. My thought was to take a screen cap from the show and upload it as PD-pre-1978 to Commons. I've checked on both the original registration (none) and any possible renewal (none), as this would give us something "physical" we could attach a PD license to. Thanks! We hope (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• What about adding a (condensed) version of that footnote as hidden text after the archive.org link? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I could kick myself because I had it hidden before, but thought it was best to put it in the open. :/ We hope (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since only editors would care (and fairly hardcore editors at that) hidden text works best; maybe a note at the talk page as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK-covered it on the talk page too. We hope (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note 28: Needs a source

That's it from me: a delightful read about a wonderful subject. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC with this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, thanks for your time and effort with this! Have made the changes suggested here. Chaplin was right, BTW, about stirring. We hope (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A good answer: discussion is rarely pointless with anyone, but in their case I think it's as close to pointless as it can be, sadly. On Sellers I don't think I've ever had a worse time in trying to improve an article, and I've never had to jump through so many bad faith RfCs. In the end I think there was only one RfC that supported their position: they lost the rest by some margin, which gave me a great measure of satisfaction! - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

ClariS

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Juhachi has been doing a lot of work on the article lately. The unit ClariS (notorious for never showing their faces or appearing in public) disbanded earlier this month (member Alice wanted to continue her studies), but at least for now ClariS will continue as a one-woman unit with singer Clara. Some comments on the article were given when I asked for an assessment back in 2012, and now some of those issues have been addressed. Right now, the article is looking like a potential GA, but outside comments and feedback are very much appreciated.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, the article looks pretty decent. It does seem a little short, and I think sources like this and this should be utilized to their full ability in expanding the article. Reliable interviews such as the above are great sources of information and can significantly help improve the article's comprehensiveness which may currently be lacking. In addition, see if more research yields further sources on this music group. Once you have finished expanding content of the article, revise the lead and expand it to at least a couple paragraphs covering the main points of the article. Then give it a copyedit and it should be on its way to GA! Artichoker^[talk] 02:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of Temperatures Rising episodes

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Temperatures Rising was a funny and well-made television sitcom (at least in its first season) and therefore warrants a good to excellent episode list. Unfortunately, this show, which first aired on American television more than 40 years ago, is not available on DVD or blu-ray nor is there a web site devoted to it. As a result, information about it is limited to vintage newspaper articles. Still, I have done as best as I could but still feel there is need for improvement. If you can help please do.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A few minor copy edits done - feel free to revert if you don't like any of them.

• I checked these edits. They are all fine.

Series overview

• Do we need the empty DVD and Blue ray columns?
  • I suppose not. They have now been removed.

Episodes

• Although there is no hard and fast rule on it, having very different lengths of plot summary looks odd: some are less than a line, other into 4 or 5 lines.
  • Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a major roadblock in getting the article to where I would like it to be. The series is not currently airing in syndication and is not available on DVD or blu-ray. Therefore, I have not been able to watch all of the episodes (aside from the original broadcasts of 40 years ago). The fuller plot summaries are derived from viewing episodes that I obtained on DVD through dealers on E-bay. The only way I know of to view the others is to arrange private screenings at the UCLA Film and Television Archives in Los Angeles (I live about 40 miles east of there).
• There are no sources showing on any of the episodes. Although you can argue, the plots don't need it, the directors and broadcast dates will need to be covered, as will the brief cast section for each series.
  • There are two web cites that I know of that list the directors, writers, and broadcast dates: TV.com and The Classic TV Archive. Before I use either perhaps I should get some opinions about their reliability. Likewise there is also the IMDb, but, from what I understand, Wikipedia looks upon them as unreliable. Broadcast dates I may also be able to get from the LA Times. Jimknut (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Very brief, I'm afraid, but I've had to squeeze this into a late night tidy up session before I disappear on holiday. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from llywrch

Two general observations:

• You use the Los Angeles Times an awful lot as a citation, & the format of its repeated appearance gets wearisome on the eyes. Any possibility you could use a shortened format after the first instance?
  • I have altered these citations so that only the first one is linked. Likewise, only the first one lists the location of the paper. (I'll do the same for the main article on the series.)
• The print version of TV Guide used to (as in before News Corp bought them) carry the occasional in-depth article on difference programs & actors -- especially for this period. It's worth a look. Consult WorldCat to see if a library near you has a collection of back issues. (Just a reminder, not all important information is on the Internet yet.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion. Unfortunately none the libraries near me carry back issues. You're right about important info not being available on the net. That's why so much of what I wrote had to be derived from old newspaper articles. Jimknut (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    

---

Cervix

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe in striking while the iron is hot -several editors have invested time in writing and reviewing this article in recent months (LT910001, 97198, CFCF, Snowmanradio and TonyTheTiger to name some) and I think it'd be great to push on to FAC while the article is still fresh in folks' minds. It's a while since I've done something so bvroadly collaborative but this is what the wiki is supposed to be about, so let's try an examine constructively what needs doing from here on. As this is a Peer Review, there's no set expiry nor obligatory tasklist. I think this will then provide a better template for other anatomy/medical articles if an FA than a GA. Also always good to get broader articles to FA status.

I think it needs a non-human section but would not know what the best sources are for that. And also needs some expansion on its three layers.

(NB: My edition of Gray's Anatomy is 1967 - if anyone has a recent one, that'd be great!)

All comments welcome - cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oddly, the "cervix" label (12) does not seem to be pointing at the cervix. The labels for "urethra" (6) and "vagina" (7) seem to fall short. The label for "sigmoid colon" (9) could be better placed too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be very hard to get anything additionally out of this image. There is an image in Grant's anatomy that might be useful, but not really anything like this. My best suggestion would be to try and get someone to vectorise it. I'll supply some alternative images for the article soon. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some alternatives or something to source a new image from:

Note, any of the images from Sobotta 1906 I can find and upload in higher quality on request. Currently there are so many I don't have time to get them all properly.

• Same type
• 

  Lacking relevant labels, and non-colored. Otherwise of higher quality.

• 

  Also lacking labels

• 

  Black and white, otherwise well labeled

• 

  Same image as above, no labels

• 

  Different dissection

• 

  Different dissection, no labels

• 

May be good sources to build a new image from.

• Additional angles
• 
• 
• 

• Cross sections
• 
• 
• 
• 

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just realised I missed this image (that I had uploaded myself):

• 
• 

  Split - lateral

• 

  Split - anterior

Can be cropped so that it only has the top image (or the bottom one for that matter).

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Several of the sagittal section images look good, although some have partially faded text. It may be best to use one that doesn't have labels, and add the labels yourself. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that can be fixed by uploading equivalent images from the 1913 edition. I wasn't sure if there was any point, but in that case I will do so. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Agree with choosing a labelless one and adding the words ourselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a much higher resolution image of:

• 

I'm presuming this is the preferred image as it has no labels etc. and would be the best to modify. Do you think we also ought to colorize it in the same way as the current lead image is colored? I think it could be made to look pretty okay. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note:I got hold of a new 1906 source of Sobotta's with better scans, and all these images have now been updated. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other comments

• From the lead section, paragraph 2: "The extent of the dilation of the cervix is used by midwives and medics to assess the progress of labour." "Medics"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, what was wrong with "medics"? Snowman (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Medic carries certain associations to the military (at least in the US), and I at least feel it's better to simply use doctor or physician instead. It isn't inherently wrong, just not entirely correct either. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that about its meaning in USA. Medic is simply equivalent to medical doctor in the UK. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Medic is not simply equivalent to medical doctor in the UK. The term "medic" is often used colloquially by Emergency Department staff, surgical staff and other non-internists to mean "physician", i.e. internal physician. (Personally, I don't like this terminology.) Also, once when I was at an Advanced Life Support course, I asked a guy which department he worked in. He told me that he was a "medic", which surprised me because I did not recognise him from the hospital. It turns out that he was a paramedic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have thought about this more, I would agree with User Axl. Medics could also be a colloquial term for medical students. I recall avoiding adding "doctor" and choosing "medic" for the introduction, because I thought "doctor" could include PhD doctor, but in context in the introduction it is clear that "doctor" means "medical doctor". Snowman (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just too informal anyway, and vague because informal. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Infection with the HPV virus can cause changes in the epithelium." "HPV virus" is a tautology. It may be better to spell out "human papillomavirus", at least on its first appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• From "Structure", paragraph 1: "Part of the cervix protrudes into the vagina and is referred to as the ectocervix, and the part within the external opening and vagina is known as the endocervix." The latter half of the sentence does not seem right. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Done I changed the wording to be less ambiguous, it should be correct now. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not correct. The endocervix is the mucous lining within the canal (or, less commonly, the internal os). Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User Axl is correct. The endocervix is to the cervix as the endometrium is to the uterus. The ectocervix is another name for the vaginal portion of the cervix, the visible part with a stratified squamous covering. Snowman (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is to be honest what I meant, but I understand the confusion. I'll try and clarify tomorrow. I'm not sure how all the sources define the myometric layer adjacent to the cervix. Is it a part of the cervix or not though? Our text claims it is, and then of course I see the reason for misunderstanding. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The cervix approximately a cylinder with a narrow channel along the middle, much of the wall of the cervix is a thick tough layer of smooth muscle, which is continuous with the smooth muscle wall of the corpus uteri. The supravaginal cervix is the part of the cervix that does not protrude into the vagina, which is what you seemed to be confused with. The vaginal part of the cervix is the part that protrudes into the vagina. I should add that I not sure if it is necessary to define supravaginal and vaginal parts of the cervix in the article, unless it helps to understand endocervix. I think that gives you enough information to have another go at re-writing it tomorrow with RS. Incidentally, it is not generally necessary to put ticks when providing feedback, because the person who raised an issue will usually cross-out his comment with strike marks when he is happy with it. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is really this clear cut. I realise I've confused endocervical canal with endocervix or endocervical, but I don't think I'm the only one to do so. For example: endocervical is ambiguous in the way I've been using it according to: [1]. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. says endocervical = intracervical

I would not use the on-line free dictionary for mission critical tasks. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That online dictionary is simply a repository for other dictionaries. I have even linked the book it is cited from, so I don't know what you are referring to? Are you suggesting they are misattributing this to Mosby's Medical Dictionary, because my library carries that volume and I can bring the entire reference if you feel the need for me to do so, even for the purpose of this discussion. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not understand your comment, because I thought that the small text was an extra definition. I have not considered "endocervical = intracervical" in depth, but at first glace there does not seem to be anything wrong with it. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page in the free dictionary that includes the statement; "This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is ...". Any comments? Snowman (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On a lesser note, we're talking about the smooth muscle layers surrounding the cervix, what is the correct term? What term should we use?
Are they considered myometrium googlePubmed, myocervix googlePubmed [Book source], or should we name them at all?
Should we mention exocervix Pubmed 118 hits, wikt:exocervix. I realise this is pretty pedantic, but if we're aiming for FA maybe we need to define this? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not use the Witionary for mission critical tasks. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, my reason for linking there is simply to show the article. If we find it isn't a proper term we should remove that entry. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[2] states the exocervix is to the ectocervix, what the endocervix is to the cervical canal. Relevant? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Netter's Essential Histology says the same thing (and is a much newer source). I'll look into clarifying this tomorrow. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Terminologia Histologica's definitions don't give me much clarity personally: [3] -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the section we have been discussing. I think that it is important to give a good description of the anatomy; however, I think it is possible to go over-the-top with naming of parts. I do not mind defining them all, but I think that it is not necessary or helpful to include the obscure names. I would suggest calling the muscle of the cervix something descriptive and clear like the "muscular wall of the cervix" and using other descriptive phrases in a similar way. My Gray's does not have a specific name for the cervical muscle layer. I think that it is not important to define the word "myocervix". However, Gray's does use a phrase "isthmus of the cervix" and I think that this region should be included, because of its differences from the rest of the cervix. I am in two minds about including the word "exocercix" (the covering of the vaginal portion of the cervix), but I have put it in at present with a cn tag. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I added the Netter source, so no longer cn at least. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Thank you finding a ref. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Damn, I wasn't expecting this much debate over it. I have made a slight adjustment to the current text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The debate was about a raft of terminology. Thank you for fixing the minor typos. 11:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree about keeping it simple - the other thing we could do is have a footnote that mentions alternative names maybe. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used footnotes ({{efn}} and {{notelist}}) in other anatomy articles and feel these offer a good way to cover specific, technical or nuanced content that may clutter up text and impact on readability for lay people. Such a note could read "Alternate names for these include..." --LT910001 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. The problem now is among other things that we define exocervix in the main structure section, where it really has more relevance is in the histology section. If you're all fine with it I will research the different terms and try to define all of them under footnotes. Terms I will be explaining:

• Parametrium
• Endocervix vs. endocervical vs. endocervical canal
• Cervical myometrium, myocervix
• Exocervix

Clarifying the terminology in the main text would be clutter, but I feel a short footnote and a link would be useful as some of the terms are being used in research. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the convert templates are not suitable; for example 2–3 centimetres (0.79–1.18 in). 0.79 inches should be expressed as 0.8 inches while at the same time stating the range as 0.8 to 1.2 inches. Would it be best to write out all the convert template out in full? Snowman (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes-I am perplexed by this as I added the sigfig=1 parameter and it didn't work for some reason. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just read the documentation for Template:Convert, and I think that I understand it a bit better now. I think it is better to use a "precision" parameter of "1" for the range of the length of the cervix, so that the conversion is presented to an accuracy of one decimal point. Snowman (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• From "Structure", paragraph 3: "The cervical canal... can measure 7–8 millimetres (0.3–0.3 in) at its widest diameter in pre-menopausal adults.... Where no natural childbirth has taken place, the external os appears as a small, circular opening of about 8 millimetres (0.3 in)." It is odd that the widest diameter could be narrower than the external os. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The source for that is given at "Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. 185–201." Unfortunately, the page range has been given as a 16-page range, which is probably not consistent with WP:V, and might be difficult to verify quickly. I do not have access to the 4th edition of this book, but I have been looking at the 5th edition in Google books, which gives partial on-line access. I can not trace the equivalent likely updated page from the 5th edition without a narrower page range to work with, so I would be grateful if anyone could provide a narrower page range for the ref from the 4th edition. A large page-range like this from a book is likely to be questioned at FA. I have amended the article using the 5th edition and hope that I have sorted out this problem, at least for a first re-write of this part of the text. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• From "Structure", paragraph 3: "The size and shape of the external opening and the ectocervix can vary according to age, hormonal state, and whether natural or normal childbirth has taken place." Is "natural" childbirth the same as "normal" childbirth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we only use the terms vaginal vs. C-section birth, anything else sounds very unprofessional. In this case I'm quite sure these are being used as synonyms, and we should replace them with vaginal birth. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The cervix is fully dilated by any sort of vaginal delivery no matter if the birth is normal, natural, or abnormal. Just saying "vaginal delivery" seems adequate to me. I think that this line has changed meaning with a few copy edits and I can not be sure the "hormonal state" is mentioned in the source with the same context, or at least I think that the source should be double checked. I think that the influence of hormonal contraception may need a source, if included. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Structure", paragraph 5 describes three parts of the cervix: "the anterior and lateral cervix", "the posterior and lateral cervix", and "the posterior section of the cervix". While there is probably some overlap, I wonder if this is accurate. Would it be reasonable to say "anterior and antero-lateral parts of the cervix", "postero-lateral part of the cervix" and "posterior part of the cervix"? This would help to reduce the implication of overlap, especially between the last two categories. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll read the source and calibrate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I had not focused on this paragraph until User Axl raised this point. Yes, there may be overlap, so I would not simplify it in the way User Axl suggests, without solid RS. My 1995 anatomy book says that in the human the lymphatics within the cervix have been little studied, but more is known about that of baboons. I have not checked the current sources. However, my 1995 book refers to directions of lymphatic drainage rather than regions of the cervix. I interpret my sources as meaning that the lymphatics deep in the cervix drain to superficial lymphatics, which then drain off in certain [stated] directions, through the parametrium anteriorly and laterally and along the genitosacral fold posteriorly. If the term "genitoscaral fold" (a redlink unless I have a typo) is used in this article, then it would probably need a footnote. I could do a re-write using the directions of lymphatics drainage and the relevant lymph nodes, rather than regions of the cervix from my 1995 book, but I wonder if there is more recent information. When User Casliber has provided feedback on his reading of the sources and calibration, we should be able to advance the discussion. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking in the Cervix book that is online, one page is unavailable for viewing from me in Australia. I can't see in it where it talks about which areas of the cervix it drains at all. It does discuss the three channels. I have been meaning to go to the hospital library and have a look at a more detailed text and see what is written, but have been really busy this week. It does also mention they are poorly studied and drainage patterns do vary in some peopleCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• In "Structure", the last paragraph implies that the cervix is only open during the time around ovulation. However I presume that the cervix is also open around the time of menstruation? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing content

It's great to have such a collaborative endeavour on one of WP's anatomy articles. For FA I agree with Casliber that a section about the cervix in non-humans would be very appropriate. --LT910001 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a note at the veterinary wikiproject...fingers crossed! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Society and culture

I am also trying to find any information about traditional knowledge of the cervix in non-Western cultures and societies, and any social and cultural beliefs or traditions regarding the cervix, something often overlooked in anatomy articles. --LT910001 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start and would value if other users had some idea where to find this content, so I'll just jot down some sources that may be used in the future:

• Cervix in ancient Chinese culture [4]
• Cervix in the middle east, approx 1000AD: [5]
• Pessaries in ancient India: [6]
• Cervix and birth control from Egypt onwards: [7]

Feminism & the cervix

• [8]
• [9]
• Summary: [10]

I'm sure there are many more. Please add any relevant sources to the list. Only reliable sources will be used in the article proper, but other sources may provide a useful starting point for further research. --LT910001 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a fantastic idea - am just going to sleep now but will look later - {ping|LT910001}} I think this will be good material to add definitely, just read and go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The missing link - Cervical screening

The whole screening passage should be re-written to talk about "screening" instead of "Pap tests" - an undesirable US-led way of looking at things. This will also save you from having to make up your minds how to capitalize pap/Pap - currently all over the place. It would be nice if someone could add more on the issue of the varying international starting ages at Cervical screening while at it. You might mention, as cervical cancer doesn't, falling rates in the developing world, which has "almost 70% of the global burden" (WHO World Cancer Report 2014, p. 466) as their economies and healthcare improves, and rising rates in some Eastern European countries. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to re-read this bit again in article (tired now) but warming to this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A good alternate solution. Could be a defined subsection in 'cervical cancer'. --LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "Cervical screening" could have its own section, rather than being subsection of "Cervical cancer". Snowman (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just chiselled out the nub of a section - would agree on it being separate as it is a big topic - the discussion also has to cover HPV and precancerous changes. Looking on google scholar and just typing in keywords is a bit frustrating as older articles keep popping up, but by following some links I have found [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. There is also page 333 onwards in the Cervix Book but it is amazing how quickly technology is evolving so I am careful to check for latest (and hence read the latest articles). There is alot about anxiety as well. Anyone is welcome to read and add content. I will try but might be caught up in real life chores soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that cervical screening has quite a lot of international variation, so writing a balanced short summary of it seems difficult to me. However, lets not forget the anxious and the "worried well", such as those women who are invited for annual smears for a while to follow-up a slight abnormality (perhaps mild or moderate dyskaryosis seen on the cytology test) which can eventually revert back to normal or alternatively can get worse. Also, I am sure that the concept of CIN was important, as well as the new nomenclature of SIL. Snowman (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I used the "The Cervix" book as a ref in the development section with the name <ref name=Cervix2006>. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The IARC Screening Group of WHO have a lot on cervix and screening; see Chapter 1: An introduction to the anatomy of the uterine cervix. Are these webpages RS for the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can use the source judiciously. It provides some global/consensus-type material. Specific figures might be better referenced with Review Articles though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not used the WHO website as a source, but after a quick look it seems quite good to me. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Organising the screening and cancer material is a bit of a headache. I am going to bed and have no objection to folks trying to make the material flow better. More data needs to be added too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I am thinking about amendments to screening, cytology and histopathology. I have put down a solid "foundation stone" today (or at least that is the way I see it) with clarification of the functional SCJ, original SCJ and the transformation zone. I hope the new vocabulary will help a lot in subsequent explanation of pathogenesis, cytology and histopathology. I have made a first re-write of the histology section, but it will probably need a footnotes. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 has recombined the sections and upon reading it, I think they flow better this way and agree with the merge. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If screening was done for anything other than cancer than yes it would need a different section. There is screening for STIs but this is often not cervical and is not typically referred to as cervical screening. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that cervical screening as a separate heading or merged with the cancer section both work; but in the merged section I think that the heading should be something like "Cancer and cervical screening". Snowman (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO we should keep the heading short. I am happy with cancer screening. Cervical is not really needed as that is the name of the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Names

At the risk of opening a kettle of fish, we are starting to give multiple names for things, a problem identified by Snowmanradio above. Examples include "external orifice of the uterus (or external os) " and "posterior labia (lip-shaped structures). ". I suggest that one name is picked, and alternate names are removed and defined in the sub-articles. Having more than one name is quite confusing, and in some instances such as "posterior labia (lip-shaped structures). " it feels like we are paraphrasing ourselves and ought to just choose a single title. --LT910001 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by opening a "kettle of fish" (or awkward situation). I do not see any risk of this developing into an awkward situation, because I anticipate that people can discuss this topic logically and objectively here. Excuse me, if I am not aware of previous discussion that may have taken place in WP Anatomy on this topic. Personally speaking, I would rather not made a rule for this sort of thing here nor on any other anatomy article. I think that some alternative names can be useful to know immediately and that a wait for a few clicks for clarification could be distracting. Alternative names can be seen in Wiki articles almost everywhere, so it is a concept that readers are familiar with and so this style need not be confusing. I would think that mentioning some commonly used alternative names once in the body of the article or introduction can be helpful to readers. I can envisage sometimes that it could problematic picking only one name to use. Many of the sub-articles have longish descriptive titles (for example external orifice of the uterus and vaginal portion of the cervix) suggesting that these are the commonly used names for these structures, and superficially these would seem to be the names to choose, if one name was chosen. Some examples of alternative names for discussion: Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think that "anterior and posterior labia (lip-shaped structures)" could be rephrased. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have changed this phrase to "anterior and posterior lips". Does this need a footnote to provide the other names? Snowman (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes possibly, if it is used in more than a couple of sources. It is clearly confusing and "lips" is a better name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• "body of the uterus (or corpus uteri)" would be one of the few Latin names I would include in this article, partly because "cervix uteri" is also included. I think that having the Latin names for both parts of the uterus is complementary. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with mentioning Latin once but can use "body" thereafter - do you mean "compulsory" instead of "complementary"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Whoops, I did not explain that very well. "corpus uteri" and "cervix uteri" are names that are complementary to each other, and easy to understand. I did not mean to imply that using them is compulsory. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "external orifice of the uterus (or external os)". To me, this looks acceptable with its use of compact accurate language. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• "vaginal portion of the cervix (or ectocervix)". To me, this seems to include both description and names, and it would be difficult to write it with fewer words. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• The thick "fibromuscular part of the wall of the cervix (or myocervix)". To me myocervix is a rather obscure name and it is would be better to describe it rather than name it. There would be no harm in adding a referenced footnote for "myocervix" as an alternative name, but I think that it would not be particularly helpful. The word "myocervix" is not used in my version of Gray's (or at least I have not seen it). Snowman (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Its very likely it isn't used in Gray's, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Gray's isn't the only source out there, the reason I brought it up was because there are pubmed articles that use the terminology. That said it isn't normal terminology at all, so I would advise against mentioning it anywhere else than a foot-note (most definitely does not deserve an article of its own). If you're looking for sources for names you should be looking at Terminologia Histologica & Anatomica. I'm trying to find a source with a definition, not just usage so that we don't commit to WP:OR. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have presented a good case for putting the term "Myocervix" in a referenced footnote providing a RS is available. I noticed the term "myocervix" in a few papers, when I searched for it. I would anticipate that a new redirect could be made for "Myocervix", which would lead to "Cervix". I look forward to seeing what you make of it. Snowman (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that using "smooth muscle layer" is probably easier for the layperson to read than "myocervix" as the term is not particularly common - I am leaning towards that being in a footnote. Will check some more sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

For instance, this book appears not to use the term at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The transformation zone, also referred to as the squamocolumnar junction, ...". The in-line ref provided is; "Daftary (2011). Manual of Obstretics, 3/e. Elsevier. pp. 1–16. ISBN 81-312-2556-9.". I have verified that the ref says that the abrupt epithelial junction is called the squamocolumnar junction, but I have not been able to confirm that the source regards this junction as equivalent to the transformation zone, but perhaps I missed it. The cite has sourced a 17 pages (ie pages 1 to 16), which is too large for WP:V from a book. I have some difficulty with verification, and I have only focused on the likely sections on the cervix rather than reading all 17 pages. In other books and on the internet (? RS), I have found two definitions of the transformation zone, one as above and the other that it is the zone between the original sc junction and the current sc junction (ie the zone of unstable epithelium). Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used an alternative book references for the transformation zone. I will probably need to add some footnotes to explain the "original scj", "new scj", "functional scj" and transformation zone. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Headings

• "Contraception" is currently a level three subsection under the level two heading "Function". I am thinking about moving "Contraception" to its own level two heading, because contraception does not seem to fit under the heading of functions of the cervix to me. Does "Contraception" fit under the "Clinical significance" heading? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I see what you mean, but "clinical significance" makes me think of pathological processes. I thought it might be better as a level 4 heading under fertility. Incidentally, I think cervical mucus should follow on from fertility Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Those were just some my thoughts about where to move the contraception section to. As the article develops, it should be clearer where to move the contraception section to. A level four heading, under a level three "Fertility" heading would still be under the level two "Function" heading, which seems problematic, because contraception is not a function of the cervix. If "Contraception" was put in its own level 2 heading, then it would not be in the "Function" nor "Clinical significance" section. I have difficulty in interpreting "Hmmm", what does that mean? Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Does the "Structure" heading need any more subheadings. Such as "Gross anatomy", "Anatomical relations", "Enervation", or "Vasculature"? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am worried that we'd have to have 3-4 subheadings which might make the section choppy to read/break up the flow of prose a bit too much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, the heading "Structure" is not quite right for what is in the section. To follow on from your comment on the talk page, I presume that the heading can be changed from "Structure" to "Structure and anatomical relations" for clarity. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "Childbirth" section is exclusively about humans. If the article is about "Cervix" in animals as well, then something could be added about birth of animals as well. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If we find out some thing specific it can be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be easy to find information from veterinary books and other sources. The birth article has brief accounts of birth in a few of the more common domestic animals and the dog. Also, what about signposting the "Birth" article as being the main article on birth at the top of a section on birth in the cervix article. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a case for splitting the article into "Cervix" (includes animals) and "Human cervix"? Snowman (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure other mammal cervixes are that notable - need to read up on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

From wha I've read so far, I don't think there's a case for it, but some more info on dual cervixes would be good for this article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Typically the main article is about humans with a section at the end called "Other animals" that links to a main article on "X in other animals". Renaming all medical articles to "Human X" is a bad idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation format

• What style of citation format are we aiming for here. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

what parameters are you concerned about? Do you see two styles being used? I am thinking it is "Smith, John; Doe, John. etc." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see - the sfn template is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No this article is current written with the cite journal and cite book templates. That means without clear consensus we do not switch the entire article to another template format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I only meant using it for books for which more than one pagerange or pageref is used. For instance, if you look at Canis Major, the vast majority of refs are in that format you mention, but I've had to use several books for which different pages have been used, and the sfn allows this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Would prefer to use something that is compatible across language versions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Sorry, I don't follow - I am presuming that means the sfn template is not elsewhere, in which case what would you recommend? I have no strong opinions on this but would be good to resolve. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that other language Wikis might have {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} but not {{sfn}}. Having the ability to cite the same book multiple times with different page ranges is such a common issue, though, that I would hope other language wikis would be looking to implement sfn sooner rather than later - particularly now that all the common cite templates have been re-written in Lua, making translation of parameter labels a centralised task. Nevertheless, the functionality of sfn is essentially identical to that of {{harvnb}}, which - being an older implementation - might be more commonly implemented elsewhere. Have you heard of problems of incompatibility with harvnb, James? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That one may work better. Rexx as you sound like you are good with templates am going to send you an email Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I am more than happy if you want to follow something that goes across wikis - keep me posted..or I guess I'll just see the edits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• There are some niceties of the terminology for the introduction. CIN is a form of cancer, but not a form of invasive cancer. Cervical screening can detect cancer of the cervix at a stage prior to invasion. The text that is relevant here is: Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

1. "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer" - this would mean that screening would only detect HPV changes, because CIN is a form of cancer. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2 "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of invasive cervical cancer" - this would mean that screening would only detect HPV changes and pre-invasive cancer. Which is correct, because CIN is cancer, but not invasive cancer. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• With regards to vaccination, a vaccination does not stop viruses from entering the body. An infection does occur, the memory within the immune system boosts the relevant antibodies within about 2 days, and so the infection does not become serious. The terminology for discussion here is as follows: Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

1. "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to prevent HPV infection." - not accurate. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2. "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to combat HPV infection." Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I provided good edit summaries and it looks like I was reverted twice over this by User:Jmh649 using TW as if I was a vandal, which is not consistent with acceptable use this function of TW, because it is reserved for vandalism. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why did you not join the discussion here? [16]. Anyway I can watch this and we can discuss here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not see the discussion over there and you did not inform me about it. Nevertheless, I would like to talk about it here as the article is being shaped here. Snowman (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

1. First comment "CIN is a form of cancer". Not exactly. CIN is a neoplasm but not a cancer. This is not the greatest source but it is correct when it states CIN is not cancer As I wrote on the talk page cancer is by definition invasive. Check out the definition by the NCI [17]. CIN is not cervical intraepithelial cancer but cervical intraepithelial neoplasm. This is why it is an N and not a C
2. If we read about what the Template:Main is we find that "This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised" This section is about the role of the cervix in childbirth it is not a summary of childbirth. Thus main article for it would be "Childbirth and the cervix"
3. Does the HPV vaccine "combat" which implies treats HPV infection once establish? As far as I am aware the answer is no. If you have a high quality ref that shows otherwise happy to look at it. The evidence we do have is that the CDC says prevents HPV and the NCI and FDA also say prevents HPV infections

To make discussion go smoothly please provide references for all medical states per WP:V. Per the comment regarding TW I am not under the impression that it is used just for vandalism. I reverted your edit assuming good faith. Per WP:TW "should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used" and I agree that I should have used a better clarified edit summary. However I had made a detailed talk page comment here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, a revert with combined with edit summary "Yup it is not cancer I agree", see your edit is not ideal. The edit summary did not say that anything about the discussion you started on the talk page, which I was not aware of until you linked it on this page. I note that you report that you should have used a better edit summary. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I had not included references in the discussion initially while I explore other users knowledge of the relevant issues. Specialized references will be needed, because the concepts are not particularly well explained in the mass media and in patient information leaflets. See Carcinoma in situ. CIN is a spectrum, the severe end of CIN is a form of carcinom in situ. CIN (at least grade III and some of grade II) is cancer albeit in situ cancer. CIN I can be due to a number of causes. I think that it will be important to retain the concept of carcinoma in situ in the article, and I anticipate that it will be expanded upon in the article as it develops. Snowman (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A great example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Yes the first part of the Wikipedia article got it wrong when it stated "is an early form of cancer" but then it corrected itself "most doctors will refer to CIS as "pre-cancer", not cancer".
  • On page 34 of this document says "dysplasia: Cells that look abnormal under a microscope but are not cancer. LSIL, HSIL, and AIS are all forms of cervical dysplasia." Than if you look at page 36 it says "Cells of the uterine cervix that are moderately or severely abnormal and may become cancer. It may also be called moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-2 (CIN-2), CIN-3, or carcinoma in situ." [18]
  • Carcinoma in situ is not cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Here is a higher quality ref Chang, Alfred (2007). Oncology: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer. p. 162. ISBN 9780387310565. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• We would be looking for an accurate statement of the pathology and cell biology, and there is plenty of time do to this. This topic may be easy to misunderstand and there may be some misinformation out there. There is some information on the Cancer Research UK website, which is worth thinking about, but it might not be RS for the Wiki; their website says; "If you have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), it means that cells inside some of the ducts of your breast have started to turn into cancer cells." To me this means that carcinoma in situ is cancer, albeit not an invasive cancer. This is this sort of think that User:Wiki CRUK John will be interested in. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Starting to turn into cancer cells" means that they are not cancer yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cancer UK webpage goes on to say that "Doctors use various terms to describe DCIS, including pre invasive, non invasive, or intra ductal cancer." Snowman (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That is breast cancer not cervical cancer. In this one type of "carcinoma in situ" there is some controversy regarding whether or not it is cancer. Per this book "Researchers and doctors disagree about whether DCIS is even cancer." [19] Doctors use language poorly all the time. That is why we base stuff of reliable sources rather than say me :-) Anyway this is of topic. 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I said I am happy with the removal of the word "invasive" - as tautological. Alternately we can think of both CIN and Ca as unwanted, hence "cancer" can cover both if taken broadly. Either way better without "invasive" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced about the removal of the word invasive. I welcome the opinion of User:Wiki CRUK John about "carcinoma in situ" as described on the Cancer Research UK website. I would also welcome his opinion about today's modifications of other wiki pages on the concept of carcinoma in situ. The relevance to this page is that cervical screening detects abnormal cervical cells, the severely abnormal and severely dysplastic forms of which arise from an area of carcinoma in situ of the cervix, which is likely to be reported as CIN II or CIN III (older classification) or high-grade SIL or HGSIL; see University of Michigan website, CRUK about cervix, and CRUK about VAIN. Snowman (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask, and come back on this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually that last link is to U. Michegan, not CRUK. I tried to boil this down into a simple query I could email to the expert, but rather failed. You are welcome to have a go at that. The CRUK cervical page linked above has "Carcinoma in situ means that some of the cells of the cervix have cancerous changes. But the abnormal cells are all contained within the surface layer of the cervix. Carcinoma in situ is not a cancer but in some women the changes will develop into a cancer after some years" which seems fully compatible with the current version of carcinoma in situ. There's clearly some cloudyness with "carcinoma / not a cancer / cancerous" but I think the bottom line is clear, on WP and the CRUK site. I'll ask next time I'm face to face with one of the right people. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have discussed, and opened a section at Talk:Carcinoma#Carcinoma_in_situ_redux.3B_ducks_in_rows. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree this is very confusing nomenclature. To understand it one needs to get a couple of major oncology texts and spend a few weeks reading. One cannot try to use language / deductive reasoning to figure it out. A "carcinoma in situ" is not a carcinoma. A carcinoma is a type of cancer. Pre-cancer is not cancer. Cancerous changes are changes that are similar to those that happen in cancer but does not mean cancer have been reached yet. Some of our Wikipedia article are wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I expect that the article will eventually be expanded with more cervical cytology, and so I think that it would be useful to think about CIN at a cellular level, or at least with language that is consistent with the cellular level, and as CIN encompassing a certain range of changes that could correctly be called a type of carcinoma in situ. The book quoted above says on page 323 that HSIL (that essentially equates to CIN II and CIN III) incorporates "carcinoma in situ"; see Chang, Alfred (2007). Oncology: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer. p. 323. ISBN 9780387310565.. Also, the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary (2010), Eighth edition, page 129, gives this definition of "cervical intraepithelial neopasia (CIN)" as cellular changes in the cervix of the uterus preceding the invasive stages of cervical cancer. I would think that the best sort of books for this are cytology and histopathology books. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about "prevent" - I guess what can be said is that it doesn't prevent exposure but prevents infection (i.e. disease), so am happy with "prevent" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• With regards the vaccination; It is worth thinking about the phrase "Some health effects caused by HPV can be prevented with vaccines" in the introduction at www.cdc.gov (again not RS for the wiki). The article is careful to avoid saying that HPV infection is prevented by HPV vaccination. It is about how vaccines and the immune system works that makes it impossible for a vaccine to entirely prevent an infection. The best that an active vaccine can do is to provide immunological memory and to enable quick production of clones of plasma cells to produce an appropriate antibody and fight off the infection within a few days, rather than the slower first-time immunological response which will take about 8 days to manufacture antibodies in quantity, although interferon is naturally produced sooner to combat viral infections. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes the CDC is a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. It produces "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". The page you linked to was not the page I linked to however. See [20] were it says "Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing the targeted HPV types, as well as the most common health problems caused by them." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Infections can be sub-clinical. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure but that is neither here nor there. If there is still dispute regarding if the CDC, FDA, and NCI are reliable sources we can take this to a notice board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I am not disputing those as RS. We are discussing how to write the introduction using RS, what the RS say, and differences between RS. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah. Well what does "(again not RS for the wiki) " right after the ref from the CDC mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
            • That was my accidental mistake - I had not seen the website before. I have put a strike through that. I apologize for accidentally giving the wrong impression about that website. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, given we're trying to get the intro right, I reverted these two sentences as the combined sentence is not very long - separated it makes the flow very wooden. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The HPV vaccine is not even designed to give protection against all HPV infections, because there are about 80 to 100 strains of HPV and the vaccine only combats a few of these strains that tend to lead to suspicious viral changes in the cervix. All the other types of HPV infections including those that cause warts are not prevented by the vaccine. The current phrase "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, can be given to prevent HPV infection" is misleading; for example, it could mean that the vaccine also protects against wart inducing HPV viruses, which is wrong. HPV only gives protection against the targeted HPV types. The body of the article has it correct by saying; "Vaccines against HPV, such as Gardasil and Cervarix, also reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, by inoculating against the viral strains involved in cancer development.[40]". The introduction should mirror the article. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio are you going to start providing reliable sources? This discussion is not productive without them. We are not here to decide how we think things should work. We are here to reflect reliable sources.

"inoculating" is not combating. Reliable sources do not use combating. This sort of terminology is used by the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have not provided adequate RS to say that HPV vaccine can protect against all HPV strains of the virus including the wart forming strains, as the phrase "can be given to prevent HPV infection" implies. Normally, the introduction reflects the main body of the article, but your amendment of the introduction is not consistent with the paragraph about vaccination in the "Cancer" section, which specifically states that the HPV targets specific strains of the virus. Here is a reviewed article on HPV and vaccination at www.cancer.gov. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said "protect against all HPV strains" and the phrase "can be given to prevent HPV infection" does not imply that it protects against all cases / strains.

We say that the measles vaccine "can" prevent measles even though it is not 100% effective. We say morphine "can" help with pain even though it doesn't 100% of the time. We use English in medicine like this all the time.

The ref you have provided states "Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing infections with HPV types 16 and 18. Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11." It does not say "combates HPV" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the induction can be improved from what it is now? Perhaps, something like; "HPV vaccination protects against the strains of HPV that are most likely to lead to cancer of the cervix". Snowman (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with "can be given to reduce the risk of cervical cancer" or "can be given to reduce the risk of HPV infection". What I objected to was the word "combat". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should soon sort out what to put in the introduction with a number of constructive edits building upon the previous edits. I will amend the article, so please re-phase my English if it does not turn out clear after the first re-write and then I will have a look at what you have put, and so it until a satisfactory line is made. Alternatively, you can do the next first amendment. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We should probably get consensus here first before making the changes. And have someone else make the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I expect that the amendment can wait a day or two while a consensus is formed. Should it also say that it is usually given to schoolgirls? What about: Snowman (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "HPV vaccination, developed in the 21st century, protects against the strains of HPV that are most likely to lead to cancer of the cervix". Snowman (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• "HPV vaccines, developed in the early 21st century, are very effective in reducing the risk of cervical cancer."Snowman (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of "can be given" as that implies optional, whereas both are part of established screening programs (i.e. one has to opt out not opt in) - I'd say "HPV vaccination protect against HPV infection and hence reduce risk of cervical cancer" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To build upon that, what about; "HPV vaccination protects against the main carcinogenic strains of HPV infection to reduce risk of cervical cancer". Snowman (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I like that, Jmh649, what do you think of the last one? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of things. Snowmanradio is editing very aggressively. I placed a notice on his talk page that he had hit three reverts. Today he has continued and possible make a forth within 24 hours. I would recommend that his next edit be him reverting his changes.
• IMO the lead should be written in simpler language. We should not be trying to cram everything into a single sentence as well this may be fine for those who speak English as a native language and are highly educated, those from other countries and with a less academic background may have difficulty with the complicated syntax.
• IMO we should go with "HPV vaccines reduce the risk of cervical cancer. They were developed in the early 21st century." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that your suggestion is a good idea, and would be a fine alternative. However, some people like longer sentences. I completely deny that I have been editing aggressively. I think that User:Jmh649's use of TW should have been used with a better edit summary, even if I was not been working on the page. User:Jmh649 has modified the same line, which needed re-phrasing, twice times, without putting in the required extra meaning. I would rather work to improve the page. My second edit to the page was not a revert, but followed the general format as indicated by User:Casliber and User:Jmh649 in discussion on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure we can take this to the 3RR board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be grateful if User:Jmh649 corrected his comment on my talk page and above, because he has miscounted the number of reverts and edits I have done to this line within the last 24 hours. I have made one revert and one constructive edit to the line in the last 24 hours. The word combat had been on the page for a number of days. The word combat had been on the page since 11 June 2014 added by this edit of mine. Who is being aggressive to who? Snowman (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• RE "combat" vs "prevent - commented here. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

People tend to get blocked for a day after the forth revert, not the third. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we knock off the talk about the revert boards? Any admin seeing editors gaming 3RR is within their rights to block if they think the editors are gaming it - back to the topic at hand: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Call it what you like Cas but there are issues here. Snowmanradio was informed that he may be at 3RR. He was given the opportunity to self revert (which is not something that is required) and he declined. This is not called "gaming 3RR" this is called trying to improve the editing environment of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It could also be argued that the four cover different aspects so they are not four reverts of the same thing. In any case, we are trying to discuss below and reporting there is punitive not preventative. Outside opinions are being sought and will allow us to settle this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• First, James, these two pairs of sentences "HPV vaccines reduce the risk of cervical cancer. They were developed in the early 21st century." and "The cervix (Latin: neck) or cervix uteri is the lower part of the uterus. It is part of the female reproductive system. " are too short - they do not help the flow of prose and come across as wooden. I do think that in the interests of crisper prose we can split "HPV vaccination, developed in the early 21st century, protects against infection from the main carcinogenic strains of HPV to reduce risk of cervical cancer." into two sentences though. I will ask for some opinions from prose writers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See here so let's wait. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "The cervix (Latin: neck) or cervix uteri is the lower part of the uterus and forms part of the female reproductive system." (don't like hence, which isn't a common word for non-native speakers), and "HPV vaccination was developed in the early 21st century. It reduces the risk of cervical cancer by protecting against infection from the main carcinogenic strains of HPV"? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree do not like "hence" either

How about "It reduces the risk of cervical cancer by preventing infections from the main cancer causing strains of HPV" No need to say carcinogenic and the majority of the refs say protect thus we should to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this version - it's long enough for me and I agree that cancer causing is a good/accessible substitute for carcinogenic. Also happy to lose "hence" which is hence redundant....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with using the last suggestion. The lede of any article aiming for FA needs to be concise and simple to read, without being as Cas puts it: "wooden". If we really are aiming for FA we shouldn't be rushing this review, making hundreds of edits in a single day, and I agree that this type of editing may be seen as very aggressive. If we are to reach consensus we can't have one user dominating this discussion, and we need to go slow enough so that everyone's voice can be heard. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine with this version also. But this thread seems to be going on in 2 places now.... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes this should really be on the talk page IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am more than happy to close off this section in hte interests of keeping this page manageable and discussion productive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bleach (manga)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a GA status.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

Looking at it quickly, I would say it tries to represent too much information when there are separate articles or lists it could be placed in instead. Look at the soundtrack. That's just terribly painful for the eyes. There's a soundtrack article for that. It happens in most sections. Aside from that, (Not part of the GA criteria) I'm a bit concerned about the themes sections. I don't understand why the article is listing an individual's opinions on the series ("Drazen says this is a reminder to the audience to not abandon the old ways or risk the spirits taking offense and causing problems in the world."). I would strip that, and keep what the author says inspired him to create this and that in the series. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Bristol

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearing the quality for a FA nomination. It has had peer reviews in the past (I did one of them) and has recently had the referencing issues sorted and copy editing from others. Another set of eyes to spot anything else which is likely to cause a problem at FAC would be really helpful. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "Historically in Gloucestershire, the city received a Royal charter in 1155[7] and was granted County status in 1373." I did not understand this until I read the details below. I think it would be better to spell out with something like "The city received a Royal charter in 1155. It was part of Gloucestershire until 1373 when it became a county in its own right."

• Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "latter part of the 18th century." A bit clumsy. Why not the later 18th century?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Archaeological finds believed to be 60,000 years old, discovered at Shirehampton and St Annes, provide "evidence of human activity" in the Bristol area from the Palaeolithic era." I find statements like this problematic, as they could be interpreted as implying occupation since that time, whereas modern humans did not reach Europe until around 45,000 years ago and Britain has probably only been continuously occupied since the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago. The paper here shows that the evidence is of Neanderthals using the Lavellois technique, which is interesting in its own right.

• I will have to look at bit more closely at this one.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've had a go, but could you take a look at the way I have worded this please?— Rod ^talk 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Palaeolithic going back 2.6 million years is too broad to be meaningful in this context, so I have changed it to "in the Middle Palaeolithic period". I trust this is OK with you.

• "appears to have been founded in c.1000 and by c.1020 was an important enough trading centre to possess its own mint," Surely it cannot have developed in 20 years enough to have its own mint? Perhaps before 1000.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Harold's sons" I would link Harold.

• Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• " Having been rebuffed in the east," I think it would be better to spell out that Sturmy's expedition was unsuccessful.

• Done

• " Isle of Hy-Brazil, " You need to spell out that this was a phantom island.

• Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status, which was granted to Bristol in that year." So Bristol became a county in 1377 and a city in 1542. This needs clarification. I see you say below that Bristol is both, but this could do with spelling out in the history section as it seems confusing as it stands.

• Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "18th century expansion" I think 18th century should be hyphenated when it is a qualifier.

• Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would delete sport from the history section as it has its own section below.

• I will look at this.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The next [elections] are expected in May 2013." Articles should not be written so that they become out of date. See WP:Recentism. There are other comments which will become out of date such as "There are two Labour members of parliament (MPs), one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative." Dates should be given when making statements which will become out of date in the future.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have looked through the article down to demographics and will try to come back to it later. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the really helpful comments. I've dealt with some and will come back to the last couple.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• It would take up a bit more space, but I think it would be better to have the historical data in single vertical columns rather than 3 horizontal as it would be easier to see the trend.

• I don't quite understand this one - I presume this is the population records, but what would each column contain?— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry I was not clear. I mean a table with two columns, headed Year and Population (total is superfluous). The technical details above the table could be relegated to a footnote.

• I've had a bash at this in my sandbox. The most recent few years need sorting and updating but I think the main problem is the length. If this were added to the article in the Demographics section this would either create a large amount of white space or push down the pics etc in the subsequent Ecomony and industry section.— Rod ^talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps dividing into 3 vertical columns would look better, but I will leave it to you to decide what looks best. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've had a go at this - what do you think?— Rod ^talk 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The whole table is not visible on my screen at the same time. Contrary to my original suggestion, I think splitting it into 3 vertical columns might work better. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've taken the middle course and made it two vertical columns - better?— Rod ^talk 08:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looks fine. I think tables in columns are easier to read than rows. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "As a major seaport, Bristol has a long history of trading commodities, originally..." It would be better to give approximate dates of the phases.

• I've added more history of the port with dates.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "In 2004, Bristol's GDP was £9.439 billion, and the combined GDP of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset was £44.098 billion." Maybe a bit pedantic, but as Bristol is a county the higher figure appears to exclude Bristol (and I doubt it tells us anything useful.)

• I've removed the surrounding counties.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Portbury Dock (1977) as the size of shipping increased" This is ambiguous. Would size of ships be more accurate?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Since the port was leased in 1991," This needs clarification. Something like: Until 1991 the port was publicly owned, since when it has been leased. (if this is correct).

• Revised.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "but imports of wines and spirits by Averys continue." Probably best not to mention Averys and more recentism.

• Averys removed.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure that your reversion of the edit on non-league clubs is correct. The Conference Premier is the top league of the Conference, not separate from leagues below it. Does 'non-league' mean anything with the new set up?

• I reverted my own revert.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the biggest problem with the article is frequent recentism. You need to go through it looking for statements that may look out of date or trivial to someone reading it in ten years. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again - I will look for more examples of recentism.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Cerebrospinal fluid

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get this up to GA. However, it's accumulated a lot of information over its lifespan and I'm not sure if all of it is relevant. I'm also not sure whether this article is accessible to lay readers. So I invite any and all to comment/edit the article, particularly with regard to: broadness, readability, accuracy, and reliability.

I can't respond to comments in a reasonable time-span but rest assured they will be addressed... eventually!

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

At a glance, this article seems to be based to a large extent upon this link, which is dead. As for specific comments, I don't know that anything specific could be given beyond structural pointers at this stage, particularly given the presence of the dead link (which might be easily solved, but then again, might not). What I think this article needs is a content expert with a better grasp of the subject who can give pointers on the way article needs to be organized and on which sections need expansion. ResMar 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thismia rodwayi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished translating it from the French article (of which I'm the author), and I'd like some feedback, especially on style, grammar, etc.

Thanks a lot, Thouny(talk), on 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

Overall a well written article. Generally it reads well, though there are a few things that just don't sound right to my ears that I would change. It's particularly well sourced for a subject which you say has very little literature and available data.

• Lead: The small number of known individuals of this species has put it under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Whilst this makes sense, I'm not sure how well it reads. May just be me, but I find it a little unidiomatic, especially suing the word 'individuals'. Perhaps something like: Due to its relative rarity, the species has been put under Schedule 5 (Rare) of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995?
• As it does not contain any chlorophyll, its only vegetative parts are a flower stalk and roots, both devoid of chlorophyll. Using 'chlorophyll' twice in the sentence sounds a little clunky. Perhaps getting rid of the first clause all together ('As it does not contain any chlorophyll')?
• Its whole life cycle, and especially its reproductive one, is still mostly unknown need citing.

Perhaps a link to leaf shapes where 'obovate' is mentioned here.

• Again in the description section, why is flower in quotes in the third sentence, but not in the second?
• Perhaps renaming the Autecology section to something like 'habitat'? I don't think 'Autecology' would be readily understood by most.
• Use of 'occurs' in the autecology section doesn't sound idiomatic. 'Grows', 'thrives' even?
• Because of the anecdotal occurrence data concerning this plant: I don't like this sentence. It doesn't read well at all. Unsure what to suggest as a revision as I'm not sure what it is meant to convey.
• Again, the use of 'cyrptic' here doesn't sound quite right. Sotakeit (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Daniel E. Friedmann

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the issues pertaining to it's validity have been addressed. Most importantly, citations were included for the content.

Thanks, Jeronimo Jeronimojammies (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This article has multiple still-valid issue tags, still leads like a promotional article on a barely relevant LP, and isn't long enough or well-written enough to really justify a full peer review. My immediate recommendation would be to scrap what's there and rewrite it in more encyclopedic tone from scratch. ResMar 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Steam (software)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I do intend to take it back to FAC once issues are resolved. however, first we need to know what the issues are, obviously.

Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by ResMar

Initial release

• I would like to see more information provided in this section on whether or what content distribution networks existed before Steam entered the market, the nature of why updating Counter-Strike was such a problem for Valve's techs, and whether or not content distribution issues was a generally widespread problem.
• You need to copyedit the first sentence so as to redistribute where the stress lies. Since you are describing the origins of Steam in a historical manner, you should place the problem (Valve's issues updating Counter-Strike) ahead of the solution (the brainstorming and development of Steam).
• Did Valve approach the other companies with its business concept to solicit resources, a partnership, funding, or some combination of the three? You should include this in the sentence, if possible.
• Again, Valve decided that it would go alone after its proposals were rejected on approach, so the sentence on its decision to create a platform should come after its rejections, not before.
• "before 2002" is not a particularly specific date: can something more precise be provided?
• Relic Entertainment's involvement with Valve is technically a partnership, is it not? This language should be included in the sentence, since Relic's shoulder got tapped here.
• Not sure how relevant the game never being released on Steam is: if you make a notes section this is good material for that, but otherwise it can be removed without consequence.
• Why was this second series of partnerships more successful than the first? What were the partnerships meant to achieve? What did they achieve?
• Since the next paragraph describes the public release of the Steam beta the mention of the release of the first mod on the system seems misplaced. Is your timing correct here? If so you need to explain to the reader why it is that a mod was released on the platform before it was made generally available.
• How badly did the system choke? Avoid subjectives; use objectives.
• What was the World Opponent Network?
• The gamers that tested the system in beta are Counterstrike beta gamers, correct? If you so you need to include that it was tested as part of the Counterstrike beta. Also: any particular reason the numerical range is so wide?
• The "their" in the next paragraph does not gel—you mentioning specific releases afterwards, but nowhere the companies which were responsible for them.
• What makes Valve's partnership with Strategy First particularly notable?
• Was it that Gabe Newell was offering the license, or would offer the license?
• What engine (presumably, the Source engine).

Profitability

• Why did it take until 2005 for third-party games to reach Steam? Does this mean that Steam had been a proprietary system before then? If so you need to make this clearer in the initial development section, and, if you can, explain whether eventually making the system publicly available was or was not an initial goal.
• How could a proprietary distribution system be rendered profitable by the sales of its own company's goods? Is this, as I suspect, the point at which the costs saved and margin gained by excising the retail middleman overcame the overall cost of building and maintaining the system?
• Why 2007?
• The number of games available should precede the number of accounts created.
• Seeing as that you cut off your historical overview at 2007, you can't claim that this is a fully adequate historical overview. You should merge this section into the one above and move it up one level, eliminating "History", so that you are left with "Initial development" as your sole heading. This is a significant structural issue that I'm a little miffed the GAN review didn't cover.

General comments

I see that this is the run-up to your first go at a bronze star. You're an a bit of an unusual position: though this article is certainly within rights to be made into a featured article, you aren't the primary author. This isn't something you can't work around, but in my time here I have found that for topics outside of your professional criteria (I assume, of course, that you are not a video game historian of some stripe or another), given how intimate you must become with your sources to bring an article to bronze star quality managing an FAC from the outer line is a particularly challenging task. There are many small gaps in the information presented in this article which, though more or less acceptable from the point of view of a good article nomination, are not acceptable from a bronze-star article. I have reviewed a part of this article and left a list of comments which you would need to address in order to be able to confidently approach a featured article nom; my reviewing the remaining four fifths (!) or so of the article are contingent upon the successful handling of the material in this first quintile. Ready to get digging? ResMar 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

alrighty, that makes sense, adn your reviews are very helpful... i'll start on that soon, RL has kept me really busy lately... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

GitHub

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I spent the past couple of days doing a lot of work rewriting the article. When I found it, it had numerous maintenance tags. Github is a significant company within the development community and I think there's still a great deal of room to expand this article further. Thanks, David Condrey (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Indian Institute of Horticultural Research

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to be rated on the quality scale so that necessary improvements could be made.

Thanks, jojo@nthony (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Church of Satan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article lacks any appropriate academic sources. It reads mostly from a bias of personal investment (there's for example nothing on how the Church of Satan has been received by society, nothing on its judicial bankruptcy, etc). It would be unthinkable for an article on the Catholic Church to be reflective only of how it thinks of itself and that same commitment to objective analysis should be applied here. There's been a number of external studies done on the Church of Satan. Why not include some of those?

Thanks, Hermetic Pilgrim (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

From what you've said, it seems you're already aware of the main issues. I know nothing on the subject, so I can't pass opinion of the veracity of the content, but here is what I picked up on what can be improved:

• You're right. The majority of the sources are either a) publsiher/authored by Church of Satan members/leadership or b) derived from interviews with members/leadership. The article needs to reference other outside sources to give a more balance view.
• Several statements obviously needing sitation

• Other texts, such as The Satanic Bible, also by LaVey, serve the most specifically as a reference for Satanic dogma.
• The Church of Satan evaluates active members for the Priesthood by their accomplishment in society
• A Satanic funeral for naval machinist-repairman, third-class Edward Olsen, was performed at the request of his wife, complete with a chrome-helmeted honor guard.

• Maybe more of a personal preference, but for citations such as number 22, it may be better to split it into a seperate 'Notes' section (as here).
• Refs numbers 10 and 11. What are they? Books? Websites? Interivews? Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Videoball

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since this article is not eligible under the good article criteria for want of stability until it is released, it needs an "individual quality audit" peer review in order to co-exist with an upcoming good topic nomination for Action Button Entertainment. I'd appreciate any feedback. @CR4ZE, since you've already read the article with the GA review, would you like to start? czar ♔ 13:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE

Sure. I only have a couple of small things for want of brilliant prose.

• Is the game presented in 2D or 3D? Is it top-down? I wasn't clear on this. (Before seeing it online).
• A screenshot would be wonderful, and would solve the problem of not knowing what the game looks like. Have you contacted Action Button? If not, what about something non-free and low-res as a placeholder?
• "The game's triangles and projectiles ...". Are the triangles and projectiles conceived as a sport without narrative or artifice, or are you referring to the game?
• "that picked up speed ...". What is it that picked up speed exactly? Also, this sentence is a little "game"-y.
• "Polygon's Tracey Lien described their process ...". Who is the "they" in this sentence?
• "Rogers livestreams prerelease sessions". Do you mean he has in the past, or that he constantly livestreams? If he does, that begs the question as to how often he does it. You could just insert "has" after "Rogers" and say "livestreamed". Also, wouldn't you hyphen it as "pre-release"?
• "and his excitement for local multiplayer..."—He thought about his excitement? Needs a little clarity. Could this work better as two sentences?
• "having learned Videoball" sounds like it should be "having learned Videoball's gameplay" to me.

That's it. When you're finished, do I...support it for being good but not a good article, or...? CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How about pretty-good-but-not-good-enough? Thanks for the review—appreciate it. I'll have more time to fix things next weekend czar ♔ 02:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE, all right. I think I addressed the above. Is there anything else? Some notes: (1) Yes, Rogers has said he was getting me stuff several times, but, well, life. If he doesn't respond to my next reply, I'll upload something with a FUR. (2) NOAD doesn't use a hyphen in "prerelease", so its' good enough for me czar ♔ 23:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Even though the article is ineligible under the good article criteria, it is of sufficient quality to be included in a good topic. It is in the hands of an experienced editor, and I expect it to retain such quality as it expands out following the game's launch. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think of Infamous Second Son? ;-) CR4ZE (t • c) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Sega Saturn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Sega Saturn has had a tumultuous, but mostly positive, history over the last four months. The article was a complete mess until a user asked User:Red Phoenix to whip it into shape after a sock-puppet filled content dispute. Red did an admirable job of cleaning up and reorganizing the article, and it received promotion to GA after a rigorous and extended nomination overseen by me. User:TheTimesAreAChanging picked up the torch at that point and shifted through a large number of new and often contradictory sources to greatly improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article. After a helpful FAC that further tightened the article's sourcing, but did not result in a promotion, Times decided he was satisfied with his work on the article and would not renominate. I plan to take over the FAC process from here and plan to renominate after the mandatory waiting period has expired. Any and all feedback welcome.

Thanks, Indrian (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Katy Perry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just got it up to GA last week and am hoping to polish it up enough to become FA in time to be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. This means I will likely have to get it to FA at least one month ahead of time. Input is highly appreciated. Peer review shall close on July 11th as I plan on taking to FAC next month.

Thanks, Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• The image in the infobox will need an alternate text description.
• There are some external links that need to be corrected.
• In the first sentence of the Prism section, fall (and seasons in general, for that matter) do not need to be capitalized.
• I'm not sure perfumes need a separate section for listing the way that discography and filmography do.
• In the filmography section, it would be helpful to include the year when each film was released.
• I personally don't think that the succession boxes at the end of the article are necessary, I would remove them altogether.
• I would also consider separating the templates at the end of the article from the "Links to related articles" umbrella; I think that just leaving the templates separate will be a more direct navigation.

WikiRedactor (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've addressed all except for the alt text myself, WikiRedactor, IndianBio got the alt text bit (which I couldn't figure out on my own). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

• I think it would be useful to add where Perry was born and that she was raised in a patriarchal family. That would be in the second sentence from the lead, in order the reader to understand why her exposure to pop music was limited.

• I'll see if I can find the exact location for her birth (all I know so far is that it was a hospital just outside of Santa Barbara), but so far I haven't come across anything that suggests her family was ever "patriarchal" (or matriarchal, for that matter). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "her family moved about seven times" — I'm sure that this would be pointed in the FAC, that if available, we should have the exact number.

• Will do if I can find it, but for now I'll just say "often moved" or "frequently moved", sound good? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "At age 15, Perry's singing attracted the attention of rock veterans" — the names of the rock musicians are needed here; "At age 15"→just "at 15" is fine; "attracted the attention"→"caught the attention"; "to polish her writing skills"→"to improve her writing skills"

• all  Done except for the names..... for now, as I'll have to search for those..... Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "craft songs"→"write/compose songs" (more encyclopedic)

•  Done Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• in order to add an "undeniable smash or two"→I think just "undeniable smash" would be fine

• M'kay Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• stating "They love and support me".→this could be paraphrased

• Tried to do so Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "reached the number one position"→just reached number one

•  Done Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Teenage Dream was met with generally mixed reviews — omit generally

• Will do Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Firework" was released as the album's third consecutive number-one on the Hot 100. — You need to clarify that it became the album's third consecutive number single. This way it seems that she knew the single was going to be number 1 before it was released.

• Clarified :P Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the fall of 2012, Perry told Billboard about Prism; we need to explain that Prism was her upcoming album because it is mentioned for the first time

• Adjusted Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• her relationship with Mayer ended (explain what was the reason); "telling GQ "there's no rush" (this needs paraphrasing because it sounds slightly "mystic")

• How is it now? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is all for now. I should finish the review on Saturday. Comments on the rest of the sections coming then. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Look forward to the rest, Retrohead. Thanks for all your comments so far :)! Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job so far Snuggums.--Retrohead (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir :3 Snuggums (talk • contributions) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• the gospel genre→ just gospel would be fine

 Done

• At the age 15

 Done

• inspired her music; finish the quote with attitude and omit "really"

 Done

• drop "frequently" from the opening sentence of "Musical style and themes" and "notably" from the third

 Done

• possesses→has would be a better word choice

 Done

• likened→compared

 Done

• music industry sex symbol—I believe only "music sex symbol" or even "sex symbol" would be more adequate

 Done

• "In early November 2010"→In November 2010 (exact dates kinda drag the attention away)

 Done

• choice of fashion→fashion choice

 Done

• early November 2013 and late January 2014 should be November 2013 & January 2014; I've noticed that is quite frequent in the "Other ventures"

 Done

• overall, this section could use some quote trimming; I get the impression that every second sentence contains quote marks.

• should be less of a WP:QUOTEFARM now Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• went towards→were donated to

 Done

• in young women; shouldn't this be at young women?

• The charity supports young women with breast cancer, so I think "in" is fine.

• supported President Barack Obama in his November 2012 run for re-election; the date of November 2012 is not needed here

 Done

• This is all from me. Have a good time.--Retrohead (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorted out most of these. S△M ^talk 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio

I'm going through the article now and jotting down comments as I go. Will paste them all together when I'm done. On way I will be copy editing also anything I find missing. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to it :) Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am done with the scanning of the whole article. I'm sorry to say at present how it is, it won't pass FAC and the whole blame comes on the prose. The main problem is not balance or anything regarding it, its just that the prose has a complete timeline way of writing. Its like someone keeping a log of Perry's important events in life in a diary. "She woke up, brushed her teeth, released 'Roar', performed at music awards, broke up with John", like this. It essentially makes the article pretty bland and has a complete monotony associated with it. When you read a book, do you find that the content is written like that? The author always tries to spice up the portions but keeping it professional. How does he do it? By adding quotes, or anecdotes, or conversation, or maybe an image. He also combines the flow so that sequences of same event are clubbed together. The pictures are all present, we need to just regurgitate them again. I will give one example from the Prism section how we can better it.

We can start with the development of the album and Perry's thoughts of changing it to a lighter version. Then, instead of going into the diary entries, we can talk about how the album did / doing commercially. Then we can talk about the singles and the promotional performances, then talk about the tour associated with the album. In this way the diary like entry is avoided and we have also clubbed sequences of same era together. I think the Lady Gaga article (though not of FA worthy obviously) has a good way of effecting this, especially in her Artpop section and pointers can be taken.

Besides that the section can contain other endeavors of Perry like that awful duet with John, her perfume and The Smurfs appearance, then any notable controversy excluding the album. In this way we are adding notable incidents from the whole zone but we are making it interesting. A reader would definitely not like to go from album → development → perfume → movies → singles → promo → breakup in that order. He/She would want to know what happens next with the exact portion he's reading and I think this is a great way of improving that. Just to remind you, this does not mean that the article has to be a QUOTEFARM. Just minor anecdotes and one liners.

I will be posting more gradually as I see more problems. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:TNT is needed, IndianBio. If Peter had told me about the whole "timeline" idea when reviewing the GAN, that would've been quite helpful. Of the sections that need revising, do any specific ones need more copyediting than others? Give me all you've got here- for FAC, I'm determined as top contributor to do it once and do it right. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, it is not TNT that is needed, it is a rearrangement. Why not start with the most recent section of her bio as I explained above, i.e. the Prism section. Take each and every sentence and then place them category wise. Like 1. Album, 2. Singles + promo, 3. Other endorsements. Then copyedit and expand on the prose so that the sentences flow better and makes the reader understand what he/she is reading. As I said above, it reads like a disjointed diary entry at present with ideas just thrown in buyt not combined or placed in apprrpriate areas. I can even show you for this section in the talk page of this PR if you want. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to that, but in such a case I'm not quite sure where her relationships with Travie and Russell would be placed for One of the Boys and Teenage Dream sections. Definitely gonna need some fiddling around since it looks like I went overboard with chronology prior to requesting the PR. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio, take a look now- Samjohnzon just gave a total revamp. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully it's an improvement, tried to organise things according to topic rather than chronologically this time. Let me know what you think, IndianBio! S△M ^talk 01:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing I just realized- we forgot to include her involvement with Sesame Street, The Simpsons, How I Met Your Mother, and Raising Hope. Just trying to figure out how to incorporate them. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks Sam, just taking a look at it and checking if the prose flows like a stream :P —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(→) Hi Sam, the rearrangement of the section, now the idea is to make the prose flow smoothly between these sections and the lines in each section. At present the ideas are separately listed, but the sentences do not merge into each other as a smooth prose. I am starting to give it a brush up now. Hope that would make it clear. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Another question, IndianBio: do you feel there's enough information available to warrant a "legacy" section or is it too soon in her career? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism

• Per WP:ALTTEXT, all the alt text descriptions of images are wrong except for the Public image section. — prism △ 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What would better alt text descriptions be? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll change them as soon as I can. :) — prism △ 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

I've read through the lead and the first few sections. Apologies if I've repeated anything covered above.

Lead

• "Her fourth album, Prism (2013), spawned" - not sure if "spawned" is the right word to use. Maybe redo as "She released her fourth album, Prism in 2013 which included the number-one singles "Roar" and "Dark Horse"

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• The lead says "the dissolution of her one-year marriage" but the infobox said they were married from 2010 to 2012

• That's because they married October 2010 and the marriage ended February 2012, which really isn't two years. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of those tricky things. If you leave it out, you can't tell they've separated. If you put "brief", well it's got nothing on Cher and Gregg Allman. Tricky one to resolve, this.

I guess "short" or "brief" would have to do. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Early life and career beginnings

• turned to God after a "wild youth" - I assume the quotation comes from the Scotsman source in the next sentence, but I would put it right up against this quotation myself.

• Now matches up to that SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Keith formerly made and dealt LSD" - don't need "formerly", we know it was in his past

• removed SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Mary once dated musician Jimi Hendrix" - Hendrix's article does not mention her. "Dated Hendrix" for me means someone like Kathy Etchingham. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and I don't think The Scotman cuts it. I think this sentence can go - her parents are reformed Christians, that'll do.

• Their relationship was only brief, which is probably why Hendrix's article didn't include it. Should I scrap the LSD part as well if getting rid of this sentence? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd get rid. It's not actually about Katy Perry per se. The source did say "dated" but, with I have a feeling they said that as a tabloid euphemism for "one night stand". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Scrapped SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "and an older sister named Angela" - don't need "named"
• "Throughout their childhood, they attended religious schools and camps, including Santa Barbara Christian School" - do you mean the whole family, or just the children

• Specified SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• "E! Special: Katy Perry" needs a time as to where the supporting information can be located.

• Will search for time range SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• In general, I think some (but not all) of the sources in this section are a bit tabloidish, and you may come unstuck at FAC where reviewers tend to demand higher quality sources such as officially authorised biographies, or at least commercial books from good publishers.

• Can you please name specific sources? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I had a quick pop onto Google Books and there were a couple of biographies, though nothing that I would think would reach critical acclaim. Sorry I can't be more specific. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant which sources looked questionable/tabloidish. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Seventeen and OC Weekly were the obvious ones. None of the sources are unreliable per se - they got passed a GA review after all, but are they the absolute highest quality sources going? It's more a gut feeling that at FAC showing evidence of consulting a good in-depth printed biography shows you're serious about providing the best possible sources.

Katy Hudson and The Matrix

• "In December 1999, Perry completed her GED" - readers outside North America don't know what the General Education Development is - this should be spelled out in full.

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "At fifteen" - up until this point, ages have been numeric. I'd do with numbers.

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "her singing caught the attention of rock veterans from Nashville, Tennessee," - "veterans" is often used to mean a retired soldier or general. Do we know whose specific attention she caught?

• Searching..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Their names were Steve Thomas and Jennifer Knapp. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "before the label ceased operations in December 2001" - don't need 2001, the paragraph has established we're talking about that year

• removed SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Following a terminated record deal" - not sure what is meant. Did the contracts get signed and then dropped after unsuccessful recording, did the paperwork just not work out, or something else. I think this needs to be clearer.

• I replaced with "failed" SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "She was dropped by her third record label," - state the label directly

• Specified that it was Columbia SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• " In the interim of being signed to another label" - "During this time" might be simpler

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can comment further on the article later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 how does the article look now? Any more comments?? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Things are looking better. I'd merge the last two sentences of the second paragraph in "Early life and career beginnings", but I can't think of anything else right now. I assume you've looked through Binksternet's comments and applied the MOS issues generally throughout the article. I'll try and see if I can look at more of it soon! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have addressed his concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK I've now found the names of the veterans (from Alice Hudson's biography), used Kimberly Dillon Summers' biography in place of Seventeen (though moved that ref to later in the article where she speaks to the magazine), looking for a better ref for OC Weekly. As for merging..... Sam, it might have been a bit long, so here's what we can do:

Original text: "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence. The family sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."

What I used (and you found "long winded"): "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence and sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."

Proposal: "Her family 'barely got by' financially during her childhood and adolescence, sometimes eating from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church, and used food stamps."

Ritchie, if you or Sam have any better suggestions to merge, feel free to state them. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a really tricky one to word. It feels like if we have two 'and's in the same sentence it may be a bit too long a sentence, but if we repeat "The family" twice it feels too repetitive. Perhaps "Her family 'barely got by' financially, sometimes using food stamps and eating from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church."? It's obvious to the reader this section is about her childhood, so it doesn't necessarily have to be specified. S△M ^talk 15:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Gonna go with that. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet

• Looks like the clunky prose will prevent this article from achieving FA. Staccato sentences such as "She grew up in Santa Barbara, California," stand out as examples of poor writing. (Her hometown couldn't be worked more gracefully into some other sentence?)

• How would you phrase it? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Because of the result of The/the Beatles RfC, the musical group the Matrix should have lower case the in running prose, not capitalized The.

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• In running prose, city/state formulations should end in a comma. The phrase "born near Santa Barbara, California to Pentecostal pastors" should be "born near Santa Barbara, California, to Pentecostal pastors". Later on, the same problem shows up in "Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, California on October..." which should have a comma after California.

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Rather than calling her parents by their first names, I think the encyclopedia should say "her father" and "her mother". For instance, instead of saying "through Mary, she is a half-niece", the article should say "through her mother, Perry is a half-niece".

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• This wording is wrong in two ways: "Between the ages of 3–11, her family frequently moved ..." First off, per MOS:ENDASH, when giving a range of numbers separated by an en dash, we should never say "between" or "from". If those words are used, then the numbers should be separated by a preposition; for instance "from 3 to 11" or "between 3 and 11". The second problem is that her family was not aged 3 to 11 when they moved. Perry was that age range, not the whole family, despite what the sentence suggests. The paragraph continues "Throughout their childhood", assumed to mean the family's childhood, which is nonsense, or the siblings' childhood, which is not defined. Of course we are talking about Perry's childhood. It is not necessary to use "they" or "their" to include Perry's siblings; the article is about Katy Perry, not her siblings. The sentence "They sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church" should be "The family sometimes ate from the food bank intended to feed the congregation at her parents' church".

• take a look now SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per MOS:ENDASH, the phrase "from the ages of 9–16" should be "from the ages of 9 to 16".

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Pedantic: Do we really have to be told that singing at age 9 came "before" getting a guitar at age 13?

• adjusted SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per MOS:NUMERAL, the ages 9 and 13 should both be spelled out or both be numerals, not mixed in the same sentence.

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it vitally important that Perry's dancing lessons were conducted in "a recreation building in Santa Barbara"?

• I'll give this some thought SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:DASH, the article should settle on either unspaced em dashes for sentence interruptions, or spaced en dashes. I see that both kinds are used.

• I see you've adjusted that yourself SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:NBSP, million dollar figures require a non-breaking space between the numeral and the "million", or a nowrap template can be used.

• Doesn't that make text look messy in editing mode? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Per MOS:DATE, a month/day/year formulation should always be followed with a comma in running prose, so "April 28, 2008 as the lead single" should be "April 28, 2008, as the lead single". Same with "released on October 18, 2013 and debuted" which should be "released on October 18, 2013, and debuted". Same with "engaged on December 31, 2009 while vacationing" which should be "engaged on December 31, 2009, while vacationing". As well, "on December 10, 2011 with Robyn" should be "on December 10, 2011, with Robyn". Finally, "text message on December 30, 2011 that he was divorcing" should be "text message on December 30, 2011, that he was divorcing".

•  Done SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• The first instance of a reference should be the full citation rather than a named ref. An example is the bit about Perry's mother "dating" Hendrix (does this signify a brief backstage romance or something more meaningful?) which is supported by a named reference "GraffBold", but the full GraffBold reference comes later.

• Thanks for catching that. They were only together briefly. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm stopping my prose review at the year 1999. The article needs a lot of prose and manual-of-style work to move ahead. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Binksternet how does the article look now? Any more comments?? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments

@WikiRedactor, Retrohead, IndianBio, Prism, Ritchie333, and Binksternet: thank you gentlemen for all your comments. It's now been one month since this was opened, and at the time I said it would close July 11th. That day has arrived, but since Ritchie333 and Binksternet haven't reviewed the article in full yet, I'll give you another week for any additional word. IndianBio, I'm gonna add some more details and tweaks. Afterwards, hopefully you can polish this with a good copyedit so it—in your words—flows like a stream. Still not ready for FAC yet, but I'm gonna get it there. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I did mean to spend an hour or two wrapping it up yesterday, but got distracted. Sorry, I really will try and wrap things up in the coming week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to it, Ritchie333 :). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Temperatures Rising

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because Temperatures Rising was a very funny and well-made show ... at least in its first season. It is also a favorite of mine and I would like to have it elevated to FA status. I have greatly expanded this article and used a large number of vintage newspaper articles for my sources. The series is not available on DVD or blu-ray and there is no website devoted to it (at least not specifically) so getting information proved to be a rather formidable task. There are a number of web pages that I have refrained from using because I'm not sure if the powers-that-be at Wikipedia consider them as reliable sources:

• CTVA
• TV.com
• epguides.com

Anyone care to "weigh in" on their merit? And anyone care to critique the entire article?

One other thing: Although, as I said, this show is not available on DVD there are some episodes circulating among private collectors and "someone" posted some episodes on YouTube. If anyone is interested in seeing them I will be glad to provide links.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you hope to make it a FA. I'd be happy to offer my comments, but without FA or TV article experience, I'm not sure this is what you're looking for. These are some things that caught my eye:

• There appears to be too much linking to tangential subjects: Wash DC, ghetto, bookie, con job, student nurse, commercial, Close-Up toothpaste, ice skater, dancer, Marine Corps, World War II, bingo, gangster, witchcraft, jinx, diagnosis, syndicated columnist, X-rays, malpractice, beeper, will, surveillance system, country music, etc. Focus on links that are particular to TV production, acting, etc. that the general reader may benefit from.
  • I have removed the links to most of these.
• Paraphrasing could replace a lot of the quotes (this is a problem area for me also): "young black surgeon...", "can find humor...", "beautiful", "young, sexy", "always covering up", "whose satirical comments...", "a painfully shy...", etc. The best quotes are those that have a bit of flavor: "the diagnosis is terminal comedy", "wacky and funny", etc.
  • I paraphrased most of these or just took out the quotation marks. The ones that I left as is are major quotes from the articles I derived my information from.

The sentences with "a ghetto-oriented doctor..." and "who is always covering up..." are the same as the original quotes (see WP:PARAPHRASE). Also, you may want to review the use of ellipses (for eliminating material just in the middle, not at the beginning or end of quotes) and the use of punctuation when introducing quotes (the way it's been shown to me: use a colon if the preceding is a complete sentence, comma if a fragment, or nothing if it logically continues the sentence, although YMMV).

Text has been revised.

• The Asher quotes in the boxes are too long. Aim for something pithier, otherwise these seem distracting. Also, placing images and quotes too close to each other gives a jumbled appearance.
  • I took out the quote boxes and added the text into the main flow of the text. One of the lengthy Asher quotes I regulated to a footnote.
• The three potential sources that are listed do not appear to meet the reliable source criteria (not clear if they have professional writers or oversight). You may want to pose the question on a WP:TV talk page for other views.
  • I will post the question.

You're off to a good start, Jimknut. I hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the help. Jimknut (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple more. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

---

List of viscountcies in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm aware that some of the list still needs to be referenced, but I'm mainly interested in feedback on non-list sections of the article, particularly the lead - perhaps tips on the writing style, if it's referenced well enough, and even content (whether its pertinent to the list, or even if you think it could do with expanding) etc. I'm editing this with a view to nominating it as a featured list and don't think it's too far off. Thanks Sotakeit (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Mythology of Australia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on expanding the page as part of a university assignment. Any advice or tips on things to improve would be great, and I'd also like to add some pictures as well if possible. What's the best way to go about adding them?

Thanks, Jessica13317845 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Sotakeit

As you say, the article needs a lot of expansion. Compare this with other articles on similar subjects such as Inca mythology or the featured article Greek Mythology.

You need to expand the lead section:

• How is the mythology of Australia attested. Written sources? Word of mouth?
• A brief history of its evolution. From aboriginal through to modern urban legend.
• 'details of popular legends differ from place to place'. This needs to be expanded on.

Content:

• I'd perhaps reformat the article, and as you expand it this will probably become even more important to stop it becoming unesecssarily 'list like'. I'd definitely try to include a 'history' or 'development' section, then maybe a section of 'aboriginal beliefs' and 'colonial beliefs', including details on sources.
• The article mentions 'deamtime' in the lead. This needs to be expanded on. From what I read of the 'dreamtime' article it is a central part of Aboringal Australian mythology.

Referencing:

• Some of the references, e.g. http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/b/bunyip/, wouldn't be considered reliable. I'd look on Google Books etc for better sources.
• The references need to be better formatted. You haven't included anything other than the URL. Ideally you need access dates, authors, publication dates, publishers etc (see here).

Images:

• Images would obviously help the article. It's worth using some images from related articles. Yowie has one you could use, and Dreamtime has a nice one in the lead (for advice on actually using images on Wikipedia, this may be of some help]].

Sotakeit (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The Boat Race 2012

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a GA, and I'd like to take it to FAC soon. I believe it's the most comprehensive report on this 48 minute 11 second event in the world, and would like others to give advice on what they'd like to see more/less of, and if there's anything standing out that should be included.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say that this edit added a cite to a named results reference that doesn't exist; I had a quick look to see if I could figure out the intention and fix it, but was unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that it? For all the PRs I've done, and this is what I get back? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For all the peer reviews you've done, I am doing my first in probably a year ;-)

Overall this looks pretty good - I think the lead needs the most work, so here are some suggestions for improvement

• I would make the first sentence something like The 158th annual Boat Race, a side-by-side rowing race between crews from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge along the River Thames, took place on 7 April 2012. The first sentence needs to tell the reader more about the subject
• I might add "temporarily" to this sentence The race was [temporarily] halted to avoid injury to protester Trenton Oldfield who swam in front of the boats.
• The second lead paragraph is only one sentence currently. I might move (and tweak) this sentence there (as it interrupts the flow where it is now): Protester Oldfield was later jailed for six months for causing a public nuisance.
• Reading the article, it seems clear that the borken blade (oar?) played a role in Oxford's loss (or at least the race was about even before, and Cambridge pulled away after the broken blade) - could the lead make this clearer?
• More sentences to move to the second paragraph which could now read something like. Immediately after completing the race, a member of the Oxford crew collapsed (but recovered). As a result of the disruption caused by Oldfield, security for subsequent Boat Races was increased, and he was later jailed for six months for causing a public nuisance. The reserve race was won by Oxford's Isis in a record time, while the Women's Boat Race was won by Cambridge.

Thank you, I've adjusted the lead, taking on board most of your suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome - let me re-read the rest of the article and make a few more comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

More comments ...

• It would be nice if there was a lead image of some sort. Commons also has File:RNLI_at_Boat_Race_2012_(6908356996).jpg which might work somewhere in the article, perhaps cropped? Does it show the guy who collapsed?
  • It doesn't show the collapsed bowman unfortunately. The images at Commons are pretty ... average I'm afraid, I'm not seeing anything easy which might fit it. Having said that, there's a possibility I could find the logo for that year's race and use it under Fair Use. I'll see what I can do about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• The article could also use {{Commonscat}} to link to all the photos of the race on Commons
  • Done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• In Background would it help to add the year to this sentence? Oxford went into the [2012] race as reigning champions, having beaten Cambridge by four lengths in the previous year's race.
  • Yep, I've added that since you think it would help clarify things. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am not super clear on the meaning of the Tideway - I know it means the tidal Thames but is it the same course or near it or a partial overlap or what? It usually takes place on the Tideway, prior to the main Boat Race.
  • To simplify things, I've replaced Tideway to Thames.
• Should the section titled "Race" be titled "Races" instead (as it is about three different races)?
  • Yep. Done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Is the date of the women's race known?
  • Located a source and added it. The Rambling Man (talk)
• The infobox has a time for the race, but that time is mot mentioned in the article. In the article on the Boat Race itself in the section here it says It was the first time since 1849 that a crew had won the boat race without an official recorded winning time.[19] with the ref [21] cited that says Consolidated times due to race interruption (and a link to more detail in that ref). Might be worth adding something about this.
  • In actual fact, the Boat Race official website describes the fact that the finishing judge consolidated the times (as you noted), so I've added a referenced sentence to the end of the Race section to that effect. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Refs 16 and 17 are the same
  • Good spot, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Two refs use the term "ruined race" or "ruined the boat race" - could a sentence be added like "Press reaction was that Oldfield 'ruined the boat race'." or something similar?
  • Added some media reaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am not a big fan of one sentence sections (or most one sentence paragraphs). Could the Oldfield and Increased security sections be combined, perhaps as something like "Oldfield's disruption" or "Disruption and aftermath"
  • I merged the single-sentence para into the previous section, it seems to fit fine. Perhaps I had thought about expanding it in the future but never got round to it! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• The main Boat race article says Oldfield was fined £750 (in addition to the 6 month jail term) - should this be in the article too?
  • Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps, let me know if you have questions or want me to look something over again here (and when this is at FAC). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's been very helpful Ruhrfisch, your time and comments are very much appreciated. I think I'll just dive into FAC, Publish and Be Damned and all that...  ! Hope to see you there if you have the time, just to check I haven't wrecked the article in the meantime!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  

---

List of Russian saints (until 15th century)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article represents Russian saints from the early years until the 15th century. Another part will be created about saints since the 16th century, so I am not sure whether the content should be repeated then.Tomcat (7) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sotakeit

Language/grammar:

• Great Martyr/megalomartyr (великомученик) – one who died of a most crude martyrdom. Unsure of your meaning here? Do you mean 'a particularly violent martyrdom'?
  • Reworded
• A clergy who died for his faith. This should be 'a member of the clergy who died for his faith'.
  • Done
• Monkmartyr. Not being an English word I would place this in quotations, as two seperate words, as you have done with 'Great Martyr' and 'New Martyr': 'Monk Martyr'.
  • I reworded to Monk Martyr
• For the entry on the Apostle Andrew (first on the list), I think an explanation of what is meant by 'Natural canonization' is necessary.
  • This means that traditional Christian denominations automatically list Apostles as a saint
• I may have missed where the explanation is, but the numbers given as 'period in which the saint was canonized' don't seem to mean anything? '1', '7', '5' etc?
  • The third paragraph of the lead explains this
• I'd think about rewording the heading 'Short description reason for canonization' as it doesn't read very well in English. Perhaps 'Short description for reason of canonization' or simply 'Reason for canonization'.
  • I clarified, it meant Short description and the Reason for canonization

Content:

• In the first paragraph of the Hagiology section, I think the sentence 'The Russian Church became less depended by the Constantinople Orthodox Church over the years' would be better placed at the start of the second paragraph.
  • Moved
• In the second paragraph of the Hagiology section, I think 'made way for' is more idiomatic than 'made way to'.
  • Done
• Perhaps an explanation of what is meant by 'Fool-for-Christ' as you have done with the other Saint Titles?
  • Explained, although I am not sure if it is understandable

References: Not speaking Russian, I'm unable to comment on the vericity of most of the sources used and although not strictly nescessary I'd look to find some more English sources. Also, some parts are missing references:

• The whole first pararaphy of the Saint Titles section has gone unreferenced.
  • Added a reference
• In the table, some of the text under 'short description reason for canonization' needs to be referenced. For example non e of the four paragraphys for 'Hieromartyrs Ephraim, Basilius, Eugenius, Elpidius, Agaphodorus, Epherius and Сapiton of Chersones (4th century)Священномученики Ефрем, Василий, Евгений, Елпидий, Агафодор, Еферий и Капитон, епископы Херсонесские' are referenced.
  • Most of the text is based on Lives of Saints, the references are listed below the article.

Sotakeit (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tomcat. Over all a very interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. In regards to 'Fool-for-Christ'. How about something like: 'One who deliberately flouts society's or Christianity's conventions, hiding his piety from the word in order to avoid praise, in service of Christ'? Sotakeit (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is too long. --Tomcat (7) 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Lana Del Rey discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured list status in the future and would like to know what I could do to make the article better.

Thanks in advance, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

In looking over the lead, one of the first things that catches the readers' attention is the extensive use of inline citations. One sentence has 10 refs and 7 sentences have 3 or more. The inclusion of so much detail seems to run contrary of the goal of a lead, that is to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, emphasis added). As is pointed out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, "A well-written lead section is of particular importance to stand-alone lists that feature little or no prose in their article body". The lead should be an overview of the article and touch on the highlights. Thus, it would be better to include statements like "It is Del Rey's best-charting single to date, peaking at number one in three countries and being certified Platinum or better in four" rather than detailing the specific countries and awards. Likewise, "Born to Die reached number one in nine countries and received Platinum awards in fifteen" rather than listing the countries. This could be handled with a single reference to an artist bio or similar article without having to cite multiple refs for each country and award. The reader can refer to the body of the discography for the specifics. It may be beneficial to review FL discographies of similar artists for ideas about the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I have improved the lead a bit. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Universal Credit Rating Group

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (even if it's only a stub) for peer review because I wanted to create it, being sure of its public utility, but I have little experience in Wikipedia editing and want to be sure. Moreover, I think it's now ready to remove the bot's copyright warning (because I re-wrote a previously pasted text), but I prefer that will be decided by someone else.

Thanks, Antonio nn (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Frédéric Chopin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome opinions on what it might need to take it up to FA status. Although it has been subject to some alarums and excursions in the past it has now been stable for quite some while, and it could now be appropriate to make any further revisions to take it to the next step. The subject is listed as a level 3 vital article so it would be right to make is as good as we can. I will be very interested in all (constructive) comments.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Smerus, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but should have some time after the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading the article, which certainly looks in good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie. I'll add comments as I read the article; I doubt I'll be able to get far tonight. I am not particularly knowledgeable about classical music so I'm afraid I won't be much help as a subject matter expert.

• "Chopin and his family now lived in a building adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace": you're in past tense up to this point.
• "in May 1825 performed on this instrument part of a concerto by Moscheles and his own improvisation": I think this phrasing could be improved. Was the improvisation a separate piece of music from the Moscheles concerto?
• "Here the parents continued running their boarding house for male students; Chopin lived here until he left Warsaw in 1830." The repetition of "here" is a little clumsy.
• "In September 1828 Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend": why "had"?
• Any reason not to link James Fenimore Cooper?
• You say Chopin never named an instrumental work beyond genre and number, but then say he did name the Funeral March. Isn't this a contradiction?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments. I believe I have now dealt with them all in the article; in the case of Cooper, I deleted the whole sentence, since the (apparently single) meeting had no consequences for either party - and Chopin of course met very many people in Paris, few of whom were relevant to his story. The 'had' for the 1828 visit I have retained, because is I think appropriate for reasons of continuity, as the narrative goes back briefly in time here. --Smerus (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All the above fixes look good. A couple more:

• "which contain lengthy and scholarly explanations": perhaps "both of which" or "each of which"?
• I use a wide, though not unusually wide, computer screen, and as a result the quote from Rosen about rubato appears to the right of the image of the Schirmer edition of op. 62 no. 1. This means that the indent of the quote is not visible. It might be better to move the "Form and harmony" illustration to the right edge of the article; move the "Title, opus numbers and editions" illustration to the left edge, and move the two "Chopin's technique and performance style" illustrations to the right edge. That would allow the quote indent to be seen.
• 'Warsaw "urbanised" versions': I think '"urbanised" Warsaw versions' might be a bit more natural.
• "Chopin's music was also utilised in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, using orchestrations by Alexander Glazunov": "utilised" is a bit polysyllabic here. How about: "Chopin's music was also used in the 1909 ballet Chopiniana, choreographed by Michel Fokine, and orchestrated by Alexander Glazunov"?
• "Further orchestrations were commissioned from Stravinsky, Anatoly Lyadov, Sergei Taneyev and Nikolai Tcherepnin, by Sergei Diaghilev for later productions (using the title Les Sylphides)": Two questions here. First, did Diaghilev commission all these orchestrations? If so, I would use some form of parenthesizing punctuation for the list of composers -- perhaps em dashes before "from" and after "Tcherepnin". Second, it took me a second to work out the meaning of the final comment about Les Sylphides. How about "for later productions of the ballet under the title Les Sylphides", which I think more directly connects this to the earlier reference?
• Is the number of YouTube videos worth including? And does the reference to Chopin in Autumn Sonata really belong here? I think both might be cut. I'm also doubtful about the mention of the recent documentaries.

That's everything I can see. The article is in very good shape, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again for these further helpful comments. I have adopted all of them, except as regards the YouTube figures. I feel that these are a convenient way of giving 'citeable' evidence of Chopin's continuing popularity, (particulalry as they are in fact cited by the leading Chopin organization), so I'm inclined to leave the comment as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough re the YouTube numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've not yet finished reading through, but here are my comments to the end of the "Final years" section. In general this reads as an excellent summary account of this major composer's life, and my comments are in the main minor nitpickings or suggestions.

Lead: in the absence of an infobox (I concur), the first lead para should be a little more informative, at least to the extent of stating that Chopin's medium was the piano, that he was an acclaimed performer as well as composer, and that all his compositions feature the instrument. These details occur later in the lead, but I believe should be prominent in the opening description of the subject.

Childhood:

• naming: in "Childhood" sections, use of first name generally reads better. He was not really "Chopin" at that point.
• Is a gallery of childhood homes really necessary? One image might do: otherwise its a lot of prominence for minor background details

Education:

• Misplaced semicolon after "locales". Preferably this should be a full stop, followed by: "In 1824 and 1825 he was at..."
• "is now a small museum" is not time-specific. Suggest "became a small museum in ..."

Travel:

• I'm curious to know how young Chopin was so well-connected – meeting "celebrities" like Mendelssohn on his first Berlin visit, guest of the prince on his second?
• "For the Prince" - capitalisation not required
• La ci darem is not really a "theme" from the opera. Variations on an aria, or an air, perhaps?
• You use British date format, but mixed with AmEng spellings, e.g. "favorable", "traveled" etc

Paris

• For the "Chopin at 25" image and other portraits, I think "upright= 0.6" is too small. I enlarged the Elsner image to 0.8 which I think is better - perhaps you'd consider raising all the portraits similarly.
• Ref 39 should be repositioned at end of paragraph
• The comment "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - reads rather like editorial comment/analysis and should be reworded in NPOV terms
• Mendelssohn overlinked here

George Sand:

• I'm not sure about her real name as stated here. She called herself "Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin".
• "In June 1837 Chopin had made..." Why the past perfect form? (I noted s few other examples in my read-through)

Final years:

• After quite profuse detail of Chopin's life up to up to 1839, the period 1839-45 is rather sparsely covered, just the odd line or two. Is there no more material for these years, or did he just do very little?
• I'm curious to know when/how Sand acquired a fiancé?
• "underway": I don't think this word exists – I can't find it in any of the dictionaries that I use ( though my OED is a little outdated). It may be one of those words that's crept into usage via journalism, but I don't think it really counts as excellent prose
• "invited by Jane Stirling to visit Scotland, staying at Calder House" → "...where he stayed at Calder House"

I'll try to cover the rest as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski≤ --Smerus (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again thanks for these helpful comments. I think I have now dealt with them, except for two. As regards 1839-1845, I need to review this carefully, so will revert. As regards "The list of musicians who took part in some of his concerts provides an indication of the richness of Parisian artistic life during this period" - I cannot really think this is controversial, or risks NPOV or OR; it is an opinion expressed by most (or maybe all) writers on ther Parisian music scene of the time, and I certainly don't know of any contrary opinion. Whilst we should certainly caution ourselves as editors against promoting doubtful or contested opinions, I can't make myself feel that this comes under such categories. But I am susceptible, as always, to the opinions of others if they agree with you! Re the past perfect - I sometime use this when I am taking up a thread after referring to an event out of sequence; probably a doubtful habit, but anyway I agree unnecessary/inappropriate in this instance. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

More comments

Death and funeral

• "his unfinished piano method": what does this mean?
• Unnecessary "In fact...". I'd also avoid close repetition of "many"
• Are we to assume that Lefébure-Wély played the Preludes on the organ?
• There are some stylistic oddities in the prose, e.g. "Also played were..."; "walked Chopin's sister", etc. At least you don't say "Played at the graveside was...", but do you see my point?
• Five thousand in words, and 200 in numerals, in the same paragraph
• Since there is a linked memorials article, I see no justification for three monument images (in addition to the death masks). Maybe just keep the masks to avoid overcrowding with images.

Music

• Hatnote: I don't think the many articles listed as "main" are in fact the main articles. Surely, this is the main article, providing an general view of Chopin's music, while those listed are daughter articles? Suggest replace "Main" template with "Further information".

Overview

• I think the links on "polonaises" and "waltzes" should go to the dance articles, rather than to the Chopin versions, since the dance articles explain to the unaware reader what the dances are.

Form and harmony

• " held by Temperley": as this is his first mention he should be properly introduced. Incidently, he becomes "Nicholas Temperley" in the next para
• The "Nicholas Temperley" sentence is very convoluted: "Nicholas Temperley explains that in these works, based on an extended 'departure and return' form, and with "immense variety of mood, thematic material and structural detail", "the more the middle section is extended, and the further it departs in key, mood and theme, from the opening idea, the more important and dramatic is the reprise when it at last comes." I really think that this point needs to be made by paraphrase rather than by a series of direct quotes.
• Do we need "basically"?
• "folky" of "folksy"? The latter seems more idiomatic.
• "The Préludes, many of which are very brief, some of them consisting of simple statements and developments of a single theme or figure, were described by Schumann as "the beginnings of studies" - could do with some attention. "Many of" and "some of" in close proximity is awkward. I'd try and simplify.
• "as Kenneth Hamilton has noted in a recording by Ferruccio Busoni of 1922" - I'm not sure what this is referring to. A recording of what, by Busoni?
• The quote beginning ""used the sonata..." is far too much direct quotation, and I suspect not easily understood by a general reader. Much prècis/simplification advised.
• In general, comments such as "worthy of Brahms" should be attributed, not just cited.
• Last paragraph also contains a lengthy unattributed quotation.

Just a few sections to go... Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have now covered these issues, except for the memorials, and Lefébure-Wély. The problem here seems to me that figures such as Chopin are entitled to have their tomb in their article. Chopin as it happens has two tombs, and both of them are rather interesting. But there's no room for them in the body of the text in this section (which is where they were when I first started tinkering with the article an aeon ago) without generating unacceptable clutter - which is why I went originally for the option of a gallery. But two pictures aren't really ewnough for a gallery, which is why I added the statue (for which I agree there is the least justification). One possibility might be to put the tombs right at the end of the article, where there are presently no illustrations. As regards Lefébure-Wély, the Revue et gazette is unclear about exactly what he played (only that he was the organist, and that the preludes were played - but this doesn't preclude someone else being involved in the latter), so it's probably best left as it is. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Final comments

Titles, opus numbers and editions

• It seems to me that this section would be better placed before, rather than after, "Form and Harmony"

Chopin's technique and performance style

• MOS disapproves general of the subject's nametechnique and performance style appearing in section titles; thus this should be "Technique and performance style". This actually makes more sense, since the section is not only about Chopin's individual technique as a pianist, but also the general technique required to perform his music.
• The two music MS illustrations may be understood by a techically well-equipped reader. I doubt they make much sense to the general reader, who is or should be the main target for this article.

Polish heritage in Chopin's music

• Again, for MOS reasons, "Polish heritage" preferred.
• Quote box, at 200 or so words, too long – virtually a mini-essay! A shorter quote from this text would be acceptable; otherwise, if the text is deemed essential to the article, then it should be paraphrased and included in the main body.
• "The influential biography..." I'm sure it was, but editorial judgements should be avoided.
• Fr the same reason, one needs to be careful in the use of "However". Sometimes it is OK as a way of maintaining prose flow; when it appears at the start of a paragraph, it seems less "neutral". I don't think the second paragraph would lose anything by beginning: "Some modern commentators..."
• "adverts" rather than "refers" seems a little stilted.

Reception and influence

• "his lack of Byronic flamboyance [and] his aristocratic reclusiveness make him exceptional" should be attributed
• The last sentence of the first paragraph lacks a citation
• "His qualities as a pianist" → "Chopin's qualities as a pianist..." (new paragraph)
• "folk-music" - dehyphenate
• "one worthy successor" – whose phrase?
• "have been assessed as influenced by Chopin's use of national modes and idioms" – somewhat inelegant. Perhaps "are regarded by critics as having been influenced by..." etc?
• "Further orchestrations..." → "Other orchestrations..."?

Recordings

• Ref 165: link is dead.

That concludes the review. I'll add any further comment on your responses when you've looked at these final issues. I have enjoyed reading the article very much, and I know a lot more about Chopin than I did before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, thanks again for your detailed review. I have I think dealt with these final comments, except as follows. The quote box I have trimmed a bit; but as it is an important statment by the most significant Polish composer after Chopin, and because it addresses (I think admirably) an issue (the Polishness of C's music) which has led in the past to some contention one amongst editors, I would be strongly in favour of letting it remain as it presently is. The MS/published music illustrations: whilst the lay reader may not be able to interpret the details, s/he will I think be made aware by these of the very great care and detail that C. took over his manuscripts to define as well as he could his intentions, and on this basis I would defend their retention. Heaven forfend we should dumb down for readers, and by the same token we can mildly essay to extend their horizons - "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?", as my favourite poet asks. I have also redone some of the layout as regards your eaalier comments (e.g. re the memorials). I am still thinking of the biographical 'gap' you pinpointed - in the meantime User:Dr. Blofeld has added some good coverage on Liszt, but it may need a bit more. I await your further commentswith interest. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think we can fill in some gaps in the bio section. The musicality sections though look almost flawless to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski"

An editor has added to the article a note on Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski which seems to me to be WP:UNDUE for this article - it might be more relevant, perhaps, in Nicolas Chopin, if anywhere. There is no evidence that F Chopin ever met this character, or even knew of his existence (or vice versa). Opinions welcome.--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is barely relevant to Chopin's life; possibly worth a mention in an expansive biography, but it doesn't merit this space in an encyclopedia article. Either reduce to a brief sentence, or delete. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. There's so much to say about Chopin more interesting than a cousin who did those things. Preferably remove entirely. --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld comments

Giving it a read now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I really think you need a sentence at least right at the beginning of the lede which really states that he is often cited as one of the greatest composers of all time and the best known of the romantic composers. Rather than saying "widely considered" which is generally not advisable, you could find a quote from somebody xxx in xxx refers to Chopin as the one of history's great composers etc.. I just think for somebody as prominent as Chopin to not mentioning anything like that is a massive understatement. I've moved one statement up and add the conservatory quote which at least covers this better now. I still think it needs something like Cited by xxx as one of the greatest composers but naturally we don't want to overblow it, but it is Chopin. I'll be editing this if it's OK. Once done I may try to add additional material from google books to ensure it's entirely as comprehensive as it can be but it's already clearly very well researched and you've done a terrific job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the 0.6 set upright images. They look too small and subdued. I'd rather see the images set at normal default unless the image is excessively tall that it needs an "upright". 0.8 is OK, but I think 0.6 looks too small. I'm not too bothered though, I can see why you prefer them smaller!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a cite in the lede. But I try to avoid quotes there (I think this is an MOS issue). Let me ponder.--Smerus (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really is an issue. I've seen quotes about greatness in numerous GA and FA articles to avoid it sounding like POV. In fact one of my reviewers advised it in one article. Peter Sellers which I contributed to has the quote "the greatest comic genius this country has produced since Charles Chaplin." I'm happy with the current description, perhaps Brian or somebody could state their opinion of it. I really think for somebody like Chopin you need it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Stfg comments

I may be a bit slow on this. Feel free to time me out if you need to.

Lead

• "A child prodigy, Chopin was born in ...": He wasn't born a child prodigy. If one must use this syntax (it has become a bit of a Wikipedia cliché) then "A child prodigy" would be more apt to start the next sentence.
• "At the age of 21 he settled in Paris, obtaining French citizenship in 1835. During the remaining 18 years of his life, ...": Of course those 18 years are from age 21, but the way the sentence is written it could be read as from 1835. Suggest replacing "remaining" with "last".
• Engagement to, not engagement with. (See item I.2.d in the OED entry).
• "A brief and unhappy visit with Sand to Majorca in 1838–39 ..." I believe American English says visit with someone in the same sense as British English would say visit someone, or even pay a visit to someone. So this word order may create a garden path sentence for American readers. I suggest "A brief and unhappy visit to Majorca with Sand in 1838–39 ...".
• End of 2nd paragraph and start of 3rd: Four sentences in a row are actually eight, split by semi-colons. I know I bang on about this and am sorry (sort of) but it does get very wearing. Only the one after "demanding" is useful. Even that one isn't essential.
• "His keyboard style, which is highly individual, is often technically demanding" would be less choppy as "His keyboard style is highly individual and often technically demanding".
• "... J.S. Bach, Mozart and Schubert, whom he particularly admired". Did he admire all of them, or just Schubert? I suggest "...all of whom".
• The scare quotes for superstars should be double quotes, per MOS.
• Is "amours" a bit fancy? Love life?

More to come. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adopted all these recommendations.--Smerus (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Childhood

• "generally more accepted" is a bit strange. Perhaps one of: generally accepted, usually accepted or more widely accepted?
• "a pupil of Nicolas Chopin". Nicolas has already been introduced and referred to as just Nicolas, so better now continue with just Nicolas.
• "It quickly became apparent ...". The two ands in this sentence make it rather breathless, and the deployment of name and pronouns is illogical. I suggest: "It quickly became apparent that Fryderyk was a child prodigy: by the age of seven he had begun giving public concerts, and in 1817 he composed ...".
• Full stop after Constantine. That semicolon is pointless. (Um, no pun intended:)

More to come. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and adopted all - even though it meant inserting a colon :-} (item 3).--Smerus (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm so ashamed of it ;)

Education

• "and in May 1825 performed on this instrument his own improvisation, and part of a concerto by Moscheles" seems a bit awkward (and the comma is out of place). I suggest "and on this instrument in May 1825 he performed his own improvisation and part of a concerto by Moscheles".
• "resulted in his being asked to give" -> "led to a request for" ?
• is "missives" a bit artificial? It probably does no harm to have a common word like letters twice.
• "the self-styled "Szafarnia Courier" letters" -> "which he called the "Szafarnia Courier" letters" maybe?
• "Konstancja Gładkowska; in letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her". Truly fascinating. Would it be worth identifying which works, perhaps even which passages?

--Stfg (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Travel and domestic success

• "In September 1828 Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend": I understand the reason you gave in reply to Mike Christie, but the "had" is a bit lacking in context at the start of the new section, and it jars for me too. Another solution to the stepping back in time would be: *"In September 1828, while still a student, Chopin had visited Berlin with a family friend". Just a possibility.

Paris

• "tried, without success, to establish" -> "tried unsuccessfully to establish" would avoid chopping it up with commas.
• "he proposed to Maria; her mother Countess Wodzińska approved in principle" -> "he proposed to Maria, whose mother Countess Wodzińska approved in principle". (Less staccato).

--Stfg (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

agreed and adopted all, thanks, --Smerus (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Franz Liszt: all good.

George Sand

• " by early 1837 Maria Wodzińska's mother had made it clear to Chopin in correspondence that a marriage with her daughter was unlikely to proceed.[61]" Your source, Chopin's correspondence, seems impeccable, but the article Maria Wodzińska states that "her father objected to the match because of Chopin's poor health", citing this source, which says: "Dans une lettre du mois de juin 1837, Maria Wodzińska fait comprendre à Chopin qu'il n'y aura pas de mariage. Il semble que le père y soit opposé." According to this account, it is Maria who tells Chopin, not her mother. Is there any way to clarify this?
• " made an incognito visit to London" -> "visited London incognito", perhaps?
• "quiet but productive days" -> "quiet, productive days" as the two attributes aren't really in contrast.
• I made a few tweaks directly in this section. Please feel free to undo any you dislike.

--Stfg (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All fine by me. Re Wodzińska, the source I have (Sydow's Collection of the letters, quite scholarly) says Maria's last note to Chopin was just to say thanks for the album he sent her (mentioned in article, notes 53 and 61). I find no trace of another letter, and as the website cited in the French article gives no sources, I wouldn't rate it as in any way reliable.--Smerus (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable. --Stfg (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline

• "invitation by his friend Charles Alkan" -> "invitation from Alkan". Invitations are from. Alkan has ben introduced earlier and the friendship is discussed later. It's a side issue at this point.
• "Charles Hallé, visiting Chopin, found him ..." -> "Charles Hallé visited Chopin and found him ..." (less staccato)

Tour of England and Scotland

• "with the Revolution of 1848 taking place in Paris": some reviewers dislike this "with plus -ing" construction. Could avoid the issue with something like "during the Revolution of 1848 in Paris".
• "Prince Albert; the Prince, who was himself a talented musician, ..." -> "Prince Albert. The prince, himself a talented musician, ..." ;)
• An FA review may want consistency in use of metric/imperial measures. Here we have "45 kg (99 pounds)", whereas in the George Sand section she was "under five feet".

Death and funeral

• "in the amount of five thousand francs" -> "amounting to 5000 francs". ("in the amount of" is legalese).
• "Ludwika took with her, in an urn, Chopin's heart, preserved in alcohol." -> "Ludwika took Chopin's heart with her in an urn, preserved in alcohol."

--Stfg (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

agreed and done. Have changed the urn sentence a bit. Also have added cm. equivalent to the 'five feet'.--Smerus (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the urn sentence quite works. The problem is that "Ludwika took with her Chopin's heart", by reversing the normal order of direct and indirect objects, gives it a decidedly foreign accent. The problem may be that it's difficult to include "with her" in a sentence with so many phrases, without presenting her as being either in an urn or preserved in alcohol. Perhaps we could do without the "with her" if we move Poland like this: "Ludwika took Chopin's heart, preserved in alcohol, back to Poland in an urn.[110][n 9] She also took a collection ...". What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup!--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Overview, Titles, opus numbers and editions: all good

Form and harmony

• Who said "improvisation is designed for an audience ..."?
• "Chopin himself was quoted ...": is "himself" needed?
• Here we have concerti, elsewhere concertos.
• "Temperley explains ...": loaded word. See WP:CLAIM.
• " 'departure and return' form": if this is a term that Temperley uses, it should be in double quotes. If not, then it isn't the standard name of a musical form, and it's ambiguous: does it mean arch form or something else? What are Temperley's exact words here? (The part that's quoted implies simply ternary form, but ...).

Getting tired, will continue this section tomorrow. By the way, it has a lot of instances of italicizing generic titles. Also, the article as a whole is inconsistent over capitalizing these, For example, we have both Preludes and preludes (I think such should be lower case when talking about the genre, upper case when mentioning Op. 28 specifically) and we have both op. and Op. (should be upper). I hope to finish tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All agreed. I am also concerned re capitalization and italicization, would be glad to agree rules for these. Btw I notice that the 'form and harmony' section also needs brief coverage of polonaise and nocturne to complete overview of FC's composition types. Will try to add this tomorrow.--Smerus (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's MOS:MUSIC#Capitalization. In the Form and harmony section I've applied what I understand that to be saying, but haven't done anything elsewhere. --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: I see you've reversed what I did there, but this is inconsistent with other parts of the article, including the lede. I'll leave capitalization alone from now on, but have you checked out MOS:MUSIC? I think it's pretty clear that when we're naming a genre, rather than a specific work, then we use lower case. So: Chopin's Études, Op. 10, but Chopin's études. Or am I misreading it? --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Form and harmony (continued)

• folksy is too colloquial, even in scare quotes (which should be double quotes per MOS). Just folk will probably do, without scare quotes.

--Stfg (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Technique and performance style: lots of things, but all very minor, so I've copy edited directly (diff). Feel free to change anything you dislike. --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Polish heritage: all good.

Reception and influence

• "The Institute site also lists nearly 1,500 performances of works of Chopin on YouTube as of January 2014." Is this really notable?

Recordings: all good. Chopin in literature, stage, film and television: all good.

That's all. Although these comments are numerous, almost all of them are merely tweaks to the prose. The content itself is very well researched and engagingly presented. Surely worthy of FA. --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A 1000 thanks! Sorry about the capitalization - crossed lines on my part. I have sorted this out now, I think. As regards the list of 1500 works, see my comments to Brian Boulton - it's an attempt to give substance and citation for the assertion (in the lede) that C. remains a popular composer, but if there are any other suggestions I would be glad to recieve them.--Smerus (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about the YouTube thing, but it's no big deal now, as it's the sort of thing that can be dealt with at the FAC stage, if anyone raises it. I'm content. --Stfg (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

To FA

Thanks to all. I've now put this up for FA. Best, Smerus (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

---

Stockhorn Arena

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was written by myself, and Im not a native english speaker. I would be very glad, if someone could improve the grammar/spelling and style. Probably it would be good to add new or change some of the existing references too (I tried to find links to english websites, but wasn't always successful).

Thanks, --03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Rectilinium'♥'

Comments from Sotakeit

Overall, a very competent translation, that expect for a few bits and pieces reads very well. It's certainly no longer a 'stub' in my opinion, so I'd consider removing that.

Suggested improvements on language/grammar:

• From 1954 until 2011, Stadion Lachen was the home ground of Swiss side FC Thun: I think 'side' is a little informal. Perhaps 'team'?
• The club received an exemption to play at the Lachen for a few more years, but was asked either to renovate extensively or to build a new stadium: again, maybe too informal, especially 'a few more years'. If you know the exact length of time, I'd suggest The club received an exemption to continue playing at Stadion Lachen for X years, on the proviso that it was either extensively renovated or a new stadium was built.
• In 2006, the citizens of Thun refused to finance a new stadium with public funds, leaving FC Thun in a bind: I'd cut 'in a bind' out all together, which is rather colloquial to my ears.
• The new stadium - at that time called Arena Thun - was officially inaugurated on 9 July 2011, with a friendly match between 1. FC Köln and FC Thun. It makes sense in its current format, but I think Originally known as Arena Thun, the new stadium was officially inaugurated... sounds more idiomatic.
• The Arena Thun was subsequently renamed into Stockhorn Arena (in February already), but the official ceremony was on 12 April 2014, on the occasion of the match between FC Aarau and FC Thun. This sentence is a little clunky, especially the brackets. I'd rework it to something along the lines of: In February 2014, the Arena Thun was subsequently renamed Stockhorn Arena, with the official ceremony taking place on 12 April 2014, following the match between FC Aarau and FC Thun

Referencing:

• The first and third paragraphs in the 'History' section are totally unreferenced.
• The capacity and field size would also need to be referenced.
• I've had a very quick look for English references but had no luck (I'm sure I'd find some if I tried a little harder), but foreign language references are perfectly fine if English translations aren't available. Sotakeit (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, is anyone up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Sotakeit; this is very well translated from whatever language it was originally in, with a few exceptions--I'd like to add to his list above the phrase "Stockhornbahn AG (runs an aerial cableway to the Stockhorn)." I think there should be a "which" at the start of the phrase in parentheses. Also, "football stadium" is a disambiguation page and the link should be retargeted to go to Soccer-specific stadium. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

---

David Jewett Waller, Sr.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FA in time to run it on the main page on the subject's 200th birthday (January 26, 2015).

Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Nirmala (novel)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to upgrade the article to a GA status..

Thanks, The herald 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Horatio Bottomley

This peer review discussion has been closed.

If you think most politicians are crooks...well, you may be right in many cases, but today's bunch pale into insignificance compared with Bottomley, one-time Liberal MP, founder of John Bull magazine (20th century version) and also, surprisingly, of The Financial Times. One thing that distinguishes Bottomley from his present-day counterparts, and makes him almost likeable, is that he was completely blatant in his activities – an out-and-out swindler blessed with a charm and plausibility that persuaded thousands – millions, perhaps – to part with their money, over and over again. A brilliant orator, he was one of the principal voices of the people during the First World War, and would probably have been in the Cabinet but for being temporarily disqualified from parliament as an undischarged bankrupt. He overreached himself in the end, went to prison and died broke, but what a story to tell. All comments, as usual, greatly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting indeed. I confess to never having heard of the individual. My comments:

Lede.

• I would add "at age 14" after "errand boy"

Life

• "Horatio received a useful basic education there" I would strike "there"
• "mainly based on the marked facial resemblance between Bradlaugh and Bottomley noted by biographers" presumably more than biographers, as Bottomley encouraged it. Full stop needed.
• "with his sister from who he had been separated" from whom, I would think.
• "London's first financial daily paper" perhaps, to avoid the repetition of "financial", "London's first business daily"
• "developed it into large country mansion" a missing a
• " he had the constituency in his pocket." A pocket borough? (no action, unless you want to avoid the joke)
• "and drained Bottomley's rapidly depleting resources" perhaps "and rapidly depleted Bottomley's resources"
• I think the last paragraph in the "Parliament ..." subsection could be profitably split at "His parliamentary ambitions". You might want to make it clearer that a bankrupt could not remain in the Commons (assuming that was so then). I know you say "forced to" but that still can be misinterpreted.
• "the winner of the sweepstake". Is it sweepstake or sweepstakes?

• This refers to the single sweepstake on the 1914 Derby. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• "complete coincidence". Is "complete" really needed?
• Somewhere, a link to "First World War" might be appropriate. I don't see that you do it.
  • (putting oar in): I respectfully disagree with Wehwalt. Linking WWI or WW2 seems to me to be WP:OVERLINK. I can't imagine any circs in which a reader might want to click on it from here. Just my two bobsworth. Tim riley talk 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• "Macdonald's birth certificate which indicated" perhaps "showed" for "indicated"?
• "with a distinctive policy stance" not distinct?
• "by by-election victories" if possible, you may wish to avoid the by-by
• "upon which he severed all connections with the paper." While this is understandable as a whole, who "he" is a bit muddy. I imagine Bottomley. I guess it's confusion as to whether Odhams is severing the Bottomley-paper relationship or Bottomley doing it.

Appraisal

• "notes his ability to charm the publicpec"

I am somewhat minded of your own comments regarding Mr. Franklin Peale, more or less that you were uncertain whether he was a good man who did wrong, or a bad'un with good points. Much the same for Mr Bottomley, though perhaps both his good and his bad points were on a grander scale.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, all attended to except the WW1 link, where I am inclined to the Riley point of view. HB, I believe, definitely falls in the category of a bad lad with a few redeeming features. He certainly "got away with it" for long enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Interruption by Bencherlite

Work is terribly hectic for the next week or so, so I may have no time to help out here, but a scan of some reflections by Travers Humphreys is on its way to you. Now he's an interesting fellow as well... Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Per your talk, some of these reflections have been incorporated into the article. Mant thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Family background and childhood
  • "the comfortable London district of Marylebone" – comfortable in patches. See Octavia Hill: much, perhaps most, of Marylebone was desperately poor in the mid-19th C. Furthermore, from Crown Estate files once under my care: 15 October 1894—from the Vestry clerk of St Pancras about houses in Albany Street – "The complainants who are ratepayers and residents in the locality say that women are seen at the windows in a state of nudity, and beckon men passing, and that other acts of indecency have been observed at the houses." And even as late as 1912 Eliza in Pygmalion says that Lisson Grove "wasn't fit for a pig to live in".

• • I've deleted "comfortable". Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• First steps
  • "a City firm" – probably as well to blue-link "City".
• Hansard Publishing Union
  • "He benefitted further" – you can, if you look under every stone, find a dictionary that approves of a double t in "benefited", but you will search for it in vain in the OED, and Chambers mentions it only to dismiss it as an Americanism. Collins, it is true, admits it without rude remark, but says that it is "especially US". "Benefited" is one of those odd English spellings I have a mild thing about, along with "focused" and "biased".

• • The Oxford Dictionary of English allows "benefitted" without comment – but it's an ugly verb, and I've rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Company promoter, newspaper proprietor, would-be politician
  • "as Hyman observes…" – first we've heard of Hyman. A word or so of introduction would be good.
• Parliament, John Bull, bankruptcy
  • "before s court of aldermen" – before a court, I imagine, but I didn't quite like to assume.
• Appraisal
  • "The possibility that Noël Coward…" – this, in my opinion, is pure banana oil. No work about Coward published since this alleged 1981 find has mentioned it, and all works about Coward, whenever published, indicate that he was bleakly uninterested in politics and its practitioners. In 1994 the author of one of the most thorough books on Coward, Philip Hoare, wrote an article in the Indy about WWI and its aftermath in which he mentions both Coward and Bottomley, without any reference to this supposed link. I think I am right in saying that no real person alive or dead is portrayed in any of Coward's plays, and the idea that he would have contemplated a play about a forgotten swindler of yesteryear defies belief.
    • My first thought was to follow your suggestion on my talkpage that, if this snippet was retained it, should be in the form of a brief footnote. I tried that, but it left the Timothy West information as a short single-sentence paragraph – the same problem arises if I delete it. Another issue might be that someone will accuse me of deleting properly sourced information on the grounds that I think it implausible (I've had these arguments before). I'll ponder, see what I can do. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I knew there was something fishy about this. While at the Br Library today I sent for the book that purportedly mentions this alleged incident. There is not a word about Bottomley, wallets, Texan Whorehouses, tubas or Henderson Forsythe on p. 193 or anywhere else. The editor who added it has made no other edits on Wikipedia (not under that user name, at any rate, but I suspect we have an outbreak of hosiery here). It was reverted by an experienced editor at the time, who correctly challenged the claimed reference, but the adder persisted and got away with it. Time this hoax was blitzed once and for all. – Tim riley talk 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clarifying this, Tim. I had previously removed this information from the text and relegated it to a footnote. That, too, has now been removed. It might be a good idea if your note was pasted into the Bottomley article talkpage, where an insistence that the story is true soils the page and might mislead unwary readers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • PS - I've added the appropriate note to the talkpage myself. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. I have been following the progress of this article since you took it in hand, and have enjoyed watching its development to its present highly readable and entertaining state. Another feather in the Boulton cap! – Tim riley talk 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review & comments, all fixed except as noted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Hugely entertaining piece, and as well constructed, crafted and referenced as always.

I made a few minor copy edits a few days ago – feel free to delete or tweak as appropriate. A few more minor points for consideration:

Parliament, etc

• "steel-capped boots"? I'm not sure the steel toecap would make any noise; he old hob-nail boots would, and army ammunition boots, and I wonder if there are other sources that can clarify? (Further thought: steel-tipped boots - wearing Blakeys, or similar - would also work).

• One source says "steel-capped", two others say "boots fitted with iron tips and heels". Latter does indeed make more sense - I'll adjust accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• "F.E. Smith": having the F.E. unspaced will get some very hot under the collar, as I've found out previously!

• Well, if they do I will follow your example of quiet, understated resolve. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Parliament 2

• Is "Independent MP" worthy of a capital?

• I'd say yes, when it's a formal label, rather than a description of the member's political stance. Lots of MPs with party labels are "independent-minded", but they aren't Independents. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A veritable roller-coster of a story that I'm chuckling my way through. More to follow soonest. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments thus far, and I look forward to more, when you are able. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Only one final point from me: should the DNB (in Apprasisal) be in italics, as it's originally a print medium?

The complicating factor is that the ODNB entry I've used as a source is from the online version, which isn't the same as the print version. But as this link is to the print version, it's probably safer to italicise, which I've done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me in this very enjoyable piece; please drop me a note when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

This is a fleeting visit owing to strict time limitations in real life, but wanted to be part of it nonetheless.

• "He found a home with his aunt Caroline Praill..." -- did he alone find a home (staying with) his aunt Caroline Praill, or did he and his aunt find a home together?

• Adjusted: "His aunt Caroline Praill gave him a home" Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• "This journal recorded the proceedings of Hackney's local "parliament"—essentially a debating society that mirrored the proceedings at Westminster." -- Slight repetition of "proceedings".

Parliament, John Bull, bankruptcy

• "Among its regular features, Bottomley revived his "The World, the Flesh and the Devil" column from The Sun, and also adapted that paper's slogan: "If you read it in John Bull, it is so" Bottomley persuaded Julius Elias, managing director of Odhams Limited, to handle the printing, but chaotic financial management meant that Odhams were rarely paid." -- are we missing a full stop after the slogan and before the second Bottomley?
• F.E. Smith → F. E. Smith?

• See above (i.e. let's see what happens) Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• D.H. Lawrence →D. H. Lawrence?

• Ditto

Notes

• No. 7 finishes with a comma.

That's me done, a fine article. I fixed three minor formatting mistakes within the citations. Let me know when you go to FAC. Cassianto^talk 20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the time for these helpful comments, all addressed (except the spaces stuff). Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Fit For An Autopsy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Mayor of San Diego

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it is close to being at the level where it could be a featured list like Mayor of San Francisco, but I want to make sure that I'm not missing anything before submitting it as a featured list candidate.

Thanks, mcd51 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence: "The Mayor of the City San Diego"—should there be an "of" in there? —Designate (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Stephen Sondheim

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Sondheim is one of, if not the most important voice in musical theatre. Any and all help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Jimi Hendrix discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography submitted previously. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last six months and more recently, thoroughly fact-checked. In response to comments regarding the posthumous discography, this is now extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies.

Comments have also been made about tendentious editing and vandalism to Jimi Hendrix articles. As one of the most popular rock figures of the late 1960s, Hendrix articles attract a lot of attention, both good and bad. However, they now seem to be relatively stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and additional Hendrix articles ("Little Wing" and Band of Gypsys) are nominated as GAs. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.

Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox "Singles as sideman" and "Albums as sideman" do not work when you click on the down arrows. Fixed. Intro Jimi Hendrix → Jimi Hendrix; quite often I see on Wikipedia that a person's name is put in bold only in the main article and not a "subsidiary" article (i.e. a filmography or discography). Done "Prior to his rise to fame, he recorded several singles as a backing guitarist with American R&B artists, such as the Isley Brothers and Little Richard. Beginning in late 1966, he recorded three best-selling studio albums and several singles with the Jimi Hendrix Experience. An Experience compilation album and half of a live album recorded at the Monterey Pop Festival were also issued prior to his death. After the breakup of the Experience in mid-1969, some of his live performances at Woodstock and with the Band of Gypsys, as well as a Band of Gypsys studio single, were also released." → "several"; "some of" − Why not list the exact numbers? Also, the formatting of the Shadwick citations is inconsistent. Done "Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released by Track Records in the UK and Reprise Records in the U.S." → "Hendrix's albums and singles with the Experience were originally released in the United Kingdom by Track Records and in the United States by Reprise Records". Spell out the names of the countries the first time you mention them. Done "UK"; "U.S." → Use either UK and US or U.K. and U.S. Chose no puncutation Footnote number 7 is not formatted properly (i.e. the page number) Fixed Albums Peak chart positions: Other → Why the notes? Why not make columns for the charts? Also, put one or more citations for these columns and not just the list of sources at the bottom. I realize this is the current practice, but chose the "other" column for several reasons. When I started with the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography, I realized that there was not enough room for columns for all the various charts (20+ columns needed) (although about 10 columns are needed for this discography, I feet that the two discographies should be consistent). In trying to decide which ten or so that had the most positions, I noticed that they weren't the same from section to section, i.e., one may be populated while another isn't. So I looked at some other discographies, including published ones. It seems that WP puts much greater emphasis on charts than other discographies, to the extent that chart columns completely dominate and the other info is squeezed into the margins. To me, this is visually very unappealing. For example, the Led Zeppelin discography, The Rolling Stones discography, and many others have long, mostly empty columns (sometimes for one or two entries). By using an "other" column, much of this wasted space is eliminated, without any loss of information. It is easier to use: by hovering the mouse over or clicking the note, all the info is there (try figuring out which number goes with what chart in the middle of the Stones studio albums). A discography is supposed to show all the recorded work of an artist, not a collection of sales chart statistics. WP:DISCOGSTYLE is just a proposal, but seems to allow for flexibilty: "There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." In practice, is this necessary for a FL? Hendrix as an accompanist Change the sub-headings from "singles" and "albums" to "singles as sideman" and "albums as sideman" so that the infobox arrows will work properly. Done Put the albums before the singles so the listings are consistent with Hendrix's main body of work. Done "I Don't Know What You've Got but It's Got Me" → The chart positions are aligned to the left on this single only while all the rest are centered. Done Albums and singles: Why not list the names of the artists in a separate column so that they appear more prominent? Agree, done Albums: Why not list the songs Hendrix performed on in a column rather than regulating them to footnotes? Agree, done Album details: Why are these in a separate column here when the main albums by Hendrix as well as the singles have details listed below the titles? Fixed I hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the input, Jimknut. I found your suggestions very helpful and have made all but the "other" column changes for now. I've added some reasons above. Further comments are welcome. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC) ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." → Some of the charts have this in small print (80%) while others its normal size. Also, this comment is not needed on the "Studio albums" chart since all three albums charted in the US and the UK. Jimknut (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Fixed (all 80%). Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)]]

Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This is a Peer Review, not a GAN, A-class or FLC, so "support" is not required. Save that for when it id nominated at FLC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do I have to save it? I see no harm in supporting it here as well as when or if it is a GAN, A-class or FLC. I think it's find to offer support with any improvement to an article or list. Jimknut (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to save it; you can say "support" if you like. I think all Brian was saying is that "support" is usually given when the article is seeking a new status -- GA, A-class, or FA. To say "support" here at PR doesn't really mean anything -- at the end of the PR, the article will either be improved or it won't be, but the article rating won't change as a result, so no consensus needs to be built. If by "support" you just mean it's a good article, that's harmless, but it's likely to cause confusion among other editors who are familiar with these processes, so I'd suggest just giving your positive feedback directly, rather than saying "support". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Lost Luggage (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this article for FAC after my current one is promoted (hopefully). So I'd like people to pick at it before I do so.

Thanks, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, a solid little article about a silly little game. Some random comments as they come to me.

• "enabling this mode will cause black suitcases to appear.[3][2]" - change it to [2][3]
  • Done
• Luggage carousel and Dallas, Texas are redirecting
  • Done
• The Games by Apollo article says that they were based in Richardson, a Dallas suburb town, not Dallas.
  • You're right. Handled
• "After, Salvo presented artist Ernie Runyon" - "later" or "afterwards"
  • Done, used "afterwards"
• "Runyon was a new hire at Apollo, having joined the company in March 1982" - you haven't said outside the lead that these development things took place in September 1982 (and was it? You said it took a month to make and came out in September 1982, but was there a gap between finishing the game and when it was on shelves? I know a lot of Atari games had a large gap for production.)
  • There were no sources indicating when the development period, so I just deleted this sentence. I also re-arranged the lead; didn't mean for that sentence to indicate development was also in September.
• "The crew of Apollo brainstormed titles[...] with Runyon remembering one of the proposed titles was "Airport Mayhem"" - tense problem, he wasn't remembering it at the time, he remembered it later.
  • Yep. Got it.
• "He stated he would have liked to have included a luggage train" - either "He has stated" or say when or where he stated it
  • Got it.
• "in the 4K cartridge" -link or define what 4K is in this context
  • Kilobyte. Done.
• "Salvo programmed the game" - you said Runyon programmed the game not two sentences ago
  • Salvo helped him program it. Changed.
• "joystick movements which took one week to fix" - comma before which
  • Done
• " were done by Larry Minor" - done is an odd, casual word to use there- try "created"
  • Switched.
• "Upon release, there were negative reviews" - oddly passive, try "The game received negative reviews upon release" or something like it
  • Done.
• Link Kaboom! (video game) the first time it's used in reception, not the second
  • Done. This was a leftover from when I switched the reviews to have contemporary ones first.
• Link Eggomania
  • Linked.
• Why do you redlink TV Gamer in the references but not Electronic Gaming or Digital Press or Atari HQ?
  • Unlinked TV Gamer.
• Capitalize Allgame in the references
  • Done.
• Consider archiving your online references with a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content don't wreck your citations.
  • I'll see about this. I checked and Archive.org has copies of all the references, so I think I'll be fine, but I might make webcitation copies just in case
• --PresN 19:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks PresN. I got these. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cool. Just saw that you nominated two more Games by Apollo games for GAN- are you planning on building out a Good Topic on their whole catalog? --PresN 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna try. I don't know if there'll be enough material for some of them, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate feedback on this list because I want to take it to FLC. I'd particularly like to hear thoughts about the length of the lead, and the navigability and arrangement of the table. Thanks, CR4ZE (t • c) 04:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Ammar ibn Yasir

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because much effort has been done by many editors to improve its quality and we are interested to hear more opinions on how we can improve it even further.

Thanks, Grandia01 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Hasil Adkins

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to featured article status. It was promoted to GA in late May, and has changed only in the slightest since then. I've put a lot of work into it and am quite proud of it, but I've never gone through the FAC process. I am curious if there's anything that stands out that I should try to address before moving forward with the nomination. Any input is greatly appreciated! — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Lucknow

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…i have tried to edit and restructure the article keeping in mind the previous reviews. I am looking for suggestions to make this either a GA or FA worthy article. Any and all types of criticisms are welcomed with suggestions. I have worked too much to make this a good quality article and i'm not going to give up anytime soon.

Thanks, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Miniapolis (talk)

This review considers the good article criteria. My chief issue is the prose:

• Please remove peacock language, such as "Lucknow is one of the major and most famous metropolitan cities of India ... ".
• The article needs a copyedit, which will address the prose issues. You can list it on the Guild of Copy Editors requests page (get the copyedit before your GAN).
• Although image galleries are permitted and all gallery images are freely licensed, the food gallery adds nothing to an article about the city and would be better moved to Cuisine of Uttar Pradesh (if it's not there already).

Sourcing looks okay. IMO, a thorough copyedit would take the article a long way toward a successful GAN. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 20:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• thank you for that review. You cant imagine how much relaxed i am after reading this review.Wikiboy2364 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Female genital mutilation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering submitting this article for FAC, so any feedback would be extremely helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just noting here that I'm going to archive this and re-open it later. I've temporarily lost JSTOR access, and although I'd hoped to be able to get through a review without it, I'm finding already, in the course of text-source checks, that I can't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Tangled

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to push this article to GA status, and afterwards FA.

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems someone has been reviewing at the time I look at that page. Could you still review this page? Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

People can review pages at the same time with no problem, just look at FA nomiations. And yes, I will review this page too. URDNEXT (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will be on your PR, though from 2 to 6 July I'll be on a trip.Forbidden User (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! And I just started reviewing your oage, by the way. URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

URDNEXT, hello? By the way, other editors are welcome as well.Forbidden User (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• The origins and conceptions section, and character develpment is too short. I recommend each being at least 4 paragraphs, and I'm sure there's more info to be covered there.
• Release is missing a lot of info and needs expandion.
• Reception needs a revamp. Try dedicating 2 to 3 sentences to a certain aspect of the film and how it was received by critics, like: The soundtrack was well received by critics... or, the acting was praised by critics... Then you just add a couple of supporting sentences for this.
• Tangled ever after needs expansion.

I'll be back for more soon. URDNEXT (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Tangled Ever After is a 6-7 min short, and so I have almost nothing to put on that. Others are being taken care of, thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Super Mario Bros. 3

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on taking it to FA, and for that, I need feedback. I've been getting awesome help from Tezero, Cas Liber and another great editor, but Tezero adviced me to take it here so that I get more opinions from people. I had another game peer reviewed a couple of weeks ago, Sleeping Dogs, which is also aiming for FA. Super Mario 3 is currently a A class article, which has been also GA reviewed and passed. Any feedback is appreciated! Also, since in 2006 the article was FA nominated, but never got to be one, I'll make it my absolute goal to make this a FA, but just like I said, I can't do this alone.

Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• It was released worldwide, beginning in Japan on October 23, 1988, followed by North America on February 12, 1990, and in Europe on August 29, 1991. - Is this too much detail for the lead, especially when you have the information in the infobox already?

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The reference after "In addition to the running and jumping moves found in past games, the player can fly and float with the aid of special items, slide down slopes, and execute new types of jumps." is unnecessary per WP:LEAD

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The lead feels heavy on release information but light on reviews and production details.
• Princess Peach sends Mario and Luigi to go and stop the Koopalings, - you refer to her as Toadstool above. I think she was still officially Toadstool at this time, so that should be fixed.

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• You don't mention in the plot section that the Koopalings are Bowser's children

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is the only place power-ups can be given to small characters, as in levels this simply makes them bigger. - I've played the game, and this is unclear even to me

 Done I removed the sentence from the article, since it does not have a good citation. URDNEXT (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Through this mode, players can also access several minigames, including a remake of the original Mario Bros. arcade game, in which one player has the opportunity to steal the cards of another but may lose their turn if they lose the minigame. - I never knew this... awesome.
• Be back after work with more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• that the game's code uses to access in real time, and are combined to form complete images on the screen in real time - Repetition of "in real time"

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• You don't seem to actually say when the game was released in the article text, at least not before discussing the game's reception. That needs to be referenced.
• I'd be explicit: which are contemporary reviews, which are reviews in hindsight

 Done I have revamped the entire reception section,  — Crisco 1492. URDNEXT (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• You haven't mentioned the hidden items in the gameplay section, yet they are all over the reviews. Kinda comes out of nowhere.
• The final two paragraphs of "Reception" (i.e. not including the Sales section) really would work better in legacy, I think

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nintendo Power's Top 30 - top 30 what? Games of the year? Games of all time? Sales?

 Done It was best games ever. URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The section #Sales would possibly work better in a section specifically on the release of the game and its marketing.
• In 2008, Guinness World Records listed the game as the best-selling video game to be sold separately from a system, and reported worldwide sales of over 18 million copies. - does this include the ports?

 Done Yes, it includes ports. URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• all New Super Mario Bros. games except New Super Mario Bros. - I have the nagging feeling you're missing italics

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Your discussion of the original Super Mario All-Stars port is very light
• It was also re-released for the Nintendo 3DS, and Wii U on April 17, 2014, as a reward that Club Nintendo users could purchase with their coins for the Wii Virtual Console on June 3, 2013. - not really sure what you're saying here

 Done URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• You've got a lot of fair-use images. I'd nix two (the men working in their office, as it doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 regarding contextual significance, and maybe one of the screenshots.Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The development photo is historically important since there are virtually no photos from the game's development, and the other two photos I'm just gonna change their captions. Is that ok,  — Crisco 1492? URDNEXT (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• In a book which doesn't have the NFCC to worry about, you might be correct. On Wikipedia, if that doesn't illustrate anything and the lack of an image is not "detrimental to readers' understanding", it's got to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE

• Gameplay and Plot look a little light on citations. If you're wanting to take this all the way, you should probably get hold of the print sources being used and check them yourself. Try to find more. There's a citation needed for the fourth paragraph of Gameplay.

 Done I have added the citations you asked for. CR4ZE URDNEXT (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The lead does need work. I'd suggest moving the gameplay stuff into the first paragraph, and expanding the second paragraph to have more on the development.

 Done How does it look now, CR4ZE (t? URDNEXT (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing enough reviews in Reception that were published at the game's release. This would really be necessary if you wanted an FA, because the coverage needs to be as comprehensive as possible. No contemporaneous reviews feels like an omission.

 Done I have revamped the entire reception section. URDNEXT (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Images need alt text.
• Fix up that choppy paragraph in Reception. Perhaps there's more in the way of criticism to develop upon.

Make sure major contributors have been contacted directly before you nominate. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it, CR4ZE (t the other contributors lasted til last year. The page was abandoned when I took over it. I'm the only contributors asides from Tezero and two other great editors who came on board after I put it on Peer Reviw. URDNEXT (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Contemporaneous sourcing is a lot thinner than it should be. In terms of reviews, where are Nintendo Power, GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly? I see a NP preview in the Reception section, but that isn't going to cut it. Every early issue of NP is available here, so the review will be in there somewhere. Ditto for GamePro. The EGM review is in #9 (April 1990), which I don't know where to find—but you're going to need it anyway. I see an EGM preview in the reference library that you aren't using. Plus, there'll be preview coverage from GamePro and possibly more from EGM at Retromags. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I searched for "Super Mario Bros 3" on Highbeam and these links turned up. Some of them might be dead ends; others might be good. You'll have to get someone with a Highbeam account (or similar) to access them for you: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Make sure to contact people with NewsBank, LexisNexis and Questia accounts for SMB3 news articles from the period as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, JimmyBlackwing! URDNEXT (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tangled is ready for review. I'm taking reference from FAs about games to see how this article can be improved. Comments coming.Forbidden User (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Forbidden User! I'll be reviewing Tangled in a bit. URDNEXT (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Forbidden User

• Check for deadlinks. About 10 can fail your FA requests.Forbidden User (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• The brothers travel through Dark Land, enter his castle, and defeat Bowser in a battle. The game ends with Toadstool being freed from the castle. Any reference to that?

 Done Added link to review that mentions the ending. Forbidden User URDNEXT (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that if information from multiple paragraphs are from the same source, cite it at least once, like the end of a paragraph:Other suits include the "Frog Suit", which increases the character's underwater speed and agility and improves jumping height on land, and the "Hammer Suit", which gives Mario the appearance of the Hammer Bro. enemy and allows him to throw hammers at enemies and resist fire attacks. If the reference in the next paragraph includes the info, then I suggest citing once more at the end.Forbidden User (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• During 1988, a shortage of ROM chips, along with Nintendo of America's preparation of a version of Super Mario Bros. 2 for Western gamers, prevented Nintendo from performing various North American game releases according to their original schedules. It looks llike a running-on sentence. Try rewriting/wait for GOCE to take care of the prose.Forbidden User (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Taking reference from Kingdom Hearts (video game), this article is rather lacking on production. Perhaps talk about the music a bit?

• Take a look at Final Fantasy XII - it demonstrates the information-reception balance quite well. Wii Sports may be more suitable here, as this game lacks a story.Forbidden User (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  

---

John Hay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would be grateful for feedback

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• The peer reviewer tool turns up several things to take a look at. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• I've been looking at the article, so I'll likely have some more specific review comments coming in the next couple days. In general, I appreciate the effort that went into making such a detailed article, although I don't think it's FA-quality at this point. Editors should take a look at 1) potential hagiographic writing; 2) removing trivial material that doesn't have much to do with the subject; 3) possibly spinning off a part (e.g., literary career) into a subarticle. #2 and #3 speak to the length of the article -- it feels very long at this point, and any reasonable effort to make it more concise is a good idea. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to write about 10 percent long which saves on adding stuff. But the literary career has to be covered in the main article. Hay is a significant literary figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley – first batch, down to the end of "Ambassador" section:

• Student and Lincoln supporter
  • "Hay did not support Lincoln for president until…" – from the context I think this means not giving active and practical support until…, but it reads rather as though he was against the idea until…

He was indifferent and not really "into" presidential politics. Spent his time with unenthusiastic law reading and emotional letters to his fellow poets in Providence about how out of place he was in the West. Today, no doubt he'd be an "emo kid". Open to suggestions.

• • "and Nicolay, who Lincoln had asked" – whom, or is that now seen as old hat in the US?

I was told once, I cannot remember by whom, that whom is disfavored in the MOS, but if they care, they can object.

• Secretary to Lincoln
  • "Hay, with his charm, escaped much of the hard feelings from those denied Lincoln's presence, that fell heavily on Nicolay" – this gets itself a bit lost, I think: I wonder if it would be clearer as something like "Unlike Nicolay, Hay, with his charm, escaped much of the hard feelings from those denied Lincoln's presence."

More or less adopted, though I give Nicolay the adjective "dour".

• • "as untried rail-splitter" – a what?

That's how many viewed Lincoln. But cut.

• I just hadn't read the term before. As it's gone I shall happily remain in ignorance. Tim riley talk 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • "Similarly, Hay served as "White House propagandist" – if this is a quote from Taliafero (or anyone else) you ought to attribute it in the text, I think. If it isn't, then you could comfortably lose the quotation marks altogether.

It is a quote from Taliaferro. Attributed.

• • "as normal a life as possible … reading Les Misérables in French" – this was normal for young American men of the period?

For someone of Hay's brains and (developing) sophistication, I think it's passable.

• Fair enough. Tim riley talk 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • "secretaries's" – just ess-apostrophe, I'd say.

OK.

• • "According to Thayer, "the person who dominated [Hay] from his first day in the White House was Lincoln"" – a less than surprising statement. Does it need saying?

I suppose. Cut.

• Presidential emissary
  • The second para broke the flow of my reading at two points where I felt a necessary explanation was missing. The first is "marveling at the differences between North and South" (such as?) and the second, "less hardened in his thinking about African Americans" (where we don't know what his hitherto hard thoughts had been).

Cut in both cases. It would take more space than it's worth to explain about Hay's attitude towards African-Americans, but one of the Pike County Ballads is the speech of a man addressing the "White Citizens Council" of Stumpy Point, Illinois (the original name of Warsaw) telling them that if they want to throw out of town the black ex-soldier who saved his life at Gettysburg, they will have to reckon with him first.

• Tribune and marriage
  • "But by 1873" – why the "but"? There seems nothing of "on the other hand" about the statement.
  • "Hay's outrage. Hay blamed" – perhaps "he" for the second Hay?

Both done.

• Return to politics
  • "who Hay did not support" – another "who" that I'd make "whom" unless such a usage is now hopelessly outdated in the US.

Done per above.

• McKinley backer
  • "Hay backed Olney in conversations, and in a letter to The Times" – I think we need a citation for this: I have sent you by email the only letter I can find from Hay to The Times in 1896, and it isn't about Venezuela, but all to do with "free silver". It may be that there is another letter lurking in the archives, but I'm blest if I can unearth one.

I can only blame my blind faith in Kushner & Sherrill (p. 81) "A Republican, Hay strongly supported the Democratic administration in this dispute and even wrote a letter explaining his view to the London Times. " A glance in back of the book details various letters from Hay to sundry people, but no reference directly to the newspaper. Possibly Hay said he did in one of these letters. Will delete.

• Ambassador
  • "a two-story Georgian house on Carlton House Terrace" – no such building existed. Carlton House Terrace, where I spent more than 20 years of my working life, consists of large Nash terraces, four storeys high. Hay was at No 5, now the Turf Club: see here. And if we're being picky, Hay had a sub-lease from Caledon who was himself the lessee of my former employer, the Crown.

The quote (p. 315) is "The house was a two-story Georgian, entered from Pall Mall". I shall delete the statistic and the (intermediary) landlord. These authors. I did meander by the area in my wanderings about London, but had not yet downloaded this book so took no special notice, more fool me.

• • While I was checking my facts about CHT (as we old inhabitants called it) I ran across this tribute to Hay as Ambassador from a contemporary: "In the long list of famous American Ministers in London, none could have given the work quite the completeness, the harmony, the perfect ease of Hay." (From here.) Rather a nice thing to have said of one.

Henry Adams was a bit biased, but his antecedents were impeccable given that his father was minister in London under Lincoln, and he was the grandson and great-grandson of presidents. I do mention his praise of Hay later on.

So you do. And very pleasing too! Tim riley talk 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

More soonest. I'm enjoying this greatly. Tim riley talk 10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding comments from TR

• Boxer Rebellion
  • "the issue of American imperialism was being raised by the Democrats" – were they for or against it?
• Death of McKinley
  • "should anything happen to McKinley" – anything? This seems like a coy euphemism for death.

He could have resigned, been removed from office. The offhand phrasing is of course because something does happen to McKinley along the lines you mention!

• Staying on
  • "Clarence King passed away" – another genteel WP:Euphemism. He didn't pass away, pass over or pass out – he died.
  • "In fact, by then the matter was moot" – clearly not moot: there being a fait accompli there was nothing to moot.
• Literary career
  • I'm sorry to say that I think drastic pruning is wanted here. Perhaps a spin-off article? As present we have 2,500 words on Hay's literary output, which is really too much, in my view. We gave Disraeli 600 words on what, I think most people would agree, is a more substantial corpus of work. I haven't commented on the drafting here, hoping to see 2,000 or so of the words cut or shifted to their own space.
    • Later: I hadn't clocked the discussion below when I wrote this. I've added a mite there for good measure.
• Assessment and legacy
  • "He quotes John St. Loe Strachey" – this dates from 1905, I see from [Google books], in which case it must have been this Strachey's father, John Strachey (journalist) who wrote it.

That's all from me. With the one (admittedly substantial) reservation about the size of the lit crit section I found the article highly readable, balanced and well sourced. – Tim riley talk 08:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've finally gotten around to dealing with your later comments. Very grateful for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• After Lincoln was nominated for president by the Republicans, Hay worked for his campaign, and after Lincoln was elected, Hay became one of his private secretaries. - can we avoid having Lincoln and Hay named twice in the sentence?
• He remained active in politics, and from 1879 to 1881 served as Assistant Secretary of State. - Under? Or not worth including in the lead?

That was the title then, more specifically First Assistant. The First Assistant was a political appointment, the Second Assistant at least under McKinley a career employee. There was also a Third Assistant, who no doubt did something useful.

• martyred president's historical image. - since the depiction is "martyr", would it be possible to rework this to avoid presenting the martyrdom as a fact?

Assassinated then. Yes, I'm falling into Hay's trap.

• of Mormon revenge (that did not come), - perhaps "of a Mormon revenge that did not come"?
• He missed many days through illness, though how much of that was due to actual physical ailments is uncertain. - through or to illness?

Both done, the latter rephrased a bit differently.

• Hay, with his charm, escaped much of the hard feelings from those denied Lincoln's presence, that fell heavily on Nicolay. - Something bothers me about this sentence. Perhaps something like "Hay, with his charm, escaped much of the hard feelings from those denied Lincoln's presence; these feelings were redirected at Nicolay" or .... At the very least I doubt that comma is supposed to be there.

Also commented on by TR (not Roosevelt) above and recast by me.

• The two secretaries often clashed with Mary Lincoln, who resorted to various stratagems to get the dilapidated White House restored without depleting Lincoln's salary, that had to cover entertainment and other expenses. - I'm reading this sentence as if his salary was supposed to be for entertainment and other expenses. Not sure if this is correct, as she ended up saving 70% of his salary

Yes, that is true. The president received a very large salary compared with others, but he also had to pay for expenses. And if Congress didn't appropriate funds, and usually it didn't, that included house repairs and parties. Despite the expenses, presidents often saved much of their money. I've seen references to Cleveland and McKinley doing so.

• was a Southern sympathizer who apparently destroyed the original. - Link Copperhead (politics)?

Done, I suppose it fits.

• writer Charles G. Halpine, who knew Hay then, - "who knew Hay then" feels awkward. What about "an acquaintance of Hay's" or similar?

I'm trying to make it clear that Halpine had a basis for this. He knew Hay during the war. Your suggestion would not convey that, and add-ons to it would be just as awkward.

• The section #Presidential emissary seems to use "Hay" a bit too much. Second paragraph has four or five.

The "Lincoln"'s interspersed in the paragraph justify most of them. One cut.

• Hay had occasion to see and visit with freed slaves, and according to Zeitz, "Hay left South Carolina and Florida less hardened in his thinking about African Americans" - Pretty much meaningless if we don't know his original feelings.

Ditto, ditto, TR.

• Some Unionists had sent letters to Hay, asking him to run for Congress there, - That you mean Florida is not immediately apparent. I'd probably rework as "Some Unionists had sent letters to Hay, asking him to run for Congress in Florida, and Lincoln considered the state, with its small population,"
• Niagara Manifesto - Worth redlining?

I am inclined to let it go as is. I don't think it ever got legs, so to speak, although Lincoln said much the same thing at the Hampton Roads Conference.

• They remained in their jobs pending the arrival and training of replacements. - last people mentioned were Nicolay and his intended

Tweaked.

• Lincoln would always be watching". - emphasis in original (just checking)

Yeah

• Madrid - Spain?

One usage changed to Spain

• the Republican Party, which until then had been sterling as an aide to Lincoln. - I know you mean the reputation, but that's not how this reads
• Hay would vent his anger over the strike in his only novel, - why the "would"?
• One fruit of these travels was The Bread-Winners, Hay's novel written during European travels with his family. - why repeat "travels"?

Redone on all above.

• their summer residence in Newbury, New Hampshire, The Fells. - one could read this as a statement that Newbury was in The Fells, rather than the other way around

Only by someone so literalist and ignorant of America that they most likely would get nothing out of this article, as they would have to assume that The Fells had swallowed New Hampshire. Still, rephrased.

• unsuccessful re-election effort in 1892 - link to the 1892 election?

piped.

• Not sure #Wilderness years is an appropriate section title... rather metaphorical

Used it fairly often in the past. Richard Nixon, Joseph Foraker are examples. I think it's fairly standard political phraseology.

• The debts were beyond the governor's means to pay, so McKinley's promising political career might be derailed through insolvency. - Perhaps "could" instead of "might" to avoid any possible past/present ambiguity
• Barnstorming is a fairly obscure word IMHO; perhaps it can be glossed to Wiktionary?

Piped to whistle-stop.

• Bryan's "attempt to convert currency into class warfare", as Taliaferro puts it, was unsuccessful in much of the nation, and McKinley won the election easily, with a campaign run by himself and Hanna, and well-financed by supporters like Hay. - I recommend splitting this sentence as it has quite a few clauses

Done.

• More on the morrow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• when British-built raiders such as the Alabama preyed on American ships. - Better to say "Union ships"?

Maybe US-flagged ships?

• That works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• his older son Adelbert, who had been counsel in Pretoria during the Boer War and was about to become McKinley's personal secretary - worth mentioning the sons earlier?

They are mentioned in the infobox. I don't see the worth of mentioning them in text.

• Not too sure about that... this means that the children are unreferenced, and the mention easily missed to those who don't read infoboxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose ... let me look for a compact source.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• "praising "the perfectly regular course which the President did follow" as much preferable to armed occupation of the isthmus." - Just a comment: interesting to see that replacing unfriendly governments and inciting revolutions was already considered normal

It had been in 1898, and TR was certainly more bellicose.

• An eminent physician in Italy - Who?

Taliaferro (p. 535) says it was "Dr. Stifler", a German, but gives no first name, there or in the index. Thayer said the doctor was Bavarian. Accordingly, I did not say "Italian physician".

• In writing it, Hay was influenced by the labor unrest of the 1870s, that affected him personally, as the establishments of his father-in-law, Amasa Stone, were among those shut down by a strike in 1877 at a time when Hay had been left in charge, as Stone was away in Europe. - Feels like there are too many clauses here

Reframed a bit.

• ticket - your first mention of this was considerably earlier.

That's why I relinked.

• They at rare times relied on, such as Nicolay's recollection of the moment at the 1860 Republican convention when Lincoln was nominated, - relied on what, exactly? Personal recollection?

Clarified.

• Don't think Saving Private Ryan is really worth mentioning here. Yes, it was a blockbuster, and yes, it's a pretty good film... but Hay's influence is both uncertain at best (no proof he wrote the Bixby letter) and not explicitly stated in the sources, and in the long run the film is of less impact than the Panama Canal and China issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and I had trouble making that fit. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some parts look under-illustrated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Still adding images.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (briefly)

Before I start a detailed review, a comment on the length of this article. At 13500 words it will be, if promoted, one of the very longest featured biographies. The only ones I can see that are longer are Elvis Presley, Nikita Khruschev, Babe Ruth and Benjamin Disraeli – Michael Jackson is longer, too, but only because of the thousands of words added since its promotion. Does a figure like Hay really warrant such expansive treatment, far in excess of that for presidents, world leaders and major cultural figures? Bear in mind, too, that featured articles, after their promotion, almost invariably grow further – Elvis by 1000+ words, Jackson by nearly 6000, for example. There is a point, I think, beyond which "comprehensive" merges into "exhaustive", and I wonder if this article might be a case in point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am gradually cutting it back and hope to do so by about 10 percent. It's going to be long because of the literary section, like Disraeli actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think migrating part of The Bread-Winners to the article on the book, and starting one for the Hay-Nicolay biography of Lincoln (certainly worth an article!), would help a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've actually started work on expansion of The Bread-Winners here as I got most of the necessary sources in my Hay research (there's an introductory essay to a 60s edition of it I want to read, though). There's still a need for some discussion in the main article. I will keep clipping away, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely... just, maybe not five paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've just been saying pretty much the same in my concluding comments above. I wasn't conscious of excessive length till I hit the lit crit section, at which point I boggled. As I mention above, we polished Dizzy's literary legacy off in 600 words, and I don't think we short-changed him. Tim riley talk 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Message received loud and clear. I'll get out the axe.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll reserve my review until the axe has done its work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My review is under way, and there should be a should be a significant instalment by tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

First block

Lead

• One tiny punc point: you need to remove the comma after "Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (1903)" to preserve your meaning

Done

Family and youth

• I think the mention of the Smith brothers should be preceded by a brief description, e.g. "the Mormon leaders". I know there are links, but readers should be helped.

(cough, cough) done.

• Perhaps rather than just "John attended the local schools", give an indcation of his brightness before describing him as "the precocious child"

Rephrased around it.

Student and Lincoln supporter

• Not wild about the header (suggests a supporter of students and Lincoln) but I can't think of a better

I trust myself to the good common sense of the readers.

• There's a little confusion in the narrative. He came to Brown under-prepared, he had frequent bouts of illness, some maybe pyschosomatic or depressive – yet he gained the reputation as a star student. Perhaps insert the words "Despite his uncertain beginning" before "He gained..."
• "and instead he was made a clerk in Milton Hay's law firm (he had relocated to Springfield) where John could study law and become an attorney". Seems rather heavy-footed and complicated, with parenthetical insertion etc. Suggest simplify: "and instead joined Milton Hay's law firm in Springfield, where he studied to become an attorney".

Played with a bit. I do want to keep the moving to Springfield bit so as to assure continuity.

• "recounted an early encounter" is not mellifluous – suggest "recalled..."

Done

• The sentence beginning "Once he was..." is far too long & convoluted, and should be split.
• "Lincoln was victorious in the election that November" is a bit indirect. Why not "Lincoln was elected president in November 1860"?

Both done.

Secretary to Lincoln

• "($1,800 beginning in 1862)" is an unnecessary detail
• "In that Executive Mansion" – I'd say "the" rather than "that", but is the phrase necessary at all?
• "Hay wrote many letters for Lincoln's signature: though he did not record which ones, according to Taliaferro, Hay was the likely author of the letter to Lydia Bixby, a Bostonian who had (Lincoln was told) lost five sons in the war ". Colon should be semi; "though" in this case woould be better as "although"; the arrangement of commas means I can't work out which phrase you are qualifying with "according to Taliafeero". Also, "who had (Lincoln was told)" could be rearranged to "who Lincoln was told had", without parenthses.
• "not correct" → "incorrect" – and another word zapped!
• Surely lose comma after "barrooms"? There is no natural pause there.

All done. I am trying to avoid the minefield of the Bixby letter authorship and also trying to not denigrate Mrs. Bixby's very real loss in a war she did not believe in.

Presidential emissary

• There is a punctuation issue in the second paragraph. At the very least, the comma after "Charleston Harbor" should be a full stop. The remainder of the sentence could also be split with advantage.
• "Lincoln considered the state, with its small population..." Clarify that "the state" is Florida.
• "...sending Hay to see if he could get sufficient men to take the oath.[42] Lincoln commissioned him a major and sent him to Florida." Needs sorting out, perhaps: "He commissioned Hay as a major, and sent him to Florida to see if he could get sufficient men to take the oath".
• There is no month "between" February and March. Thus, "in February–March 1864"

Rephrased in all cases above.

Assassination of Lincoln

• "wed his intended" – a bit magaziney, perhaps?

I have deleted Mrs. Nicolay entirely from the story.

Early diplomatic career

• I would delete the "as well" in line 2
• Clever sidestep to bring in Disraeli! I am awaiting the appearance of Meeker.

No evidence, alas. They moved in circles that were not mutually exclusive during Meeker's "Hop King" years, though. They may have met.

• "In May, Hay went back to Washington from Warsaw to press his case' " Stray apostrophe after "case"? Perhaps add "with the nwely-installed Grant administration"?
• Whose description is "swashbuckling"? At present it reads as editorializing

• Mr. Taliaferro's: "one of the most renowned swashbucklers of his day". p. 121. I think it's justified. The man's actions may have been reprehensible in some ways but he had style.

Tribune and marriage

• "though mail subscriptions" → "through mail subscriptions"
• You say: "His work at the Tribune came as his fame as a poet was reaching its peak" – but there has been no mention of his writing poetry since the "Student" section. Some brief intervening mention is surely necessary, indicating that his poetry had been published and appreciated.

I've done an internal link to the literary career.

• "hitherto-sterling": two words, I think
• "On December 29, 1876, a bridge over Ohio's Ashtabula River, built from metal cast at one of Stone's mills, carrying a train of Stone's Lake Shore Railway, collapsed". I would move the verb forward – three prior sub-clauses is on too many. Suggest: "...collapsed while carrying a train..." etc
• "who soon departed" → "who departed" (the word "soon" is unnecessarily over-used in the article). It recurs in this same paragraph)

Continuing... Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Next batch

Return to politics

• "...in the election. Hayes's controversial victory in the election..." Awkward repetition of phrase; you could transfer link to the former and delete latter.

Tweaked.

• "Hay was offered his place, and after some hesitancy because of a run for the House of Representatives Hay was considering, he accepted". Again some awkwardness, with "Hay" mentioned twic in the sentence. Perhaps "Hay was offered his place and accepted, after some hesitancy because he was at the time considering a run for the House of Representatives."

Much along your lines, but I just shortened it to "running for Congress".

Author and dilettante

• "themselves" is probably a redundancy. Could you be a bit more specific than "the books", e.g. "the full biography in x volumes was published in 1890"
• "Hay contributed funds to Harrison's unsuccessful re-election effort in 1892, with some of his enthusiasm due to the fact that Reid had been made Harrison's running mate in place of Vice President Levi P. Morton" Seems a bit wordy – could be "Hay contributed funds to Harrison's unsuccessful re-election effort in 1892, mainly because Reid had been made Harrison's running mate". I'm not sure it's necessary to mention the unfortunate Morton.

Morton flushed and more or less along the lines you suggest

McKinley backer

• Link Speaker of the House (may have been mentioned earlier – check

Galusha Grow (I always like including him) was the first incumbent mentioned.

Appointment

• The first paragraph becomes very convoluted, perhaps over-explained for the general reader. Few, I think, will be able to make sense of the machinations – it is not, for example, clear until the next paragraph that Hay and Reid were competitors for the London post. I strongly recommend some simplification.

I've played with it. Hanna's machination, which is important here, does need explanation.

• Link The Times
• "A salary of $17,000 was provided by the State Department, but it also had to cover expenses, and Hay quickly decided not to try to live on it." I'd omit this. It is fairly unlikely that a rich man like Gale would choose to live on a relative small salary and allowance. Perhaps adjust the final sentence: "Hay's salary of $17,000 "did not even begin to cover the cost of their extravagant lifestyle".

Excellent, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• "change of attitude for America's representative" – I think "by" rather than "for". It sounds from what follows tha the change he envisaged was, more or less, "no more Mr Nice Guy", although this is at odds with the atatement in the first paragraph of the next section; perhaps you could clarify?

I've cut it. There wasn't room to really follow up.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Service

• "former secretary John W. Foster" – secretary of state? ("former secetary" makes him sound like a retired typist)
• "pledged to silver-leaning Republicans to..." → "promised silver-leaning..." etc
• "assure U.S.-British amity" → "ensure..."

"for which he "is best remembered by many students of American history" should be attributed.

• "with no more experience of statecraft than that practiced in the Stark County courthouse" – I don't think we are allowed such mordant asides.

Shortened.

More... Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More

I had hoped to finish tonight, but no such luck. There will be another instalment.

McKinley years

• "he found his old office and bedroom occupied by several clerks each" → "he found his old office and bedroom each occupied by several clerks" (would sound more natural)

China

• Unfortunately, the levels 4 and 5 heading typefaces are the same size on my display. This has the effect either of making the "China" subheading appear to have no content, or of making MacKinley's assassination seem a subdivision of the China section (I don't know whether it looks like this to everyone). One possible solution would be to lose the "China" heading, retitle "Open door policy" as "China: Open door policy" as a level 4 subheading, and maker "Boxer rebellion" a level 4 heading. That way, "McKinley years" has 3 level 4 subdivisions.

Yes, I suppose so, but there are times when Level 5 headings are not so easily dispensed with.

Open door policy

• "With an eye to the Irish-American and German-American vote in the next election, Hay did not wish this policy to be seen as a joint Anglo-American initiative, and Rockhill drafted the first Open Door note, calling for equality of commercial opportunity for foreigners in China". I don't immediately see the connection between the two halves of this sentence

The groups spoken of had no reason to love the British. Possibly the best course is to delete the intro and leave the actions unexplained.

• "not a treaty": so, how were the powers that agreed to it bound by it?

They weren't. It was a modus vivendi or some such.

Boxer Rebellion

• Maybe add ("now Beijing) after "Peking"? I know the link gives this, but...

I think I can put my trust in the erudition of the reader to know this one.

• "sacked the city" – name the city

Death of McKinley

• "Hay responded that McKinley would die" – any reason for such pessimism, when medical opinion suggested otherwise?

I'll double-check my copy of Leech tonight or tomorrow, but I don't recall any. Precedent, I expect. He'd been through the wringer with two shot presidents. Garfield lived for three months.

• "He remained at his office and the next morning, as Roosevelt hurried to Buffalo, the former Rough Rider received his first communication as President, from Hay, officially informing President Roosevelt of McKinley's death." The initial pronoun is confusing, as the last "he" mentioned is McKinley. Also, I imagine that Roosevely received his first communication as president on arrival in Buffalo, not as he hurried there. And "President Roosevelt" can be "him". Thus: "Hay remained at his office, and the next morning, when Roosevelt arrived Buffalo, the former Rough Rider received his first communication as President, from Hay, officially informing him of McKinley's death".

No, he got it in some railroad station, as he boarded a special train to Buffalo. I'll see if I can adjust to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It probably won't suit you because of the double use of "Roosevelt", but I do want to keep "President Roosevelt" in there to emphasize the accession.

Staying on

• No issues

Panama

• "But the Canadians, seeing this as their greatest leverage to get other disputes resolved in their favor, persuaded Salisbury not to resolve the canal matter independently". It is unclear to the reader how "the Canadians" and "Salisbury" (presumably the Briish PM) had a role in this issue – presumably this lack of clarity arises from the removal of explanatory material (at the behest of such as I). The same excisions may explain the reference in the next sentence to "these matters", when only one matter – US exclusive control – has been raised.

I've made it clearer. Lord Salisbury is named and linked in the ambassadorial section.

• The matter of the Canada-Alaska boundary is raised in a vacuum at the end of the paragraph. I am wondering about the wisdom of covering the Canadian boundary issue in a section headed "Panama"

The two issues were linked, at least for a time, much to Hay's distress because he saw no connection either. I think that given this link, that it should stand.

• "negotiated with Hay the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty" better as "negotiated the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty"
• We are somewhat short of date information in the final paragraph – nothing after the November 1903 revolt. It would be useful to know when the traety was signed, and when work began.

I hope one more session will finish it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued work. I've made those changes except where commented to the contrary.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Last words

(subject to any final comments on your responses)

• "President and secretary" – inconsistent capitalisation in President
• "For his part" – unnecessary verbiage
• "Another incident where Hay and Roosevelt differed was in the composition of..." → "Hay and Roosevelt also differed over the composition of..."
• I dislike being required to use links to identify people – spoils the narrative flow. Thus "the Greek-American playboy Ion Perdicaris" would help.
• "Roosevelt considered seizing the Tangier waterfront, source of much of his income..." reads as though Roosevelt's income came from the Tangier waterfront. Need to clarify "his".

Final months and death

• "Early 1905 saw futility for Hay, as a number of treaties he had negotiated were defeated or amended by the Senate—one involving the British dominion of Newfoundland due to Senator Lodge's fears it would harm his fisherman constituents, and others promoting arbitration because the Senate did not want to be bypassed in the settlement of international disputes". The last part of this long sentence reads ambiguously. I would split after "constituents" and then: "Others, which promoted arbitration, were lost because the Senate..." etc

Literary career

• "penned" twice in first line
• Link Bret Harte
• "(published editions did not bear Hay's name until 1916, after his death)" – last three words redundant
• "Historian Frederic Cople Jaher concluded that Hay's anger in 1877, when Stone's railroad was peacefully struck, and his 1883 novel, "emphasize defensive notions of safe-guarding order and property rather than the expansive beliefs in extending individual freedom or opportunity"." Hard to follow, and I'm not convinced that this point needs re-emphasizing. Hay's feelings, based on the strikes at the Stone businesses, are made clear in the first paragraph.
• "submitted to Robert Lincoln[220] for approval.[221]" Small point, but does it really require two references to make this point?
• "an alternation of parts in which Lincoln is at center, and discussions of contextual matters such as legislative events or battles" – unclear. though I think I can work out what it means. Try "...alternates parts in which Lincoln is at center with discussions of contextual matters, such as legislative events or battles".

Assessment and legacy

• "relatively early death" – hmm, maybe not for that time. Among his near contemporaries, Blaine was 62, Hanna 66, Harrison 67 and Cleveland 71, so Hay is in the general range. Roosevelt, who was somewhat younger, barely made 60.

Well ... "premature" death. He certainly died of disease, not of old age (as did Hanna, actually).

• "then stated that his own education had now ended, lapsing into "Hamlet's Shakespearean silence" Surely ultra vires?

I just read the final pages. I will tweak the prose, but I think it's fairly powerful for Adams to imply that Hay's death had ended his own education. (Adams lived to be 80, by the way)

• Earlier you say "Hay and Nicolay enjoyed exclusive access to Lincoln's papers, which were not opened to other researchers until 1947." Now you say "later biographers such as Carl Sandburg, using the full volume of Lincoln papers available..." I believe that Sandburg's Lincoln biographies were written well before 1947, so is there a contradiction here?\

You are quite right. Zeitz is a little muddled here. I've sliced the clause. Good catch.::

• "including the Canal-related treaties": "including those related to the Canal" would avoid repetition of "treaties"
• I am confused as to whether Taliaferro's valediction is intend as praise or criticsm. It seems a little enigmatic for a parting note.

I will replace it.

And that really is it (apart from sourcing and similar issues which I'll no doubt get into at FAC) Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to work on this today. I appreciate the thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough and searching review. I think I've caught everything. I will leave the peer review open for the remainder of the wikiday and plan on nomming for FAC tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Geiger–Marsden experiment

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completely rewritten it over the past two months and thus should be given a new assessment. I have endeavored to describe the experiments in good detail, at a level above the grossly simplified and distorted story we read in our high school textbooks.

Thanks, Kurzon (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Margaret Qualley

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

---

BrickFair

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review as I want to see if there is any copy-editing to do that I've missed, or anything else that I could add. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please give them. Whether or not you know about lego conventions or even lego whatsoever, I'd appreciate a look at this article. Thank you.

Regards,

ɱ (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article up to better standard than what it currently is.

Thanks, RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Departures (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we'd like to bring this article to FAC in the next couple months and, since it's a bit out of our regular editing areas, we'd like feedback regarding grammar and accessibility (and comprehensiveness, if anyone's willing).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments

Very interesting.

Lede

• I think you need a clearer transition between the fiction at the end of the first paragraph and the real life of the second.

• Worked it over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to mention the prejudice in both the first and second paragraphs?

• One as part of the plot, one in the real world context. (Several reviewers, like A.O. Scott, appear to have had trouble understanding that the treatment of Daigo was actually rather positive compared to how he would have been treated in RL). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "encoffining ceremony" Link? I see there is one in the body

• Linked to Wiktionary. I'm tempted to write an article about the nokan, but we don't have one yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• the former classmate is described at the second mention not the first. Possibly at the first mention, "the mother of Daigo's former classmate", it can be "the mother of a former classmate of Daigo"
• "After Mika discovers a training DVD in which Daigo plays a corpse, he refuses to quit the "disgusting profession" and she returns to her parents' home in Tokyo." Perhaps "Daigo refuses to quit, even after Mika discovers a training DVD in which he plays a corpse, and she leaves him to return to her parents' home in Tokyo". Her departure is caused by two things, her discovery and his refusal. They should both be on the same side of the sentence, if you understand me.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "avoid his family" Yamashita's?

• Yes. Tried reworking, but maybe a little awkward. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "of the Yamashita family and Mika" a "both" could usefully be tossed in here.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "After coming into contact with the dead individuals must cleanse themselves" I think a comma after "dead" is needed.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is the continuing discrimination against burakumin worth mentioning?

• Added a clause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "eight-tenths" I would express as a percentage, as the other stats in the paragraph are.

• Per the hidden note, it's not an exact fraction; Curly Turkey could probably explain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess "about 80%" would be okay, but the source gives "eight-tenths"—I'd assume it's rounded, especially as it's given as recent trends rather than a particular number from a particular year. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Conception

• "affinity with film world" needs a "the". "mysteriousness" is not that common a word, is there a more familiar term that might express what is being said? Ditto "greenlit". (my autocorrect kept arguing with me about it)

• Done. How is "a sense of mystery and near-eroticism"? As for greenlit, Green-light is the industry term. I'll try using a hyphen, though personally I don't think that's proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "exploitation pink film genre" I imagine the first word should be "exploitative". I wonder if that's POV?

• Exploitation film is a genre. That being said, I agree exploitation pink film reads like verbal diarrhea, and we can use pink film to get the point across (there's a link, after all).

• "Aoki rejected having his name and book title used in the film" possibly "Aoki refused to allow his name and that of his book to be used in the film"

• Reworked... I agree, Rejected isn't the best word here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "because of his role as a nōkanshi" perhaps "job", not role

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Aoki put particular emphasis on the "light" seen when one perceived the integration of life and death" this, perhaps, should be moved up to where there is discussion of Aoki's refusal.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The cello comment seems misplaced, as it is not a difference between the book and the film, given that most books lack cello orchestration.
• "moving the "letter-stone" from a subplot to a main motif," perhaps "making the "letter-stone" a much larger part of the plot" or similar.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "reconcile with his late father" well, I'm not sure that "reconcile" is the right word. Perhaps "forgive"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Casting

• "practising on his manager" his manager as a professional actor, or the mortician?

• Curly Turkey added that, so he can confirm whether its explicit, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't his manager as an actor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Motoki practised the nōkan procedure on his manager as the corpse. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "who could lay as still" lay or lie?

• Lie. *doh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Filming

• " After Sakata was decided on," I think you need to make clear that the town is meant here.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "but filming was done in Yamagata; this was largely because the national Nōkan Association, headquartered in Hokkaido, had a branch office in Sakata" I'm not sure that the logic of this is clear.

• Curly, could you get this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "between the mid-Meiji and Taishō periods." I think a year range in parentheses would be needed here to save the reader needless clicks.

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "aged building". I'm not familiar with this expression. Maybe "period building"?

• I don't think period is correct, as this wasn't a period piece. Old has negative connotations as well. Curly, any ideas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "an international release of the film was intended; as English is considered a key language in international film festivals, English subtitles were added to these releases." Release/releases. I suspect that it wasn't just the film festivals.

• "added to these releases" --> prepared. No, not just for film festivals, but even the theatrical releases in the US didn't have dubs (just subtitles). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Themes

• " it and its importance" "them and their importance"

• First it to "the ceremony"

• " transience of life; by understanding this transience, " one or the other should be changed. Also, you describe this review in both the present and past tenses.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "which permeated the film" I think for consistency, this should be present tense.

• "The film explains that," is the one that's out of place. Hmm... reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Domestic reviews

• The second sentence has "Takita" three times, including twice in close succession.

• Reworked one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "hakamairi" ?

• "Grave-side visits". Curly, could you prepare a footnote like we did for nokanshi? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you think what I've done is sufficient? Does it need more detail? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Perfect for a footnote. We could probably make an article some time, but not right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "so-Japanese ... so clearly" so much so.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• What determines whether critics have links to the Japanese versions of their names?

• Whether or not the Japanese Wikipedia has articles on them . If an article were to be written on the English Wikipedia, the redlink would automatically disappear (as happened with the {{ill|ja|Sakata Minato-za|酒田港座}} Sakata Minato-za). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The final paragraph's first sentence has three "and" clauses.

• Split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

International

• ""mug[ing] for the camera"" mugging?

• Dur. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "in the The New York Times" slice the lower case "the"

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural impact

• Not certain about the name of the section, can a five year old film have had cultural impact yet?

• Perhaps not a deep seated one, but the revival of a seven-year-closed movie theatre, a 200k strong tourist industry, an increased visibility of nokan, a new academy for those interested in the ceremony... certainly a short-term cultural impact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "its win at the Academy Awards was the first for a Japanese film since the Best Foreign Language Film category was created in 1956" We know. You've told us much of this. I suggest most of this be merged further up and that it simply be stated that the first Japanese film to win Best FL Film was big news there.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes

• " Also called a morticians " singular.

Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the peer review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Excellent article. Very few comments – mere drafting points:

• General
  • If, as it appears, you are using BrEng, you are too fond of the anarthrous nominal premodifier, which is acceptable in American usage but not in British: "with aggregator Rotten Tomatoes", "Veteran actor Tsutomu Yamazaki", "Film critic Yūichi Maeda", "Reviewer Takurō Yamaguchi" and so on. Our tabloid papers and websites do it, but scrupulous English writers don't: they add the definite article before the title: "with the aggregator Rotten Tomatoes", "The veteran actor Tsutomu Yamazaki", "The film critic Yūichi Maeda", "The reviewer Takurō Yamaguchi" etc. Up to you, naturally, and nobody could so object to the construction as to oppose FA on the strength of it.
    • Canadian English, I believe, accepts it (for this one, since we're both Canadians [small world, eh?], we decided to go maple leaf). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Lead
  • "but due to Japanese prejudices" – if BrEng, then "owing to" or (better still) "because of".
    • Went with Because of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Plot
  • "unsavory" – if BrEng, then "unsavoury"
    • I believe unsavoury is correct in CadEng (source), so changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Conception and preproduction
  • "Departures was green-lit by Toshiaki Nakazawa" – WP:IDIOM – better just approved or agreed or some such.
    • Two reviews in a row, two issues with green-lit. Gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Casting
  • If BrEng, then "envisaged" rather than "envisioned" in the third sentence.
    • I'm not sure which one is correct in CadEng, so went with "planned". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "corpses from moving" – I don't know that the blue link to "corpsing" is all that helpful here.
    • I think I'd stick with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Filming and post-production
  • "three-story" – "three-storey" is more usual in BrEng, though "story" is perfectly acceptable if you prefer to stick with it.
    • Done, per storey — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Style
  • Block quote – the MoS bids us eschew quotation marks round block quotes. MOS:Blockquote
    • Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "an unexpected compliment to the theme of death" – I suspect from the context this should be "complement" rather than "compliment", but I'm quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Domestic reviews
  • Third para – "Departures's two leads" – I'm usually a stickler for ess-apostrophe-ess in possessives of names ending in s, but even I boggle a bit at Departures's: perhaps just ess-apostrophe? Later in the para: "to it having clearly depicted Japanese views" – strictly speaking you need a gerund here: "to it's having…" I should add that this is an old-fashioned view, and many young writers would be quite unaware of this grammatical point.
    • Replaced the name of the film with a simple "the". Went with "its clear depiction of Japanese views on life and death."
• Impact
  • "a job creation program" – in BrEng a computer program, but any other sort is a programme.
    • I believe in CadEng it's "program" (such as with the UoT's English Language Program and the text at American and British English spelling differences) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You'll find in Canada that sometimes both American and British spellings are accepted—"program(me)" is one of those cases, though "program" is far more prevalent (though you'll find weirdos like a commenter here who claim the opposite). The CBC turns up 3570 hits for "programme" and 9430 hits for "program". The Gobe and Mail gives 3777 for "programme" and 114484 for "program". The Toronto Star gives 348 for "programme" and 37907 for "program". Obviously both are used, and obviously one is far more prevalent. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. A most interesting article and a pleasure to review. (You are very good for me – getting me out of my familiar territory and into the big wide world now and then.) Please let me know when Departures arrives at FAC. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! Always glad to take you out of the UK every once in a while, even if it's just via the web. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Very interesting article, and nicely put together (and a damned sight longer than most of your articles Crisco!). I'll take your word for the spelling, construction and grammar of CanEng, and feel free to educate me otherwise if I suggest something wrong for that variant.

• What can I say, there are still people alive who have actually seen this film. (And besides, Curly did about half of it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco thought he could pull off another quick one—then we unearthed an entire Departures industry ;) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not that quick! I was thinking... 30k, max. Little did we know... 94 awards! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "the film opened in Japan and went on to win the Japan Academy Prize for Picture of the Year and become the year's highest-grossing domestic film in Japan.": we get the message it's connected to Japan!
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural background

• "dressing the deceased dressed in white" ¿que?
  • D'oh! My fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Always scares me how many things several pairs of eyes combined spot!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Conception and preproduction

• "Both feature a protagonist who endures uneasiness and prejudice because of his job as a nōkanshi,[21] undergoes personal growth as a result of his experiences and, confronted with death, finds new meaning in life.[24]" It may be worth re-working this a little, as I had to read it a few times before its sense came out to me properly.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest. – SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Style

• "Ebert suggested may be to mask the audience's fears": should this be "may be used to mask..."?

• Don't think it's quite necessary, but I guess it's okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Themes

• "afterlife is not given much discussion.[68] he considered this": capital H, if the full stop is meant: and who is "he"? (Ebert, Ozu or Itama?)

• Capitalized. He = Ebert. Ozu and Itami are in parentheticals and thus not considered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "However, the film touches..." I'd avoid starting the sentence with "however": it's a red rag to some reviewers (who over-react on it's use, IMO, but may be worth avoiding their ire)
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "although the ceremony was traditionally completed by the family of the deceased, a decreased interest in it..." It may be the heat, but I'm struggling to understand this one (and deceased – deceased could be tightened too)
  • How's this? (I struggle to understand how London could be "hot"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • After spending sixteen years in a subtropical zone, I struggle to understand what my dad means by "humid" in a GTA context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

• Rancid Tomatoes One of my huge bug-bears here, so excuse me while I go into rant mode for a while about the turgid and fetid review aggregators.

Because of what this bunch of parasites do, I'm not sure we can refer to an "approval rating": the critics do no such thing. The critics write well-balanced reviews of several hundred words of light and shade, carefully balancing their opinions and choosing their words with thought and care. The jack-booted hordes from RT slap a percentage figure on the review, and crassly judge the review to be "fresh" or "rotten". Come the day of the revolution I'd have the website electronically napalmed and all mention removed from Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not a dictator (yet), but in the meantime I think it behoves us to be circumspect in how we present their information. Could I suggest that the sentence be tweaked to state "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes sampled 102 reviewers and judged 81% of them to be positive", which is a little more descriptive of what they do? (And sorry – rant now over!)

• Reworked.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Having read through the remainder, nothing more to follow, as I think you've done a good job. Please drop me a note when you come to FAC and I'll be happy to comment appropriately there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Will do! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Ashley Tisdale

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it since 2008-ish and I want to get it promoted to FA status. I'd really appreciate some input, copyedit or anything that can help me polish it up. I've been working on it for so long that I can't see anything else wrong with it, so a third-party point of view is pretty much what I need!

Thanks in advance, decodet. (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro

I applaud your work, it's clear that you've worked your ass of on Ashley's article and you're getting closer and closer to that gold star! For now I can't see any obvious problems with the article, other than some minor details. But those are easy to do, so I'm going to go ahead and do some copyedits (feel free to remove any which you find unhelpful or irrelevant). I'll give you an update as soon as I'm done. pedro | talk 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. I really appreciate that! decodet. (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Lead

• "The High School Musical series became a successful franchise that included three films, a spin-off, and numerous soundtrack albums"..... I'm well aware of the success of the series, but some might find it POV to call it "successful" in this instance. Not too sure if the soundtracks are needed. Maybe we can use "The High School Musical series included three films and a spin-off" instead.

The soundtracks released were all number one albums in the USA and the first one became 2006's top selling album there. I thought it was worth mentioning the soundtracks but I can remove them if it's trivial. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "demonstrate a more adult image"..... seems POV, how about instead including some lyrical/thematic details?

I changed the content a little maybe, what do you think? Would it be POV? decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "has received very positive reviews"..... critical acclaim

Changed it. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Notable" in "Her other notable roles" is POV

Copyedited the sentence. decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Tisdale has also been building for herself a career as a producer"..... how about something like "Tisdale has also gone into producing"?

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More to come..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your first input! decodet. (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem :). Sorry for the delay, I'm now resuming....

Life and career

• Give the subsections titles for the eras (i.e. "early life", "High School Musical", "Zack & Cody") along with the years

1985–2003

• What company did her family own, and where is the source?
• Move the quote box to the top of the subsection
• "He sent her to numerous auditions"..... I think various would be better

2004–06

• "Although the producers of the Disney Channel Original Movie High School Musical did not initially consider her because of her "good-girl image" on The Suite Life, Tisdale was eventually cast as the popular, narcissistic high school student Sharpay Evans in the 2006 film"..... restructure this a bit by having the role come after "consider her" part. If you need help, I can revise the sentence myself.
• "This led Tisdale to make music history when she became the first female artist"..... not very encyclopedic, try "Tisdale subsequently became the first female artist"

2007–09

• "Candace Flynn, a main character whose primary motivations are pleasing her boyfriend and getting her brothers in trouble"..... Candace doesn't have a boyfriend when the series begins, so this needs some rephrasing. You should also mention Jeremy by name, and provide a source for her character description.
• "Senior Year premiered on October 2008"..... this should be either in October, or include the specific release date

2010–12

• Quotebox and image shouldn't both be at top of subsection. For the sake of alternate alignments, move one if them closer to the end of the subsection.
• "vocal roles" → "voice roles

2013–present

• "The film was released in April 2013 and grossed $15 million on its first weekend, making it the lowest-grossing weekend for a Scary Movie film; it was also a critical failure"..... there should be a comma after "2013". "It was also a critical failure" would read better as something like "The film was panned by critics"

Other ventures

Philanthropy

• "Tisdale has regularly volunteered for charitable activities" doesn't really belong
• "LA’s" → "Los Angeles'", also remember that per MOS:QUOTEMARKS: ‘ and ’ should be ', “ and ” should be ".

Endorsement and Image

• This section is best split in half as "Image" should have a separate section and be titled "Public Image".
• "A sex symbol, Tisdale" → "Tisdale is seen as a sex symbol, and"
• More MOS:QUOTEMARKS issues with the "not just the young girl" quote

Personal Life

• The first paragraph belongs in the "1985–2003" section. Also, it would be helpful to include how specifically Ron Popeil and her grandfather are related
• Looking back in the infobox, I see that her fiancé Christopher Frencg is listed as a partner. Please don't include him in the infobox unless they get married and/or have children together.

List if works

• Instead if this section with only referral links, have separate sections for filmography and discography. List her studio albums under discography, and films she acted in under filmography. See articles like Katy Perry and Madonna (entertainer) for examples.

There's my 2¢. You should also have a section on her artistry, discussing her influences, musical/acting styles, and what critics have said of her works (both in music and film). The above articles I mentioned are examples you can take after. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear SNUGGUMS, I really appreciate your input. I've addressed most of your issues and I've created the section "Artistry" - I hope it works. Maybe if possible you could take a look at the section I just created? Thanks a lot! decodet. (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and this article has made lots of progress! I'll look at the references later and fix any issues myself, but should mention the following:

• "Early life and career" should read "Early life and career beginnings", and after some thought the quotebox should be removed.
• "2013–present" should have some description to the era like the other subsections of "life and career".
• "Endorsement" should read something like "Business" or "Business endorsements"
• "Influences" should have its own subsection within "artistry". Here, you should also include more things she has said about her influences. Critics opinions on her music should also be added.

If I can think of anything else, I'll let you know. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your third input, SNUGGUMS. I've worked on your issues already! decodet. (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was my pleasure :) SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

Hey, SNUGGUMS. I've been giving some thoughts about filmography section and I'm wondering if it's not trivial to list films in which she just makes a cameo or doesn't have a relevant role. Maybe we could only list the films in which she is a lead? And maybe also list the television series she also starred, giving the fact she is more a television star than a film star? What is your opinion? decodet. (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If a separate page for filmography/videography does not exist, then the standard is to list films starred in (even if cameo or minor role) and not television series (however prominent the role). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS It exists, in this case. And I'm also wondering that because Angelina Jolie, which is a FA, only have listed the films she has a leading role, you see. decodet. (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In any case, do not list TV shows starred in when there is a separate page (which I noticed). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for everything, SNUGGUMS! You really gave me some help in here, I am happy to see you much the article has evolved with this peer review! :) decodet. (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome :) SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---